I’ve always wondered why society is all crazy about censoring nudity in social media, television, and so on, when we’re surrounded by it in the art world? What’s the difference? Art is different not only due to the esthetic value of the pieces but the intention of the artists when capturing the nude body, and I understand that some nudes we see in mainstream media aren’t precisely art. But what about those that do fit the description? Why do platforms like Instagram censor an artistic photograph of a naked body and not a picture of a random sculpture on the streets? Is there really a difference? My first guess would be that most of these sculptures and statues are protected by the sole fact that they are considered classic art and thus cultural heritages, while a modern photograph is just an artistic expression. This makes me think about why are there so many nude artworks and why we love exhibiting them in public when we clearly can’t overcome those prudish behaviors that censor the body? But more importantly, how nudity in art was conceived and evolved from one historical period to the other and how has it helped set beauty standards that are still ingrained in our collective imagination? If you think about prehistoric art, the first works that come to our mind are the amazing cave paintings that portrayed everyday life at the time. Now, the human figures are portrayed more like shadows, so we can’t really talk about nudity here. However, there are some examples of sculptures, often called Venus figurines, that depict nude female bodies. They’re extremely interesting because, more than highlighting the shape of the female body, they are kind of deformed to emphasize those parts they worshiped as symbols of fertility like the hips, breasts, abdomen, and even the vulva. For people in the prehistoric period, more than praising the female body in terms of erotic pleasure, the idea of beauty was precisely a woman fit to reproduce and bear children. Interestingly, the figurines that have been found are mainly female, which has led historians to believe that they were actually used for ritualistic purposes, as amulets to conceive, or even as sexual accessories. However, almost no male figurines have been found. This clearly evolved as soon as civilizations settled and blossomed. Of course, when we think about nudity in art, the first images that come to our mind are the classic Greek and Roman marble sculptures, right? It was widely believed that the Greeks were more liberal when it came to nudity and that these sculptures were a faithful depiction of their everyday life. There are even texts suggesting that some people would go nude on the streets or with almost no clothes. Now, this hypothesis has been shattered for the past century, and actually historians found that nudity was seen as a way of glorifying the perfection of the human body.As you know, sports played an important role for the Ancient Greeks. They were part of the religious activities to praise and honor the gods. Therefore, athletes were seen as the perfect examples of humans who had been blessed by the gods with their abilities and strength. During competitions, athletes, all male, competed naked so that people and the gods could see those perfect bodies moving and contorting with the physical effort. Moreover, sculptures of athletes were placed near temples and in the stadiums where these competitions took place. These pieces captured athletes practicing the sport they excelled in, but also were used to represent the main gods, since they were the only human link close to them. They represented the best of humanity and were also were embodiments of glory, triumph, and moral excellence. All in all, athletes were some sort of mortal deities people looked up to. As for female nudity, they kept the idea that the female body represented the divine act of procreation. However, unlike our prehistoric ancestors, the Greeks did praise the eroticism of the female shape. Most of the statues of nude women were representations of the goddess Aphrodite, who not only represented love, eroticism, and sexual desire, but also a means to procreation. For that reason, sculptors now paid attention to the shape following mathematical proportions fit to represent the most beautiful female figure of the Olympus. Unlike male nude sculptures that depict men proudly showing their bodies, women were portrayed as if they had been just caught in an intimate moment. It wasn’t well seen for women to deliberately show their body, but at the same time, it gave the viewer a voyeuristic role. Both ideas of nudity, for male and female bodies, were followed by the Romans and other civilizations that came to belong to the empire, but more than showing the human body as diverse as it might be, the works stick to idealized representations of what was considered beautiful and appealing. All this naturally changed during the Middle Ages, a time reigned by Christianism and its more conservative ways of perceiving the world. If you take a look at the art created at the time, there are almost no nude artworks. Medieval art was more focused on religious subjects that reflected not only stories present on the Bible, but images that could encourage people to lead a morally accepted life, or that would work as morality tales to prevent them from sinning. As you can guess, the few nude artworks were from that category, and the protagonists were basically