Femininity, Insecurity, and My Art

Lately I have been musing about beauty, confidence vs. insecurity, and what it means to be a woman in today's culture. Yes... it's a HUGE topic -- one I can barely wrap my brain around. Yet, for the past few months, I have dwelt upon the subject - sometimes openly in conversation, and other times silently, letting it marinate in the back of my mind.

Questions I have asked...
What makes a woman beautiful, or... what makes a woman believe she is beautiful?
What makes a woman confident? What makes her successful? What makes her smart? Important? Relevant? Furthermore, how do women undermine their own needs and desires? How do women inadvertently destroy their own joy and happiness? What is woman's biggest weakness or downfall?

I am certainly not going to attempt to answer all of these questions (entire books have been written on the subject!), but I wanted to give you some insight into my latest set of work. Not only does the work say something about the subject, but it comes deep from within my own feminine heart and soul, and the thought process I have had.

Let's start with the artist (ha!). :-) First of all, I am a woman. Like any other woman, I have insecurities that stem from past hurts as well as current struggles. These insecurities are diverse, ranging from how I feel about my body to whether or not I feel affirmed in my work as an artist. Every day I experience the nagging temptation to doubt myself and worse - doubt my perfect Creator. But I have been learning, through daily prayer and time in God's Word - that if I keep my eyes on the Author and Perfector of my faith - His grace is sufficient, and I can have true joy and contentment. I can live with that number on the scale, or the art competition rejections, and even rejoice in them, because God's purpose is bigger than mine, and His mercies are new every morning. Furthermore, He has given me the gift of creating and expressing my struggles through canvas and paint. What an honor! To create and echo His work - no matter how small and insignificant and imperfect mine is. He is still glorified.

That being said, the insecurities will probably be something I struggle with for the rest of my life. But I hope to bless others who struggle with the same things by offering some insight through the artwork I have done recently and will continue to do.

First off, my summer has consisted of painting unclothed figures - and not because it's 100 degrees outside! I have been exploring femininity, beauty, confidence and insecurity through the timeless subject of the female nude. Of course, I have had a wonderful time painting skin tones and playing around with lighting... but on a deeper level, I've also had a chance to meet some amazing women who are brave enough to model for me. I've made some paintings which I feel are some of my best because there was genuine empathy, or simpatico if you will, in the collaboration between myself and the models. They are not just "subjects" to me, but real people with real struggles and joys.

I am not going to pick apart the meaning behind my paintings here, but simply let you view them in light of what I've just said, and interpret them for yourself.

 "Reclining Nude on Blue" - 14x18" - oil on linen panel

"Unmasked" - 18x14" - oil on linen

"Burlesque Dancer" - 9x5.75" - oil on linen panel

One painting (which I haven't posted yet because it's not quite finished) sums up my thoughts rather perfectly. It is a portrait (clothed) of a very dear friend of mine. It took her a long time to muster the courage to sit for me, for various reasons, particularly an insecurity regarding her eyes. Well, the painting isn't finished yet, but those who have been to my studio and looked at it have all said the same thing. They have said, "She has the most beautiful eyes!"

I guess what I am trying to say is that my goal in creating these paintings is to help my subjects (and myself) feel confident and happy with our bodies, and with our inner and outer beauty. My hope is that by conveying the outer beauty, I can somehow draw out some facet of the inner beauty as well and display it for all to appreciate. :-)

Oh, and by the way... look for more work exploring this topic later on this summer. I have a large piece in mind that I can't to start!

Experimenting with New Brushes, and a New Nude Painting

Today at the Society of Figurative Arts we were privileged to paint from a nude model. SOFA's director, Michael Mentler, is a representative for Rembrandt art products, and they are always sending him samples to experiment with. Today he had some new brushes he wanted me to try out. A series of fine red sable brushes (series 240), they are already distributed in Europe, but have yet to be marketed in the United States. Our nude model was the perfect subject for testing the subtleties and nuances of these new brushes. Actually, I wanted to see how they'd compare to Rosemary & Co. brushes. They are my absolutely favorites (series 279, especially), and I've had a hard time finding anything I'd rather use!

