If nudity is no big deal, then why can't students model?

On the other hand, if nude modeling is embarrasing, are non-students lower class or something.

By the way, at Snow College models are not nude; they are "undraped." :-P

I'm sure someone will call me "pollyanna" for saying this, but many schools do these classes with models who are nude, except for the genitalia and breasts. A man wearing just an athletic jock strap still reveals all the muscle groups and anatomy art students need to capture the essence of human appearance. There is no need for the genitalia to be displayed. The artist in the article who used Michelangelo's David as an example of the beauty of nude art misses the point. The David would have been a supreme work of art even had David's genitalia been in a loin cloth. There are no muscle groups around the genitalia, so what need is there for an artist to see and sketch them when rendering human form on canvas? The same is true of breasts. One can readily picture their form and appearance when covered by an athletic bra or similar covering.
The value of imaging the nude human body is evident in the field of medicine, but what great revelation comes to those who view nude art? The beauty of the human body and its complexity is obvious without any need for artists to interpret it for us.

"how important is Michelangleo's "David"? "take away the nude aspect and what do you have"?
Ummmmmmmm......decency?
If Michelangelo did it then it MUST be OK, right?

I was a nude model AND student when I was in college. I think this is "much ado about nothing" - and I think this type of action is likely to call more into question the "appropriateness" of nudes in art class. Too darn much political correctness going on here; grow up! Allow adults to make their own decisions; allow students to be hired if desired; don't treat models like "objects" and second class citizens by rules that only allow "outsiders who you don't know" be on the drawing platform.

enough said

I agree with this article. Drawing a nude person, and doing it well, is probably one of the most difficult things to do artistically. The human body-- all of the human body-- is an impressive work of art that it is difficult to replicate.

I'm really disgusted with UVSC. This is one alum that will not be supporting them with my money.

As an Art History major at the U, I laughed at the previous comments. David clothed would be "decency?" I hope you aren't serious. There is definite difference, especially in the art world, between nude and naked. Nude is appreciating the beauty and perfection (or imperfection) of the human body. It is human in the simplest form. Naked is more awkward, just someone unclothed.

We are not talking about naked. We are talking about nude. In most classical history paintings, the monumental nude is a crucial feature. Therefore, in learning art, it is important to learn how to draw, or sculpt, the nude.

"Human essence" can be captured in the face of a person, or even in just a single eye. But, we do not limit ourselves artistically in just that matter.

I couldn't agree with you more. I actually am a physician and an anatomist, and RARELY in medicine is it necessary to disrobe a patient completely. Even in relative trauma situations there is an important sense of modesty, and always that is the case in less acute settings.

All these simantics between Nude and Naked.

I am laughing at the people whose essential argument is that: "the human form is so challenging that alas, it is the only avenune we as artists reluctantly must ascend to hone our skills to the lofty heights of Michalangelo in our enlightened noble craft...." Bla! Bla! Bla! You mean there isn't anything else challenging to draw?

Listen People. You have the right to disrobe and have someone else paint, draw, take pictures of, you naked in umteen different private settings if you really want to spend your time like that.

But IT DOES NOT BELONG AS A FUNDED PROGRAM IN A PUBLIC, TAX SUPPORTED SCHOOL.

Thanks for the compliment. I am proud that rules of decency, modesty, chastity - safeguards to our young people and citizens at large - are alive and well to a greater degree in Utah County than other parts of the country.

One need only look to Spitzer and Clinton to realize there is nothing good that comes to a society who "disrobes" itself of its morals.

Call it whatever you want. Nude is the same thing as naked. And being naked is indecent. Why is it okay for a naked sculpture to be in a musuem, but I can not walk outside with a little sign on me which reads" I am art, appreciate me." If it is so good in a musuem then I should be allowed to share it with people outside of the musuem. I mean its not fair to shaft the poor who can't afford to pay to go see the art!

Moreover the arguement that the art crowd might be offended is lame to those that believe that nakedness is art. The arguement that it is offensive to everyone else is lame to the art crowd.

Ulitamtely speaking here one group must be right and the other wrong. There are absolutes in this world and for any who dare to oppose that fact you put yourself in the shoes of Fredrick Nietzsche. You may recall he said " God is dead so ANYTHING goes."

Really think about!

Legal Beagle- I support your views!

One has to wonder about the kind of world people like "Legal Beagle" live in, where genitalia and breasts have to be covered by jock straps. Reminds me of a Sunday School teacher I had a few years back that referred to the Venus DiMilo as the "pornography of the ancient world".

I know for a fact that nobody in Utah County has ever been nude.

Actually, you could probably do that, and get federal funding to boot! I don't know much about art, but I know what I like☺.

I have come to realize that Utah is full of Prudes. I think the people that get offended by Nude Models in Art Classes, are probably fat and look bad in the mirror.

Just because you get offended by your body, doesn't mean that its wrong. And for Legal dude... ya, I'd like to see David in a Jock Strap - it would make for great discussion as to the significance of what it represents.

So for all the Prude LDS individuals that judge others before themselves, Why don't you do something worth while and build someone or something up, instead of offering your shallow commentary and tear things down.