our first sinful ancestors, Adam and Eve. In these images, they’re often portrayed right at the moment when Eve is tempted by the snake or right when they’re about to be thrown away from paradise. Nudity in that age was used to show how an impious life can condemn you for eternity. This last point was specifically for full nudity, since there were plenty images portraying Madonnas breastfeeding baby Jesus. According to art historian Margaret Miles, the main reason why there were so many paintings with this motif that was used until the early Renaissance was more of a propagandistic resource. Rich families used to hire nurses to feed their babies and naturally, most of them were poor and sometimes “sinful” women. According to Miles, the Church believed that it was the obligation of every Christian mother to nurse their children, and so Virgin Mary became the example to follow. The Renaissance wasn’t just an era of innovations in more scientific terms, but it was also a cultural movement where art played an important role. It was a time of awakening and rediscovery, so the classic art from Ancient times that was banned and conceived as sinful during the Middle Ages was seen now as a rich source of inspiration artists extolled. The moral values that the Church established were still prioritized, so there weren’t many nude artworks depicting normal people. Instead, artists made use of the inexhaustible lore of stories and images from Ancient mythology and traditions. So, besides exploring those rich cultures from the past, artists were well aware of the sexual and erotic connotations of nudity. Through these mythological characters and scenes they sought to highlight the sensuality of both the male and female naked body, (although they focused more on the female figure). Unlike the few naked bodies portrayed during the Middle Ages, where artists emphasized Eve’s belly as symbol of motherhood and the long process of carrying a child, Renaissance’s artists, like their Ancient counterparts, were looking for an idealized image of the body: a beautiful and well-shaped body that could awake everyone’s passions. That enthrallment for ancient motifs continued, and perhaps it still fascinates us. However, it was the Baroque current the one that gave us for the first time a more realistic and less idealized perception of the naked body. Both male and female bodies were often represented, but here the idea was to show the most lavished side. While they attempted to show more realistic bodies, conveying the idea that even certain flaws can be beautiful and alluring, that doesn’t mean the art at the time didn’t care for beauty ideals. We can still see some of these patterns being reinforced in the images that were being made. Yes, Rubens’ graces don’t really have the body of Botticelli’s Venus or Ancient sculptures have, but at the same time, they were seen as models of beauty. It was more of a change on beauty standards than being more inclusive and diverse. By the late eighteenth and the nineteenth century, the themes and motifs of nudity in art changed. For the first time, artists dared to portray common women and their nakedness without having to convey any moral message or disguising them through mythical characters. Artists explored new techniques and subjects in a freer way. There were bolder and more controversial paintings, like Gustave Courbet’s L’origine du monde, or Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe. They wanted to show that beauty can be seen in everyday life and even challenged the art academia and the public by painting what no one had painted before, or at least nothing that had been displayed publicly, like prostitutes and their daily life. There were more provocative faces looking directly at the spectator, instead of the blushing woman who had been surprised while being naked. The social perception of nudity changed forever. Finally, let’s talk a bit about modern and contemporary art. There were no boundaries for the modern artist to explore it, and thus it is reflected in the many styles, motifs, and currents of the time. Now, even though we have nude paintings like Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon where there’s a completely different approach to the body, we can’t really talk about a disappearance of beauty ideals. Although they evolved to fit different social standards throughout history, they still prevail in our conception of what’s beautiful and attractive and what’s not. This has been a long journey throughout the history of nudity in art, but let’s go back to our initial question. Why do we like seeing nudes in public? The obvious answer for me is that we still have some ingrained ideas of morality and censorship, so when art subverts them and allows us to explore our interest in a more open way, we feel a sort of rebellious pleasure. Still, that doesn’t mean this pleasure doesn’t allow us to understand and enjoy the artistic beauty of these works of art. On the contrary, the esthetic quality makes them even more alluring. Now, another possibility that would require a deeper sociological analysis is our constant need to establish certain beauty standards. We love looking at an idealized image. It doesn’t matter if they’re naked or not, and no matter how free, inclusive, and diverse art has become, we’ll always be enthralled by the ideal beauty of classic art.
culturacolectiva.com/en/art/nudity-in-art-museums-through...
