Two recent statues of naked women are causing a bit of a palaver. Is a statue of a naked woman empowering or is it - yet again - naked women for the male gaze? We can't ignore the historical context of women so often naked in art for the male gaze but the sculptor of the second of these is female. Have we moved on enough that it doesn't matter anymore? Will naked females in art always be controversial?
Should artists consider the impact their work will have in society or just create whatever they want from their 'artistic vision' without considering the history and tradition of how these images are seen and used?
The first is in the US by a male sculptor. It's Medusa holding the head of Persus, reversing the usual portrayal of the myth. Classicist Natalie Haynes says of Medusa
she points to famous images of the Medusa myth as an example of the way the male viewpoint is privileged and we hardly think to question it: “it’s just a hero and his trophy”. But Medusa was not always a monster; in some versions “she’s a woman who was raped and then punished for it with snakish hair”.
Is the second one of Mary Wollstonecraft, or in honour of her? Genuine question, because I'd assumed the latter.
The Wollstonecraft statue - I can see the point of what was trying to be done, but ultimately it looks like a tiny silver barbie rocket. Or as if the Doctor regenerated and all that came out of the fog was a leprechaun woman. Also, why does she have broccoli over her fanny?
Last edited by El Pollo Diablo on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:latter, not former
Is the second one of Mary Wollstonecraft, or in honour of her? Genuine question, because I'd assumed the former.
As the article says:
The Suffolk-based artist said her critics "are not reading the word, the important word, which is on the plinth, quite clearly 'for' Mary Wollstonecraft, it's not 'of' Mary Wollstonecraft.
And the first image of the Medusa statue does not load, so here is a fixed version: Spoiler:
snip
Should artists consider the impact their work will have in society
snip
The thought that artists* might not be stuck so far up their own bum holes as to consider anything other than themselves made me smile.
Thanks TK.
Must crack on, got a ditch in urgent need of digging.
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...
It feels worth noting that both statues being discussed are composed in a way that would be very typical for a male nude statue, especially Medusa, where the composition is deliberately evocative of statues of Perseus.
I just can't imagine a male nude being commissioned in honour of a male historical figure. If anyone has any examples, I'd be interested. In my head I've been replacing Mary Wollstonecraft with someone like George Orwell, Winston Churchill etc.and I just can't see it happening.
I just can't imagine a male nude being commissioned in honour of a male historical figure. If anyone has any examples, I'd be interested. In my head I've been replacing Mary Wollstonecraft with someone like George Orwell, Winston Churchill etc.and I just can't see it happening.
David?
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
I just can't imagine a male nude being commissioned in honour of a male historical figure. If anyone has any examples, I'd be interested. In my head I've been replacing Mary Wollstonecraft with someone like George Orwell, Winston Churchill etc.and I just can't see it happening.
I'm not really very up to speed on more modern statuary, but Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker immediately springs to mind.
Is the second one of Mary Wollstonecraft, or in honour of her? Genuine question, because I'd assumed the former.
As the article says:
The Suffolk-based artist said her critics "are not reading the word, the important word, which is on the plinth, quite clearly 'for' Mary Wollstonecraft, it's not 'of' Mary Wollstonecraft.
And the first image of the Medusa statue does not load, so here is a fixed version: Spoiler:
Yeah, sorry, I got mixed up between former and latter there. But thanks for the clarification.
If someone had a bit of time on their hands it prob wouldn't take much to mock up a naked Boris Pfiffle materialising from a primæval spume to celebrate the wonder that is the Brexit.
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Boris, Prick of Pricks;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...
I just can't imagine a male nude being commissioned in honour of a male historical figure. If anyone has any examples, I'd be interested. In my head I've been replacing Mary Wollstonecraft with someone like George Orwell, Winston Churchill etc.and I just can't see it happening.
David?
In whose honour was David commissioned?
There's plenty of statues of naked blokes knocking about, I'm on about something a bit more specific.
