Intro
Nudity in art has been a historically debated topic, especially surrounding the nudity of women in art and the acceptability of that within different societies. Through this post I will be looking at female nudity concerning the perspective of a Western audience and the implications and traditions that come with the beliefs of a Western society. For most of Western history, women were not allowed to act as nude models for bodily study due to it being “indecent” for a woman of honor and value. Women were also barred as artists from studying nude models for their own art up until the late 19th – early 20th century; before then, women relied on other art as well as clothed models, while men worked freely with live models. The reason for this, as I simply stated before, was because it was deemed indecent and impure for a woman to be studying the naked form or “showing off” her body in that way. The acceptability of the nudity of women in art tells us much about the society that surrounds art. How censored is it? Are these bodies seen as inherently sexual or inherently divine?
A nude body is not a new idea in the long history of artistic traditions and motifs that our world has. But for most of that history, female nudity was used as symbolism. A naked woman could symbolize an idea (Liberty leading the people); a naked woman could symbolize a goddess (The birth of Venus), but never could a naked woman symbolize a naked woman, a real woman. The female nude was always attached to an ideal, attached to the idea of a woman, of how a woman should be. A goddess, a good omen, a value, but never an actual woman, overshadowing the natural beauty and the natural strength of a living, breathing, real woman. When you think about famous paintings like the one above me, how many of them are woman-centered, and how many of them make you think about what the subject thinks rather than just how she looks? This is quite interesting in the context of how our society has evolved and changed. How have we historically valued women? Do we value women only when they embody something we value, or do we value women for being a person, a being with their own ideals and values?
We may look at this artwork with little to say other than it looks similar to thousands of other paintings with the familiar subject of the “reclining female nude,” but this painting caused quite a bit of controversy when it was released to the high society Parisians of 1865. This is a painting, not of an imaginary idyllic woman or a goddess, but a painting of a real woman, a real woman that was in fact a prostitute. This painting caused a stir because of its subject matter and the way in which that subject matter interacted with the audience. Manet was highlighting and honoring a woman that in French 19th-century society would never be honored or valued in this way, a sex worker, looking directly at the viewer, not a passive subject to be desired or gazed upon, but an active subject with a presence and a story. It (hopefully) does not seem crazy to a current-day audience that a woman can be an active subject, someone that is part of their own story in artwork and not just an object of men’s desire, but think about this in the context of the culture of the time. To paint and show this to an upper-class and posh 19th-century audience was a bold move, especially considering the fact that many of the men looking at this painting were meeting with women like Olympia constantly. Also notice how, though her profession is something sexual, she is not placed in an overtly sexual position; she is resting, just existing in her naked body. This artwork, though controversial, was not controversial for its racial dynamics and racist undertones, which also tell us about the ideals of 19th-century Europe. Art is a reflection of its time, so in turn we need to recognize this and critically analyze it when given the opportunity.
Nudity strips subjects of timeline and wealth; without clothing to show their worth, everyone is the same. Nudity also shows vulnerability and emotion in a way that is unlike anything else. The way that the human body moves when it is naked and there is nothing to mask how the subject feels is incredibly honest in its self-expression. You can see the muscles of a body contort in pain, a crumpled brow, and a clutch of the chest; all of these things are visual language in which we as the viewer can understand the experience of the subject. In history, many times, nudity was even used to show defeat; a naked enemy was vulnerable, defeated, and embarrassed. The way our society is structured enforces that our naked bodies are vulnerable, they shouldn’t be shown to others casually, and when that is stripped from us, there is nothing left but raw emotion. In her artwork, Camille Claudel conveys emotions so intensely through the body that you can feel the feeling of the statue, even though that’s all it is—a statue. But… it isn’t just a statue; it is a vessel of Camille’s own pain and emotions, and it tells a story that we can universally understand. The body has its own language; no matter where you are from, how old you are, or what race you are, everyone has a body and can understand that language.
All but one of the other examples in this post are paintings that have been done by men, with women as the subject. But how does the portrayal of the female body differ when it is not for a man? How does the nude woman act in art when she is just existing without the thought of the male gaze? This painting beautifully shows the experience of a woman untouched by the expectations of a man-centered society. This painting shows a woman in her own world, in an intimate setting, which we are not a part of. There is no performance for the viewer; her body is just existing in a space that she is comfortable in. She faces away from us, ignoring the fact that the viewer is seeing her chest, because it doesn’t matter; she is existing in a way that doesn’t concern the sexualization that her body could be subjected to if she existed in a male-centered world, because she isn’t. Women’s perspectives are freeing; they show what it feels like to exist as a woman, and that is incredibly important in a world where women are expected to do and be so much.
This painting is probably not what you think of when you think of a woman; the face feels distorted, the body feels traditionally unfeminine, and it may even feel a little unsettling to look at. The process of this painting is quite interesting and may shed some light on why this painting is the way it is. Though this painting was done by a man, I think many women could resonate with the qualities of this work. De Kooning created this work by layering paint over itself and spreading and smearing paint while painting this figure over and over again. This process feels haphazard and almost crazed; my own interpretation of this process, as a woman myself, feels like the experience of existing as a woman in a patriarchal society. Women shape and smear and paint themselves to fit into a society that has unachievable and ever-changing expectations of them: look like this, dress like this, weigh this much, talk like this… Through this process you can lose who you are, who you want to be, and how you want to be. There is so much pressure on women to be and do everything, and that is exhausting; it can feel as though you’ve turned into something you don’t even recognize. This painting may not invoke the same feelings for you as it did for me, but I think it is worth thinking about, especially if you are not a woman.
This little gem of a lady is a figure that was found in the early 20th century. It is a Paleolithic era figure, found in Austria alongside other figures similar to it. Looking at this image, it is clearly a figure of a woman, with emphasized reproductive organs and a full figure. I included this because I want you to think about societal beauty standards. What does that mean for us, and what has that meant in the past? In the Paleolithic era, many similar figures from all over the world have been found, and based on these images and statues, we can deduce what a “perfect” female form meant to them, which seems quite different from what we think of in Western society as “the perfect” body. Even in the examples I have shown in this post, there are varied bodies and ideals; society is always changing, and ideals are always changing as well, and that is proof that bodies are subjective. One body is no greater than another, yet societies place women on a scale and decide their value based on what they look like. Just as art is subjective, bodies are too, and I hope you keep that in mind when you look at yourself and others in the mirror of social beauty and expectations.
Outro
You may have noticed that in all of my examples, I did not use photography; this brings up an interesting dilemma within art education. Because of our current society, a lot of nudity is deemed crude, with the exception of fine art. The idea of a body is more digestible for the mass Western audience than the physical and real representation of a body through a photo. Because female bodies and nude bodies in general are heavily sexualized through a western lens, the line between art and pornography is blurred easily; what may be intended as art can be perceived in a pornographic way even if the intention of the artist is not to convey sexuality. I urge you all to keep an open mind about how you yourself perceive naked bodies; it is my belief that they are not inherently sexual, an image of a naked body is not always for the pleasure of the viewer, and I hope you could understand that a bit more through all I said in this post.
Count how many times I said nude in this post, bye bye!
Extra
https://awarewomenartists.com/en/decouvrir/la-representation-du-nu-entre-affirmation-et-subversion/
iwtba 