It’s a talk my students know is coming from the whispered rumors that circulate the hallways.
Of course, I’m talking about nudity in art.
You might think middle school—a time rife with the three “G’s” of gossip, giggles, and goofiness—is a terrible time to try and discuss this mature topic. However, I wholeheartedly disagree.
Kids love to be treated like adults. It makes them feel important, capable, and trustworthy. If handled in the right way, this discussion can do just that.
In other words, the success or failure of this discussion lies with us, the educators. So, how can we make sure it goes smoothly?
1. Let your students know you trust them.
Preface the delicate discussion with the fact that this is a conversation for mature students only, students that can be serious and sophisticated. Make it dramatic, pause, and change the volume or tone of your voice… it adds gravitas. Immediately, they will sit at attention, eager to hear what you have to share, showing off their very sophisticated manners. It works every time.
2. Discuss the difference between “naked” and “nude.”
I have the talk with my students before they dive into their annual artist research project. Of course, during their exploration, they will, in most cases, come across some type of nudity in art. Whether it be the slightly-exposed breast in Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus or the enormity of Michelangelo’s marble David bearing down on them, it’s all nudity. The Venus and David are certainly not NAKED.
“Naked” implies a certain element of surprise, an accidental viewing and possibly even embarrassment. You are accidentally caught naked getting out of the shower when your mom tries to enter the bathroom and you weren’t expecting it. (Insert riotous laughter here). You are not posing waiting for her to sculpt you in the nude sans towel.
This example highlights the difference nicely. Nudity is intentional. It has a purpose and it is not usually vulgar. While there certainly are examples to disprove this claim, I intentionally do not provide the students with artists that focus on risqué or indecorous content in their work.
nude statue
3. Explain why artists study nudes and how different people feel about it.
Another thing that helps is to explain that nude models serve as subjects for artists learning to better paint and sculpt the human form. It’s also nice to discuss the idea of nudity in art from a historical and cultural perspective; what is covered and when changes based on culture, religion, and time period.
For example, in 1857, the Grand Duke of Tuscany quite generously gifted Queen Victoria with a cast of David by Michelangelo only to find she was shocked by the nudity. She immediately turned the statue over to a museum and ordered that a “proportionally accurate fig leaf” be created and hung over the offending area to protect the modesty of women visitors. Recently in Rome, statues displaying nudity were covered with large white panels when the President of Iran visited (see image below). Many Italian art lovers took to social media to express their outrage.
image courtesy of cnn.com
image courtesy of cnn.com
4. Have students censor their own art to see how it feels.
To hammer home your point, lead students through the quick exercise below.
Group students into partners.
Have each partner choose a piece of art they feel proud of. Then, have them switch pieces.
Using small scraps of black construction paper, have students censor parts of each other’s work.
Ask students how they feel. Is their piece whole, or has it been changed by their neighbor’s action? Many students will express feeling outraged.
It becomes clear that censoring even small parts of an artwork changes the piece without the artist’s consent. What the artist chooses to depict is what they want the viewer to see.
5. Let students know it’s OK not to feel comfortable with nudity.
Of course, I do not insist students be comfortable with the nudity. I make it very clear that is their prerogative. If a student wishes to avoid it in their presentations, they can. I simply insist they acknowledge the difference between naked and nude. It’s an important distinction.
Worried about parent reactions?
While I’ve never once fielded a phone call or had a parent concerned after this discussion, I can imagine some teachers might be apprehensive. Consider this: what middle school student has not watched any number of pop-stars writhe around with little to no clothing on during primetime television, to speak nothing of what children have access to on the web? We are not condoning bad or lewd behavior. We are sharing masterpieces of art that enlighten and enrich our world.