I quickly discovered that the Rembrandt brushes were wonderful to work with. I blocked in my painting with Rembrandt Transparent Oxide Brown thinned with medium (5x Gamsol, 1x Damar varnish, 1x stand oil), then picked up the sables instead of using a traditional bristle brush to start pushing paint around. The sables flowed really well, particularly the flats.

Here is the finished painting:

"Seated Nude" - 16x12 - oil on linen

... and some detail shots.

At the hairline and ear in particular, you can see that the Rembrandt brushes produce the same effect that a Rosemary mongoose brush can as far as softening. Nancy Guzik calls it her "Happy Brush." The brush must be clean and dry in order for this effect to work without over-blending or causing the paint to look muddy.

I hope Rembrandt brings these brushes to the U.S. soon. I am eager to use them. I told Michael I wasn't going to give them back to him at the end of the session, but... I did... (reluctantly!) :-)

Nudity in Art: Final Chapter

Well, after coming down with a cold this week, I'm trying to muster enough energy to finish this blog series! So here we go...

We at last move to some of the modern painters and their approaches to the human form. Pablo Picasso was creative and ingenius in ways that conservatives are often resistent in giving him credit for. He was also very talented; if you look at his earlier work (before 1906), you can see that he knew classical technique and anatomy. This nude, for example, "Blue Nude", from 1902, is quite beautiful and well-rendered.

Picasso - "Blue Nude" - 1902 - private collection

However, Picasso soon went in a different direction. While Gauguin's work had remained essentially representational, his figures were somewhat androgynous. Picasso took this much further, to a point where one could no longer distinguish between men and women, or even between a person and his surroundings. Picasso sought a solution to the universal question --"What is real?" -- in abstraction, the breaking down of forms to their most basic, simplest shapes. Cezanne had already paved the way; now Picasso made his canvas his universe, and made himself the god of it. The results are frightening. Here we see his defining Cubist work, "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon." It shows five prostitutes from a brothel in Barcelona, all painted somewhat differently. Their faces look more like demons or African masks than human. Surely this is not a depiction of the human figure as God intended it, either in form or content...

Picasso - "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" - Oil on canvas, 8' x 7' 8" - 1907 - Museum of Modern Art, New York

Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) broke down form even further, until nothing was recognizable and art became simply absurd. His objective was not to create art but to destroy it. Often he would give pieces a title that had nothing to do with the work, but would be suggestive in nature (for example,"The Passage of the Virgin to the Married State"), causing the viewer to look for something in it that resembled its title. One of Duchamp's most famous and controversial pieces is "Nude Descending a Staircase," an enormous abstract work consisting of cylindrical and conical elements that appear to move in space, but give us no clue as to the subject's sex, age, individuality or character.

Marcel Duchamp - "Nude Descending a Staircase" - oil on canvas - 1912 - Philadelphia Museum of Art

There is much I could say about Duchamp and his destruction of conventional art, but I must save that for another blog post. For our purposes here, it's safe to say that as Modernism progressed, the old traditions were done away with, and the beautiful nudes of classicism seemed to be gone forever.

On the bright side, there were (and are) still several outstanding artists practicing traditional techniques during the Modern era, and for their contributions, we are most grateful.  These artists - Eakins, Sargent, Zorn, Sorolla, Homer, Repin and Wyath, just to name a few - kept the old aesthetic alive.

Thomas Eakins - detail from "The Swimming Hole" - 1884-45 - Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth 

I am not saying that only realistic nudes are acceptable, and that abstract art is bad! That is definitely not the point I'm trying to make. Instead, I believe that the nude is such a sensitive subject that it must be viewed from more than one angle, with questions such as, "What was the artist's intent?" "What is the historical and intellectual context?" "Was it painted to be beautiful and uplifting in some way, or to tear down and destroy?" The bigger question at hand is: how can we as Christians accept and embrace nudity as a crucial aspect to our artistic heritage? Purpose, content, form (or execution), and context, are all crucial when observing a work of art. I agree wholeheartedly with Matt Clark, an art teacher at Veritas Academy in Lancaster, PA, who says in his article, "A Christian Perspective on Nudity in Art", "We do a disservice to our students (and ourselves) when we teach them to be reactionary instead of thoughtful and discerning." The whole article is definitely worth reading (he includes some great Scriptural examples), especially for those of you who are teachers and are perhaps still unsure about where you stand on the issue.

