I love both God and Picasso. I know about his life and lifestyle and to be honest I find his adulterous living something which inspired his art and made it what it is. Should I just ignore such beauty and stick to looking at only pictures of Jesus ? It's something I struggle with resolving.

To the former actress, How sad to hear that your pursuit of doing "what you are wired to do" lead to an abandonment of faith...but equally sad...the abandonment of your vocation. I am grateful for your testimony of reconciliation with God. I will pray today that there may also be reconciliation with your gift for acting. I have walked with Christ for nearly 30 years. It has been a rich journey because I more deeply understand the beautiful gift of salvation I have been given with each passing year. But, the past few years have been by far the most fascinating part of the journey as God has helped me more deeply understand how He made me. I grew in faith for many years as I followed God’ directions as outlined in His Word. But each day that I learn to better use the gifts He has given me I am engaged in intimate worship of my Creator hour by hour even minute by minute. It overwhelms me to tears. I had no idea that this season of faith was coming and cannot fully express my surprise and amazement. I stand today on the verge of a new path for our family as well as a new career path because I am learning to live as God made me. To God be the glory!

"Just as Christians can and should critique the worldviews expressed by the world’s great artists, so too is our worldview displayed through our creative works. What worldview does the world see in the artistry of Christians today?" Indeed! I've been reading Susan Sontag's book "On Photography" and mulling over this same question lately. If to photograph something is to confer importance upon it then... upon what ought I confer importance? To what end? What message am I communicating by, say, retouching a photo? Anyway. Great post. I'll be mulling over the questions you raised for a while...

I love Picasso. The way he worked with shapes and colors, his art is just intriguing to behold. I'm intrigued by Nancy's comment, above, that states that the goal of this method of painting was to get the viewer to see past immorality, and just see shapes (paraphrase). It makes me think that it could be a rather rough comparison of what we are supposed to do, as followers of Christ: See past the outside of people, which may be "immoral" to us, or disgusting, etc., and see what they REALLY are--created by God. My all-time favorite work of art is "The Birth of Venus" by Botticelli. To compare such a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance to something as sordid as playboy betrays a frightening lack of depth. This evangelical, Western Christian preoccupation with the body/sex is really embarrassing. Artwork created by a talented artist, rooted in mythology, filled with symbolism, and a joy to behold is quite different from a picture of a naked woman meant for some guy to masturbate to. And to echo another commented, if someone is that turned on by something like this, it's THEIR problem. And db? Your argument that, "Research in the last couple of years has confirmed that number of women addicted to pornography has risend 30% from 10-15 years ago" is a strawman in this example. I'm FAIRLY certain that masterpieces of the Italian renaissance are NOT a gateway drug to the world of porn addiction.

Fascinating. I feel that Picasso's art is rife with meaning. That makes him a great artist. If an individual does not find meaning in a work of art, does that make it null? I love true art (all forms) because it makes me think. What could be more inspiring? P.S. the difference between "The Birth of Venus" and a Playboy cover is intent: the latter is intended to titillate and inspire lust, which makes it pornography; the former is not.

If you saw a house with dormers at the bottom, the roof on edge through the middle, chimney laid out horizontally, and the joists fanning out like the sun's rays, I suppose you could conclude that the man who built it was indeed an absolute master carpenter to accomplish such a carefully constructed--and meaningless mess. To me, art has a purpose: to convey beauty, tell a story, create emotions that help us reflect on what is right and good, illustrate history or even the basic elements of design, or merely decorate. So, yes, one could say Picasso was good with brush, pen, and pallet knife. I could never, however, concede that he was a "great artist."

"Frankly, I would have a very hard time imagining Jesus or Paul musing on the appropriate or innapropriate context of nudity. But then, again, neither was married, and so how could they know...? " Yeah, DB, it wasn't like they were omniscient or divinely inspired or anything like that.

I have recently attended a teaching session on the life of Paul and the teacher said as he was a Pharisee who were always married,he must have been married(perhaps he was a widower). Let us remember that Jesus was tempted in every way that we humans are and that includes sexual sin,but we know as he was sinless did not give in to the temptations.

Nora, Thanks for your reply. I agree with the fact that we ought not be ashamed of our bodies. I also agree with your exemple from the Song of Solomon, with one exception: I honestly don't see the "sex" in it, unless we get specific on the definition... On your take on nudity, I would repeat what I said earlier: in what context do we discuss this issue? From an aesthetic consideration, then yes, artful depiction of nudity may be ok. But if we discuss it in a context informed by Christian faith, then I believe we have a problem. It's 101 Bible commonsense that we should take not only the Song of Solomon, but the Scripture as a whole, to get a philosophy of aesthetics. You need more than Interview with a Vampire to understand the vision of Ann Rice. That is why I asked that we don't ignore the Biblical worldview. You will be surprised that our freedom with nudity is not that wide. I would be glad to bore me with the Bible. I still insist that too often we have become bored with it, unfortunately so! And may I ask: who defines the context of nudity? You offer the example of Botticelli's. Why not the front cover of Playboy as well? Or other images! I still insist that the reason the Scripture (both the OT and NT) has so many warnings against sinning with the eyes and the imagination is because it represents a real danger. Research in the last couple of years has confirmed that number of women addicted to pornography has risend 30% from 10-15 years ago. Frankly, I would have a very hard time imagining Jesus or Paul musing on the appropriate or innapropriate context of nudity. But then, again, neither was married, and so how could they know...?

DB, I feel you ought to read Song of Solomon - I describe it as an opera of love, seduction, sex and passion. There is nothing wrong with nudity depicted in art with it is a celebration of the human form. The only issue is context. For instance, I admire Art Deco female nude sculptures. If a man cannot control his lust when he sees a Botticelli's Birth of Venus (for example), then it is him with the problem, not the artist. The human body is a magnificent creation and a credit to our Creator, so much so that Adam and Eve spent their entire time in the garden of Eden naked. With artistic endeavours, context is everything. I won't bore you with scriptual quotes for to reference, you seem to know your way around a bible pretty well. As SG noted, North American Christians (actually Americans in general) seem to have a quaint prudery with it comes to sex and nudity - I suspect it goes back to the Puritan founding of the US.