This is about art that fills museums, which have no “R” ratings. This is for everyone. Learning how to discern the difference between artistic nudity and crass nakedness is a critical step towards ensuring that aware children become cultured adults.
Do you (or would you) address this issue in your classroom? What hints do you have to ensure it goes well?
Do you agree or disagree with the idea that omission or censoring is an affront to an artist and their work?
theartofeducation.edu/2016/04/april-naked-vs-nude-discuss...
The allegations against Chuck Close raise new questions about how to work with nudity. Here's a guide for artists and models.
Sarah Cascone, January 30, 2018
Michael Grimaldi (standing, right) draws Iggy Pop in the Life Class by Jeremy Deller st the Brooklyn Museum, February 21, 2016. Photo courtesy of Elena Olivo and the Brooklyn Museum.
Michael Grimaldi (standing, right) draws Iggy Pop in the "Life Class" by Jeremy Deller at the Brooklyn Museum, 2016. Photo courtesy of Elena Olivo and the Brooklyn Museum.
Last month, several women came forward with complaints that artist Chuck Close sexually harassed them while they were modeling in his studio. The allegations, published in the Huffington Post and Hyperallergic, tended to follow a common pattern: A woman was invited to pose for the artist, asked to undress, and then endured lewd sexual remarks from Close. The women tended to leave feeling exploited and disrespected, they said.
From time immemorial, the nude body has played a vital function in art across cultures and eras. But in the 21st century, we have come to expect a certain level of professionalism to safeguard both models and artists in what can be a sensitive interaction.
Regardless of one’s opinions about Close, the controversy offers a teaching opportunity: What is and is not acceptable behavior when it comes to working with nude models?
artnet News spoke with two nude models and the director of the drawing department at the New York Academy of Art, which relies heavily on figure drawing in its curricula, and provides handbooks outlining protocols to its roster of around 68 models. From these interviews we compiled a list of guidelines for both the artist and model.
Michael Grimaldi teaching figure drawing. Courtesy of the New York Academy of Art.
Michael Grimaldi teaching figure drawing. Courtesy of the New York Academy of Art.
Do: Communicate up front whether or not the model will pose nude.
Some of the women who complained about Close said that they went to his studio with the belief that he would paint their face for a large-scale portrait. They were not expecting to be asked to take off their clothes, they said.
“Most of the time the artist and the subject discuss ideas about what the concept of the final product will look like, including the wardrobe or lack thereof,” said Natalie White, an artist and model, who has posed nude for George Condo, Peter Beard, Marc Quinn, Spencer Tunick, and Close himself.
“If the model isn’t well known for taking their clothes off it should definitely be discussed ahead of time. And if the artist feels that the subject should take their clothes off in the middle of the session, they should schedule the unclothed session for a later day to give the model a chance to think about it,” said White, but pointed out that there may be exceptions with models who frequently pose nude. Otherwise, a model may change her mind afterward, meaning “you’ve just wasted time and resources on something you may not be able to use, or left the model feeling bad about what they have just done.”
The British actors’ union has laid this issue out in its code of conduct, which states that “any nudity/semi nudity will be personally approved by the model before the shoot takes place.”
Photo courtesy of Natalie White.
Don’t: Touch the models.
That is the most important rule, said White. “Don’t move their arm to a different angle, don’t touch their face to change the angle in which it’s tilted,” she says. “If you want a nude model to alter their pose it should be described with words, or the photographer or artist can show them by [demonstrating with their own body].”
Michael Grimaldi, faculty chair and director of New York Academy of Art’s drawing program, agreed—but offered a few limited exceptions. “The only instances where [touching] may occur is during the marking of a long pose and, in my experience, during lectures focusing on anatomical structures. For instance, using calipers to measure a distance directly on the model or using resistance to activate a muscle action. Whatever the circumstance, any potential physical contact is brought up beforehand, always with consent, boundaries respected, and exclusively work-based and professional.”
