Naked… Nude… Pornography…

Standard

(WARNING: Content for persons over 15 years old and may offend :-))

Naked… Nude… Pornography…

What’s the difference? Not a lot, and a matter of perception.

As I found out during a tour of the ‘Nude: from the Tate Collection’ exhibition, “naked” is merely without clothes and common and “nude” is an idealised artistic expression of nakedness. And “pornography” brings up the image of unacceptable nakedness and base.

Lord Kenneth Clark, one of the most respected art historians of the 20th century had this to say (in his classic book, The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form),

“To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes, and the word implies some of the embarrassment most of us feel in that condition. The word ‘nude,’ on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled, defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous, and confident body.”

So naked is vulnerable, nude is power?

What delineates one from the other? Is it a nude because it is deemed ‘art’ or is it ‘art’ because it has been idealised?

Does the classification as ‘naked’ or ‘nude’ make the subject or its message more or less powerful?

Here are some pieces of art (as they have been pronounced to be so and exhibited as such 🙂 ) from the exhibition.

The bath of Psyche (Frederic, Lord Deighton)

Nude, the art form as goddess (yes, usually female) and reverent beauty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nude as a form of ‘style’. Naturalist, and gone is the marble-like skin. Real and vulnerable.

The knight errant

The knight errant (Sir John Everett Millais)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pieces from series in red (Louise Bourgeois)

 

 

Nude as body politics, and confronting.

 

 

 

 

 

Nude denoting distance or intimacy, pain or love. The power of the images speaks for itself.

The kiss (Rodin)

Job (Francis Gruber)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nude as eroticism and love.

Etching L.16

Etching L.16 (Picasso)

Nude woman in a red armchair (Picasso)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Split nude (Fiona Banner)

What do these images say to you? Are you enticed, enliven, inspired, repulsed, embarassed,…? The intensity of your reactions to them is indicative of the power of their message, does it not?

 

And pornography? Well, pornography shall be invisible. It subsists in the underbelly of sexual desires, does it not?

Not quite.

Depictions of naked bodies and sexual acts have been around for centuries. But the concept of pornography didn’t really exist until the Victorian era when explicit sexual acts depicted in paintings were condemned for their licentiousness. Looking at sexual imagery became outlawed. Therefore, pornography is not a creation, rather a definition.

Society since then has prescribed acceptable ways for the display of our naked bodies and how to perform sex acts. As I see it, this does not make other ways “wrong” or “bad”, merely uncommon. And the stronger the “rejection” of this recent construct called ‘pornography’, the greater the attraction for its illicit ‘nature’. Fancy that?!

My opposition to sexually explicit images is their treatment of the subjects. Is it respectful? Is it exploitation – physical, mental, emotional or financial? Is it harmful as subjectively experienced (not “objectively defined”)?

So the dilemma is this: the human body, male or female, is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. A line is crossed when it symbolizes, or is in actuality, an ab-use of our bodies. What is that line? For you? Are we guided by societal norms or political agendas when we look at naked human forms – nude, pornography or just naked?

 

Art is conversation, so keep talking 😉
~ FlorenceT

 

© 2017 FlorenceT Copyright reserved. The author asserts her moral and legal rights over this work.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Naked… Nude… Pornography…

  1. All of the figures shown appear to be nude, fully comfortable to pose as they did in a celebration of beauty. I don’t feel the same way about Picasso’s work and Fiona Banner’s work both of which I find confusing. The one by Louise Bourgeois is unpleasant and very badly done in my opinion but having seen some works that have won the Turner Prize I can see that art is very personal. What I’d consign to the tip some people put on display.
    xxx Huge Hugs xxx

    Liked by 1 person

    • Notwithstanding Picasso’s “personality”, the etching is clearly eros. I found Nude Woman fascinating in the suggestion of her being embraced by the armchair which profile (Picasso’s self portrait, I believe) is shown on the woman’s face. Fiona Banner is intriguing for me in the sense that words can be erotic, but only to the extent of the reader’s mind or imagination…? Yes, I found Louise Bourgeois’ work here rather confronting – depicting something raw in our humanness. David, the line between naked, nude and pornography – blurry indeed. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  2. As an artist, I love the nude form. What I think is unacceptable as you have so rightly pointed out is the exploitation of the body.
    Things such as ‘revenge porn’ as it is called, engages me.
    I also don’t like the imagery that depicts humans as nothing better than dogs for example. I don’t like images that seem like one party involved is not respected as equal.

    Like

    • Sarina, images like that do confront us, but it (as art does) may cause us to re-consider things which we may have taken for granted, failed to notice perhaps… I don’t know what to make of such instances – art as expression or impression? Perhaps our interaction with a piece of art says more about us? Fascinating.

      Like

What are your thoughts on this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s