The reason you can't walk around outside nude but it is displayed in a museum is because of personal choice. Inside the museum the people are choosing to come in and see that Nude, outside you are choosing to force people to see you nude.
I am not an artist, I don't understand this, but I do realize that in all aspects of life people have things that are good and accepted in their arena and I accept nudes as a perfectly acceptable form of art. Artists painting or drawing nudes is their choice and why should we push our views on them, they aren't telling you that you can't let your spouse see you nude. Or maybe since the bathrooms at school are a public place then you shouldn't pull your pants down to use them. Or maybe the worst one of all is showering in a public place, such as the gym at the school, we had better all through a fit about these practices because letting someone see us "nude" is really against everything we know of!

I will send you all the petition to ban showering in public!

If you try and put funding to a school who does not have nude modeling, you will be hard pressed to find it.
BYU does not. But when my wife took courses there some professers pointed out 'private' drawing sessions that took place in art studios, and local museums that the students should attend.
And as for Jeremys comment earlier, about not donating. Odds are that he never donated anyway.

This is such a non-issue. Schools all over the nation both public and private have classes where the students sketch nudes. Why people are getting up-in-arms about this, I find it comical. Who cares? There's nothing inappropriate about this. If there were sexual activity involved, then it would be inappropriate but if it's merely modeling in a tasteful format for ART students, what's the issue? If you see this as indecency then you've got problems.

As for the rules defining who can and cannot model, this merely is to protect the college from any potential liability issues. It's all about risk management in a world full of litigation.

I told my wife. Sure we are drawing NAKED people but you can't believe how BORING it is!

it wasn't a big deal, at all.

Frankly when I took art classes I liked the nude drawing days. I admit that I liked seeing the nude women. Covering up would have made the one highlight in getting my art degree boring. Let's have some fun and all get nude.

It is a shame so many people are uptight about the "Nude Modeling" at UVSC. It is professionally done within 2 upper division classes. This isn't a gentlemen's club handing out art supplies at the door. Next some of you peculiar people will be demanding the Lovre to shutdown and burn its Renaissance collection or better yet James will want to paint pants on Adam & Eve.

"By all means,put some pants on the David. And while we're at it, the Sistine Chapel is full of naked people. Call Mr. Mac. We can get 2 pants suits cheap, just tack 'em up." It makes me sick that in the minds of some people true beauty becomes filth.

If your getting turned on by a nude statue, you have bigger issues that your bishop can help you with. Get over it! A nude statue is nothing more than a piece of rock depicting life. There's nothing lewd about the rock or the subject matter. Perversion is in the eye of the beholder.

you'll see why they don't want students modeling

I have a friend who graduated from an art college. Being the naive youngster from Utah, I had never really thought about the nude modeling that so frequents the art world. When she showed me some of her drawings and they were of naked men. I was a bit shocked, then hurt.

I remember her words were to the effect, "What I had never seen a naked man before, It was fun." She didn't say boring. Odd. But I thought it was boring to look at naked members of the opposite sex? I just must be an idiot, I apologize.

Ditto.

We, as right thinking Utah people realize that the human body is something that is to be covered at all times, even in the shower. The human body was not meant to be looked at without clothes, that's why there are all those clothing stores in the mall. In fact, babies should not be allowed to be born naked, and should be prosecuted if they refuse to abide by the law. We, as right thinking people have the duty to be ashamed and repulsed by something that was created by God. Nothing to do with the human body should be taught in our right thinking schools. And in closing, let me say that everyone should be made to wear pajamas at night, and that we should have some kind of citizens committee to insure that. Thank you.

Self Rightous people. This is art, not Sunday School. This is College, not Elementary . If you can't stand it then don't do it but let others do what they like to do. Grow up people. Utah has been in the bubble for too long.

Ah, Utah: Where someone with prudish views is automatically assumed to be a Mormon. I challenge you all to remove the Mormon / non-Mormon label from your psyche for just one week, and instead look at each other as fellow Americans, Utahns, and human beings.

I agree thast nudity is offensive, immoral and just plain wrong! I don't care to see naked or nude! PLease, lets all band together and DEMAND that Disney put pants on Donald Duck and put that Littel Mermaid in something more than two shells!! Also, I suggest that we DEMAND that Warner Brothers do the same with Porky Pig and any other cartoon character who has been allowed to be only half dressed! They have been exposing our children to a set of moral values that are simply NOT what this country was founded upon! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??? Put pants on David and a Mr Mac blazer on the Christus, I find it offensive to see the Savior's areola.

in English Literature we read the ARTICLES in Playboy. It is done in a very serious, professional atmosphere with no talking. You hicks would be totally bored.

While I attended the Univ. of Utah as an Architecture major I had to take several art classes and the stuff we saw by one of the Grad students could only be classified as painted porn. The nudes they are refering to are extremely tame compared to some so-called 'art'. By the way, nudes are done at all the colleges and Universities in Utah except BYU. UVSC is no exception.

is no where near sophisticated enough to realize how boring these naked bodies are; after all, this is ART!