George Condo, Toy Face with Ponytail (2014). Artist and model Natalie White posed nude for this painting. Courtesy of the artist/Skarstedt Gallery.
George Condo, Toy Face with Ponytail (2014), a painting for which Natalie White posed nude. Courtesy of the artist/Skarstedt Gallery.
Do: Put the model’s comfort before the artist’s interests.
Carla Rodriguez, a former intern at New York’s 20×24 Studio, an instant photography studio that worked regularly with Close on his large-format Polaroid portraits, was invited to pose for the artist in 2009. She told Hyperallergic that she was surprised when Close allegedly asked her to undress beneath a spotlight in the darkened studio, rather than in a dressing room. “Having been a figure model, I’m used to being able to undress privately. It’s mostly inappropriate to take your clothes off in the middle of the classroom,” she said.
Like the artist, a model is a working professional and should be treated as such. “This includes making sure that the model stand, drapery, and props are clean and in place; that the model’s changing room is secure and clean; that the temperature is comfortable and additional space heaters are in place in consideration that the model will be nude and in a relatively static pose, potentially for an extended period of time,” said Grimaldi.
“If a nude subject is uncomfortable in any way, whether it’s the temperature being too cold or they want assistants out of the room, they should say so immediately,” said White. “You need to be direct about how you feel. If you are uncomfortable it will come out in the images, and for that reason the artist should want you to be comfortable because they understand that too.”
Kurt McVey modeling for the Artful Bachelorette. Photo courtesy of Kristy May/the Artful Bachelorette.
Kurt McVey modeling for the Artful Bachelorette. Photo courtesy of Kristy May/the Artful Bachelorette.
Don’t: Ignore red flags.
“I can’t stress enough, if you are uncomfortable in any way it’s really important for you to say it out loud,” said White. “Good people don’t want you to feel uncomfortable in a work environment, so if they don’t react well to you telling them you feel uncomfortable then they aren’t a good person and you probably are not in a good work environment.”
“Red flags for a model might be requests from students, requests to be photographed, inappropriate language, poses that might threaten their physical or mental comfort,” Grimaldi said. “That does not necessarily mean a sexual pose—it could even mean a pose that the model says would be physically difficult to execute and hold the pose for the necessary time.”
Do: Decide what environment is most comfortable for you.
Some situations may be strictly silent, such as at the academy, where “students do not initiate conversation with the model,” Grimaldi said. But model Kurt McVey finds such buttoned-up atmospheres stifling.
That’s why he got involved with the Artful Bachelorette, which hosts nude figure drawing classes for brides-to-be and their friends. He was struck by the amount of laughter in the room, which he found to be “a counterbalance to the often pretentious New York art world,” McVey told artnet News.
“They encourage engagement with the model and the people in the class,” he said. “As the model, I’m providing a space for what I like to call consensual objectification!”
He finds the experience of modeling in this environment to be “continually cathartic and therapeutic for me as an individual—and incredibly liberating for the women.”
A party with nude figure drawing hosted by the Artful Bachelorette. Photo courtesy of the Artful Bachelorette.
A party with nude figure drawing hosted by the Artful Bachelorette. Photo courtesy of the Artful Bachelorette.
Don’t: Bring your cell phone.
Posing nude for a drawing or painting is a completely different beast than posing for a photograph—and permission for one does not imply permission for the other.
“Because cell phones have the capability of taking photographs (along with the instant ability to post images on social media), students are notified that cell phone use under any circumstance is strictly forbidden in the classroom,” said Grimaldi. “The models are also encouraged that should they see a cell phone, they have every right to terminate the pose.”
