udity in the privacy of our homes? We seem to be fine with that – well, sort of. But then there’s nudity on the beach, nudes in advertising, nudes in music videos, in film, and of course on the Internet. What is it about nudity that disturbs us so? Why does it consistently cause controversy in this country, even as one generation’s obscenity becomes the next generation’s art? Of course there are occasions where nudity has no place. Unless you live in a Nudist Colony, you’re likely not doing your visiting in the buff. And we can probably identify many places where overexposure is nonsensical, including in fashion, media, or entertainment. Partly, that’s because it’s the way our American society is programmed; we go about our business clothed, for practical reasons, and learned reasons of culture and identity. Are we lightening up when it comes to nudity?
Are we less likely to be shocked by every aspect, in every venue? Yet conservative factions continue to churn up clouds of concern that seem overwrought and unwarranted. Are there no limits to what social norms should permit? A web site that promotes the green movement, and various peace initiatives it’s a site run primarily by women, called Peace Paint. Apparently, its banner image and some illustrations feature the female figure, discreetly painted with 60s peace symbols, flags, text, and various emblems evoking an idealized, integrated, and socially responsible planet. The use of nudity comes across as innocent (in a free love sort of aesthetic), and certainly isn’t offensive. Yet a small brouhaha is brewing over the use of these innocuous images, which blend appropriately with the tone of the site, and in which there is not so much as a nipple to be seen. What’s so wrong with the human body as a lighthearted and natural means to promote a platform of peace? The nude is a timeless fixture in art history: sculptors, painters, and photographers all pay homage to human attributes – strength, beauty, fragility, and more – by continually reinterpreting human form. In the hands of an artist, the body becomes a vehicle for symbolism and philosophy, for examination and creative process, as well as a universal landscape that is both unique and transcendent. Since art forms vary tremendously (as does taste, and opinion on what is tasteful), even in the realm of art, we’re unlikely to agree on what is appropriate, beautiful, artful, provocative, erotic, or for some – pornographic.
Nonetheless, fine art is filled with fine examples of the human figure. And incidentally – what we take today for high art was often, in its day, controversial. Perhaps you prefer the nudes of Albrecht Durer, Peter Paul Rubens, Camille Corot, or Auguste Rodin, who not only created monumental sculptures (among them the very famous Thinker, and The Kiss) but he also produced what were considered erotic Lesbian drawings and watercolors that many of us find exquisite. The reclining nude is a common theme throughout art history (as in the Odalisque, as in Edouard Manet’s Olympia, which was shocking at the time, or as in Corot’s Bacchante). Henri Matisse and Henry Moore’s reclining nudes, among modernism’s many splendid contributions, bring a whole other sensibility and style to the human figure. Austrian expressionist Egon Schiele painted at the turn of the 20th century. There is something tortured and painful in his work. His nudes are not only erotically charged, but poignant and disturbing; sexuality and vulnerability unite in a powerful combination. Photographers like Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, and Man Ray depicted our humanity through the lens.
Their black and white nudes are among the most elegant and iconic of the 20th century, realistic and surrealistic interpretations of beauty and art as embodied by the naked form. What could be more innocently sexual than the fetching Red Velvet Series of Marilyn Monroe by Tom Kelly? Tame by today’s standards, 22-year old Norma Jean seems more vulnerable than sexual. And the nudes we find in contemporary art? Images are often as much about social statement or concept, as they are about the process of painting or sculpting, or representing the artist’s vision of the human form. South African born Marlene Dumas is acclaimed for her unsettling imagery that explores sexual, racial, and gender identity, as well as themes of sexual and political violence. Nothing sells magazines like a great cover. And nothing works quite as well (for many publications) as highlighting the nude figure.
Nudity sells, just like sex sells. In some instances, we’re curious. We want to see how we stack up against models, celebrities, and other “regular” people. In other instances, nudity serves as an awakening, a kind of liberating force in an over-moralizing society. Case in point: Demi Moore’s 1991 Vanity Fair cover did more than just cause a stir. It allowed pregnancy to be publicly perceived as beautiful. Pregnant women were suddenly “out of the closet” and not only comfortable in their skin, but glamorously so. There’s no question that baring all (or almost) is a tried-and-true advertising trick. And why shouldn’t Peace Paint use it in the name of laudable objectives? Nudity is especially effective in fashion or lifestyle spreads, and in promoting certain personal care products and services. The advertisers are selling us those bodies, directly or indirectly, so isn’t there some logic to that? And isn’t this image of Eva Mendes both beautiful and tasteful? Perhaps the concern, for some, is based upon fear of the erotic. But let’s remember that modesty is learned in childhood.
Likewise, shame of our bodies and discomfort with our desires. Nudity is a natural state; sexuality is a necessary one. So what about nudity on the Internet? We know the Internet is overrun with images – of all sorts. Amateur nudes, celebrity nudes, and… well, nudes in action, shall we say. You name it, you’ll find it. Is titillation or arousal always the objective? Or is it the fact that it’s a possible (human) consequence that is so troubling? The line between appropriate and inappropriate, or erotica and pornography, is likely to be an individual judgment call. And each of us is entitled to our own opinion. But here are some thoughts: Nudity can be art – but not very sexy. Nudity can be sexy – but not art. Nudity can be erotic, and sexy, and art. Nudity can also address other objectives and achieve other results; it can be innocent, funny, matter-of-fact, even clinical.
Nudity does not equate to an open invitation to inappropriate acts of sexuality. The Internet provides numerous interpretations of sexuality, generally with some amount of nudity, for a wide range of tastes. But nudity in and of itself should not be confused with behaviour, or condemned across the board. Nudity as freedom, and healing force. If we choose to celebrate the human form – preferably in a range of shapes and sizes – who knows… might we come to appreciate ourselves as we are, as art? What if we looked at our sexuality as both extraordinary, and natural? If you want beauty and eroticism on the Internet, rest assured, it’s there. And plenty of it is tasteful. Is it also artistic? Sexy? Will we go back for more and feel fine with it? We hope so. But it’s really up to each of us to choose for ourselves.