I just can't imagine a male nude being commissioned in honour of a male historical figure. If anyone has any examples, I'd be interested. In my head I've been replacing Mary Wollstonecraft with someone like George Orwell, Winston Churchill etc.and I just can't see it happening.
I'm not really very up to speed on more modern statuary, but Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker immediately springs to mind.
This is much more what I had in mind. Good example.
I do however note that Napoleon was involved in the commissioning of this statue. And I like the detail about him considering it " too athletic" and wanting it displayed a bit more privately.
Mythic characters are mostly naked or with their tits hanging out. Statues of mythic characters don't count. Nor do statues of real people like Napoleon being displayed as mythic characters.
I just can't imagine a male nude being commissioned in honour of a male historical figure. If anyone has any examples, I'd be interested. In my head I've been replacing Mary Wollstonecraft with someone like George Orwell, Winston Churchill etc.and I just can't see it happening.
Mythic characters are mostly naked or with their tits hanging out. Statues of mythic characters don't count. Nor do statues of real people like Napoleon being displayed as mythic characters.
Generally speaking, there's four main reasons for nudity in art.
Classical allusion - a lot of classical statuary was nude, starting with men and featuring women starting Praxiteles's depiction of Aphrodite*
Deemphasis of individual identity - clothes add a lot of that, so nudity can be used to depict an archetype or an individual as a representative of an entire category of people. I'd put the statue for Wollestonecroft in this category, a rather unsubtle - arguably ham-fisted - depiction of a woman representing women in general emerging from restriction and repression.
Showing vulnerability or innocence - nudity as innocence is present in the book of genesis, and it is a common method for showing vulnerability, too. A good, if unpleasant and powerful, example of the latter would be The Barricade, which is a commentary on the use of human shields. It's behind a spoiler for reasons that ought to be obvious from the title of this thread, treat as NSFW. Spoiler:
Tittilation - lets not pretend a lot of art isn't about this, in depictions of men as well as women, though more common in depictions of women. Odalisque paintings are a good example of this, as are paintings like Le Somneil and L'Origin du Monde**
Obviously some will combine multiple categories, for example depictions of The Judgement of Paris, one of the horniest ancient Greek myths***, will combine classicism with tittilation.
*There's an ancient rhyme that means roughly "I know about Paris, Adonis and Anchises seeing me naked, but how did Praxiteles manage it?"
**It's utterly hilarious watching people convince themselves of the deep meaning of this painting depicting a torso, upper thighs and genitals but not a head, given that the painting is a much more basic, more or less p.rnographic, painting that should include a head, and a head section does exist, with the right pigments, canvas and matching wear from the original frame that lines it up perfectly with the rest of the painting - far more likely that the top part was removed to anonymise the model of what was a pretty shocking painting, especially as the model was quite likely Courbet's
mate's girlfriend.
Is the second one of Mary Wollstonecraft, or in honour of her? Genuine question, because I'd assumed the latter.
The Wollstonecraft statue - I can see the point of what was trying to be done, but ultimately it looks like a tiny silver barbie rocket. Or as if the Doctor regenerated and all that came out of the fog was a leprechaun woman. Also, why does she have broccoli over her fanny?
Broccoli? I thought it was a merkin.
I have very mixed thoughts about naked females in art. There's a distinction to be made between public and private art too. Who is going to be looking at it?
Someone has put a T shirt on it now. You could say this is public engagement with art...
Is the second one of Mary Wollstonecraft, or in honour of her? Genuine question, because I'd assumed the latter.
The Wollstonecraft statue - I can see the point of what was trying to be done, but ultimately it looks like a tiny silver barbie rocket. Or as if the Doctor regenerated and all that came out of the fog was a leprechaun woman. Also, why does she have broccoli over her fanny?
Broccoli? I thought it was a merkin.
I have very mixed thoughts about naked females in art. There's a distinction to be made between public and private art too. Who is going to be looking at it?
Someone has put a T shirt on it now. You could say this is public engagement with art...