Follow Artnet News on Facebook:
news.artnet.com/art-world/guide-to-nude-modeling-1196627
Images of the naked human body provoke conflicting feelings: shame, admiration, curiosity, desire, disgust, anger. This is especially true when these images appear in public spaces, whether physical or virtual. Nudity on European beaches, for example, is falling in popularity because of shame linked to social media. Facebook has drawn ire for removing images of naked bodies by celebrated artists such as Peter Paul Rubens and Pablo Picasso. And here in Los Angeles, art museums are not allowed to display nude images on street banners and billboards because they may offend, but perhaps also because they divert drivers’ eyes from the road. This is why you will see only a discreet detail on the street banners for The Renaissance Nude, an exhibition opening at the Getty Center on October 30.
None of these conflicted responses to the human body, however, is especially new. Ever since the Renaissance of the 1400s and 1500s, the nude—the unclothed human form—has been one of the defining features of art in Europe. Yet artists’ and viewers’ attitudes toward the nude were as varied and complex centuries ago as they are today.
The exhibition The Renaissance Nude (October 30, 2018–January 27, 2019), for which I served as lead curator, explores precisely this theme. It traces the gradual emergence of the naturalistic nude to artistic prominence over the course of more than a century and explores the many ways nudes appeared in art, how and where they were displayed, and how people reacted to them. Along the way, the exhibition and accompanying book explode some long-held myths about the nude in the European art tradition, revealing parallels between Renaissance Europe and our own cultural moment.
Myth #1: Renaissance Europeans Were Comfortable with Nude Bodies in Art
The rise of the nude in art in the Renaissance was driven by a revival of interest in Greek and Roman art, which is centered on the body, and by a rise in the closer study of nature. In Italy during the later 1400s, drawing of undressed models became common practice for artists. Within a few decades, this new practice spread to northern Europe as well. In fact, the dominant role of observing and sketching from the nude in an artist’s training has lasted into our own era.
But the use of the nude in art, particularly religious art, was controversial during the Renaissance. Images of beautiful bodies can be highly sensual, which made some observers uncomfortable—then as much as now.
The classical revival resulted in new types of Christian imagery, such as in the depictions of Christ and Christian martyr-saints as partially or fully undressed heroes. In the exhibition you can see this transformation between two paintings of Christ as the Man of Sorrows, one by the Italian artist Michele Giambono (shown below), and another by his compatriot Marco Zoppo, which shows Christ as a much more muscular, heroic figure.
Myth #2: Renaissance Nudes Always Reflected the Highest Ideals of Humankind
Graceful, classically inspired representations of the unclothed human body became the ideal for artists from the Renaissance onward, first in Italy and France during the 1400s and soon thereafter in the rest of Europe.
As a result, intellectuals devised elaborate justifications for the representation of the sensual nude. A Greek humanist of the time living in Italy did so by admitting that it is sinful to admire a woman for her physical allure, but that depictions of the human body undressed can and should be appreciated as a reflection of the intelligence and abilities of the artist. In the Renaissance, achievement in representing the body became the standard for measuring artistic genius.
The humanist’s argument, intended for an elevated circle of cultivated, largely male patrons and collectors, may seem a bit disingenuous today. Scholars have argued that some men of that era commissioned major artists to paint images of erotic subjects such as the Loves of the Gods as metaphorical tributes to their own sexual prowess. Painted for Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, Correggio’s Danaë, with its exquisitely rendered and ethereal representation of female beauty, is a good example This painting was enjoyed then for its erotic appeal, and is still by some viewers today. Others find it challenging to reconcile the painting’s exceptional artistry with its objectification of the female body.
Myth #4: Renaissance Artists Were Only Interested in Ideal Bodies
Expressions of the flawless body were an important manifestation of the nude in the Renaissance. But artists also depicted nude figures in a range of human conditions, both physical and spiritual. Images of the sick, the anxious, and the aged are an important part of the story of the Renaissance nude.
Christian figures and stories were the most widespread subject in Renaissance art, serving to decorate churches, private chapels, and homes. And these religious figures often look very different from the ideal body.
brewminate.com/deconstructing-myths-about-the-nude-in-ren...
