What is in a nude?

Does modern society have any place for art, and in particular, the nude? What is the difference between modern and contemporary art depicting a semi-nude and that of the semi-nudes painted by the old masters? By certain standards, fat naked babies with wings are acceptable, but a nude depicting the glorious and sensual lines of a woman’s body is not?

Ester Grobler: Acrylic on canvas 500x500cm “Josephine”


Here is Josephine, she is not pretending to be somebody by the way she dresses, nor is she trying to seduce you. You are simply an onlooker; catching a brief glimpse of her in an intimate moment.


The question is then, is it art or is it something else? It is up to the onlooker to decide. As the saying goes: “Love is in the eye of the beholder”, so then too is art in the eye of the beholder.


As artist, Carl Verster put it: “In my opinion there are two important questions to be asked when it comes to the subject and formulating an opinion on the nude.


1. Is it art?


2. Is it moral?

 
So, is it art?


It would be a foolish to argue that a painting or sculpture is not art simply because the subject lacks clothes. Equally foolish would be to argue that every nude picture is art.


I have little difficulty in determining whether a picture of a tractor is a technical diagram or a work of art! Why? ... because of the context and intent! If it's in a textbook, it’s a technical diagram ... if it’s a painting of a rusty tractor in a field with unusual lighting and angles, hanging in someone’s lounge; one can assume it is art.


Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam" or "David"? Medical study? Art work? Were they produced for medical study reasons? Hardly practical! Was it produced to titillate? Inconceivable!


Likewise, a photo in an ‘adult magazine’ is clear in its intent. If the context is wrong and if the intent is not 'artistic' in nature, it isn't art.


But is it moral?


Again, context and intent.


Nude paintings cannot in themselves be immoral. If the intent of the artist is purely to sexually excite the viewer... it is pornography. If the focus is form, light and highlighting the beauty of organic lines, well, then it's probably art. Be careful here not to confuse the reaction of the viewer with the intent of the artist. If the artist's intent is to display the beauty of form and light and the viewer is inadvertently aroused by the painting, it doesn't disqualify the piece. It may still have both artistic merit and be moral. After all, if a sexual deviant who is turned on by say, high heel shoes, is aroused by a painting of a shoe, the viewer is the problem, not the artist. It's all down to intent.


The human body is beautiful, the lines are incredible and the organic form fascinating. Our bodies are something that unite us and define us all ... they our connected humanity. Personally I can think of few subjects nobler, more rewarding or more empathetic for viewers than the nude”




With thanks to Carl Verster.

Hope you all have a fantastic week.

Blessings
Mercia