For those of you who considered my initial comment and saw it for what is was, an attempt to have someone in the art community to explain why it is so important for them to know how to draw human genitalia, thank you for figuring this out. For those of you who misinterpreted my initial comment as I predicted you would, as pollyanish, prudish, or self-reighteous, thank you for confirming to us all that you lack basic reading comprehension. I never argued one way or the other about decency or indecency. My question was, and still is, what great revelation do art students get by sketching human genitalia, as opposed to the rest of the nude human form? The David isn't a masterpiece because it includes genitalia. It is masterful in its capture of the human musculoskeletal complexity and elaborate detail. How does drawing nudes including genitalia enhance the skills and eventual professional viability of artists? How many nude portraits are they likely to be commissioned to sketch or paint in their careers? My questions and arguments in the original comment and this one are academic in nature, not religious, not turned on by nudity, etc.

This whole argument that there is a clinical way to view nudity in an artistic setting is complete and utter bunk. Name one great artist who didn't sleep with his models! There isn't one. The argument about nude models and the argument regarding sexual morality are one and the same. Nudity gives rise to emotions that people don't understand and can't always control. Some choose to run with it and others choose to use caution. Some use the arts as a comfort for emotional scars, some use religion to avoid such damage in the first place or put such pain inducing behaviors behind them.

I think I just feel sorry for you people who get so worked up by what other people choose. I suppose you deserve some slack since you live in a society where nudity is equated with sexuality, but come on, open your eyes. We live in a huge world, and you really seem content with your tiny, paranoid, uninformed perspective. It's no way to experience life. Do you really think morality can be universally defined in an inconsequential bubble the size of the Wasatch Front?

What? No accompanying photo?

You're directing very utilitarian, pragmatic questions towards artists, and in so doing you miss the point entirely. Artists seek beauty. The human body is beautiful, and as any artist can tell you it is most beautiful just the way God made it. You wouldn't expect a rose to become more beautiful by covering it with fingernail polish, and David would NOT be as powerful if he were wearing a loin cloth. You can't expect to find satisfying logical arguments in art, so if you don't get it, what does it really matter? It's not for you -- just let them teach their craft the way it's always been done.

re: joseph
Andy Warhol

I disagree with the commentor above who wrote David would NOT be as powerful if he were wearing a loin cloth. In Utah there is a very large bronze statue of a prominent Indian wearing nothing but a loin cloth. His muscles, and antomical detail are very powerfully rendered, without displaying genitalia. The statue did not lose any of its power, and it depicted an Indian in his natural condition at the time. What makes the David more artistically valuable than the Indian as anatomical artwork?

And as a reminder to Mr. Pitiful, my questions never equated nudity with sexuality, nor did I recommend infringing on anyone's right to paint nudes. I have only questioned the artistic value and educational need to do so.

Hey UVU HIGH SCHOOL, if you want to be this 2nd fiddle to to BYU and have this great LDS atmosphere there, do us a favor and stop posing. Utahn's are good at that though posing. UVU is a bunvh of Jack A mormons who put their religon in the backseat.

you're absolutely right.
"David would NOT be as powerful if he were wearing a loin cloth"
all men know you've got to project your bits to be taken seriously in this world! don't waste your time on this crowd, they will never get it.

I think Amy needs to have a talk with her Bishop for even using the phrase "nude modeling" in an article.

Re: Legal Beagle,
I thought I'd try to answer your question as you intended it and I do so with the understanding that other artists will disagree with me. At BYU where I was trained the models wear speedos and bikinis. I see no necessity in drawing the genitals to understand the rest of the body. The only difficulty that came from their swim-wear was in the breasts- it was hard to understand just what was going on under that bikini top that made them do what they did. This affects my ability to draw the female torso correctly when it's clothed. That said, I personally appreciated that the models still wore something.

I agree with the doctor. Modesty is preserved on patients in Dr.offices and hospitals as much and as often as possible. There must be a reason.
As for Legal Beagle's original comment about the need for nudity in medical settings, I got permission to attend an out of state medical school anatomy lab with my child who is a student there. Even in that situation, where these people have donated their bodies to science for all manner of disfigurement in the effort to teach, those bodies are treated with respect, dignity, and yes, modesty. The cadavers I saw, were draped with towels, unless actual work was being done in that area. Breasts that had been removed for study of the area underneath, were replaced in correct position each day as the class was finished up. There was more respect afforded these people than is certainly shown to many who are alive.

I'm LDS and live in Utah County and I don't mind if consenting adults want to draw a naked picture of a naked model. I'm not an art critic but I know my view of art is different than your view of art. Why should I force my views of morality on someone else? That sounds like a plan that we all rejected at one point in our existence. It’s not hurting you so let these people have their right to choose.

I took several couses at an Art Institute drawing nudes.
There were some models who felt more comfortable covering their genetalia, which is fine. But in those cases, you couldn't see the full essence of the form.
You need to be able to see the whole in order to define the continuity of shadow and muscle structure.

The fact that "The David" is universally known while your "a statue of an Indian" isn't even know to you by name or many of the people living around town, tells you all you need to know.