What about nudes, anyway?

[Garth Herrick]

Just for starters......

It is interesting that humans are the only animal species on earth that don't operate in their daily life existance as they were created, but rather metaphorically paint and disguise themselves in endlessly creative ways through clothing. Why? I have no real idea. It must just be universally fun to dress up!

I have not yet read "The Nude" so I'll just tentatively ramble for a few sentences. While as individuals from varied backgrounds and experiences, we can expect to have just as much individuality in our responses, personal affinities, or filters applied to nudes in the context of fine art, there may be some underlying universal generalities in common operation as well.

It seems to me more often than not, the nude has been employed as a representational conveyance of a truth, beauty, and ideal in the human experience, but often more in a general allegorical or mythical sense, rather than as a representation of a specific individual's portrait. There have been exceptions, mostly where individuals have been heroically personified in the nude, or semi-nude, but usually as an apotheosis form of portraiture, making them in a sense equated to a god or goddess.

What does this imply about a nude in art? Can a nude ever fit within the context of a simple and direct individual personal portrait? As for myself, the only two nude portraits I have ever generated in paint have both been self-portraits; both conveying a definite and penetrating opinion of how I viewed myself. In both cases they are merciless and unidealized images that have nothing to do with the classic representation of the nude, but rather become transcending images without the distracting mask of clothing, and convey an arresting sense of vulnerability and honesty; at least to me. But I am speaking of, and relating these images within the context of late-twentieth-century American cultural filters and morales. In a different culture and era, a nude portrait would likely produce a different range of viewer responses. Perhaps I should return and zoom back to the more general nude in art, viewed within an historic context.

Perhaps it is interesting to consider that it was at the height of ancient Greece when the proper attire for a man interacting within society was frankly no dress at all (!), that this genesis of Western culture simultaneously produced and evolved the very epitome of the sculpted, anatomically ideal, classical male nude, which has been the paragon or model of all that has followed (through various subsequent periods of renaissance and decline), right through to the present. Of course, the supremacy of anatomical knowledge in the nude took an incredible nose-dive, both in the Roman era, leading into the Dark Ages, and once again, frankly, in the Twentieth Century! Currently we are generally impovished as artists in our anatomical awareness, coming out of a twentieth century dark age, where art aesthetics exploded into any number of new tangents. In the process, we seem to have lost what inherited thread of knowledge we had still flourishing just a hundred years ago before classicism went out of fashion. It seems there may be another fledgling renaissance on the horizon once again, regarding an educated response to the nude in art, by the recent trend of small ateliers becoming established, devoted to this field of anatomical classicism.

The Greek nude was not a real person or any individual, but a synthetic cultural ideal representing human perfection in a god-like image. They all adhered to a prescribed and mandated proportional formulation; including the norm of 8 1/2 heads to determine height. This beauty and human perfection represented, manifested and inspired a sense of absolute truth. It was not really until within the last one hundred fifty years that we have come around to accepting a more honest proportional ratio of 7 1/2 heads in more modern nudes. Nudes more and more tend to be increasingly honest representations of individuals, sometimes devoid of any classical ideals and proportioning. One of my favorite instructors, Arthur DeCosta, persisted in being steadfast in preserving a tiny thread of Classicism in Philadelphia through the 1950's, '60's, and '70's, when it was highly unfashionable to do so; all the while painting hundreds of sophisticated and inventive allegorical nudes who were individually and unideally human and lovingly personal derivations of a particular favorite model. Could the Greeks have ever understood Professor DeCosta's aesthetic and truth, so beautifully, lovingly represented?

I better stop rambling on for the moment for it has become quite late and I need to retire until the morrow. Would anyone like to expand on the conversation?

Garth

Human On My Faithless Arm

[Richard Bingham]

Hooray, Kim . . . that's a positive "take" on the subject in question that shows in your work. Mediterranean classic period nudes are "perfect" (well, ideal anyway) . . . male and female. That's a statement about the human condition that reflected in the Greek dictum, "sound mind, sound body." The beauty (and hence the value) of corporeal being adopted by Christianity humanized the dichotomy of temporal physicality and eternal spirituality. Could Michaelangelo's commentary on the nobility of the body have ever been made without the impact that mass of nude art produced in antiquity made?

Without pointing to specific work, a number of current artists deal with the nude human body representing it as something scrofulous and loathsome. Is this a cause or an effect as it relates to the society that produces this?

[Richard Bingham]

Garth, thanks for that thoughtful reply.

[Tom Edgerton]

Richard--

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but here's my view.

Painting nudes seem to me to have two functions, one personal and one public.

On the personal side, it sure helps with anatomy if one desires to paint accurately and realistically. It's easier for me to paint clothed figures if I have a sense of what's underneath. As Mr. Whitaker stated also, painting a lot of skin will teach you to paint skin, under numerous lighting conditions. (I realize this is reprising the obvious.) Beyond that, painting nudes carries a wealth of personal and psychological meaning (baggage?), pro and con, for each artist, but if the result is not shown to others this is pretty much a moot point to me.

Publically, one may wish to convey or communicate something to a viewer by painting nudes. The results will either be aesthetically pleasing, or not; uplifting, or not; disturbing, or not; interesting, or not; pornographic, or not, or (insert your word here), or not. Much of this depends on how skilled the artist is at achieving the desired result, but the viewer will either get what's intended, or something else, and it's not always under the artist's control.

I realize some folks charge sexism in regard to the tradition of male artists painting nude women, and historically this may be a valid charge. But it's been rendered again, moot, at least to me, because in this age women are pretty much free to paint whatever they want, including nude men. And the results will also be exploitative, or not. And I will also surely grant that women artists are a lot more knowledgeable than me about their particular issues, so I'd welcome their opinion on whether this is so.

But to categorically ask whether it's kosher to paint nudes in the 21st Century is a very broad question. And I think the operative answer is another question: "According to whom?" I haven't read Kenneth Clark, but I don't know many artists who guide their choice of subject by what art historians might opine. Why shoud they?

Remember, art historians declared realism invalid too.

Best regards, and thanks for this discussion
--TE

[Richard Bingham]

Tom, thank you much, for your thoughts. I'm not too sure where I'm "going" with this either. Frankly, I don't have an agenda other than I'm interested to learn what artists are thinking, and this is a piquant subject. The examination may well extrapolate to all we do. "Why paint a nude? " may become "Why paint a portrait?" or simply, "Why paint?"

Your statements reiterating Bill Whitaker's are certainly true enough and make a good point - some things can't be re-stated often enough!

Other points you made address the reason for my query. I do want to know what you and others think, and I appreciate your taking the time to post.

Some implications of the nude in art which are current (hence transitory) such as exploitation of women are better viewed with a historical perspective, such as, only males were the subject of Greek nude art for quite a long spell in classic times; in past centuries, only males posed for life-study classes in the academies of Europe until the late 19th century.

Giving art historians a (not undeserved) cut, I don't quite think it's fair to include Clark's book which examines the aesthetics of the nude in art through the ages and is very intelligently written. I encourage you and all who are prone to wool-gathering on this subject to read it. I think you'd find it very enjoyable.