In the past few blog posts, I've mentioned at least a few of the reasons for the use of nudity in art, but let me sum them up, and add a few more. Nudity can:

• Symbolize great ideas or truths
• Represent our humanity and help us see our need for a Savior
• Depict reality, not only in secular subject matter, but in biblical subject matter as well
• Help artists develop their skills in anatomy, gesture, and expression
• Help us appreciate, from an aesthetic viewpoint, the beauty of the human form

This is all under a huge assumption that the nude has been depicted in the proper context and rendered with the deepest of respect. The artistic nude has been greatly abused over the past few centuries, and as a result, Christians have shied away completely. But it is time that we drop our prudishness and reclaim the nude in our art for noble purposes, like those mentioned above.

I've already discussed the first couple of points and given examples of these from art history. The third point, about art depicting reality, can be seen countless times in art history in many different forms, from the nude  Christ child of Renaissance paintings to the beach scenes of Sorolla (public nude bathing was very common in 19th-century Spain), to the intimate bath scenes of women and children by Mary Cassatt. I haven't even touched on the subject of nudity in scenes depicting mothers and their children, but you probably already know my view on this - that those done by Cassatt and others (particularly women artists) are excellent works of art because they beautifully relate a level of tenderness and maternal love that is unparallelled.

Joaquin Sorolla - "Female Nude" - oil on canvas - 1902 - private collection

So let's discuss the last two points, artistic skill and aesthetics, which often go hand in hand. I’m immediately reminded of my first time drawing and painting from a nude model. I was taking a summer figure painting class at the Florence Academy of Art. There were ground rules about working with the model (i.e. no photography, absolutely no touching the model, asking the teacher to speak to the model rather than speaking to her directly, etc.). These rules seemed like common sense but only solidified the sense of awe and respect I already felt upon viewing firsthand this beautiful woman before us.  To speak in Platonic terms, I was moved by the tangible presence of the model’s true “essence”. She was so... real... and as I placed her contours and shapes on my canvas, I began to comprehend that reality in my work. But with such reality came great responsibility, not just in showing respect for the model, but in how I would convey the model’s “form” to the painting's viewers. I realized it wasn't at all about me, but about a sensitivity to the subject and how that would translate to other artists and non-artists alike.

 

When working from the nude (at least in my own experience), there is a kind of progression that happens in the artist's mind. First, there is that awe, and an overwhelming feeling of inadequacy. There is a strange reality about the naked form that compells us to look away, and yet we can't stop looking. But once the artist begins working and observing the model, there is a breaking down of the complex for the sake of beginning - a simplification of shapes and lines and negative space. Suddenly the model is less intimidating, as I begin to see her in circles, ovals, cylinders, etc. As the drawing develops, so does my understanding of the model. Subtleties and nuances of shape and color temperature are not lost on me - those visual treasures are what I find most fascinating and fun about working from the nude. The model shifts in her pose; there are thoughts and musings going on in her head that I will never know, but perhaps I can catch a glimpse of it in my painting. It is a journey of discovery, one which, for the traditional artist, has nothing to do with sex or arousal -- only beauty. My point is, artists have studied the nude for centuries because there is no greater challenge.

Anna Rose Bain - "Florence" - Figure painting from my studies at the Florence Academy of Art, oil on linen, 2006

I like what Gordon College (a Christian school in Massechussetts) says in their policy statement on the use of nude models in art classes: "We have chosen in the Art Department... to work respectfully with the human figure attempting to bring honor and glory to God in the process. We base this, in a Christian context, on a time-honored professional practice, holding the belief that the human form is the crowning acheivement of God in Creation - worthy of our expert knowledge, and analogous to the scientific knowledge of the human body in medicine and biology. In our tradition as artists, it is seen as the linchpin of our practice of visual knowledge. If you can accurately and expressively draw, paint or sculpt the human form, you can draw anything." 

A gorgeous example of an "academic" nude, by contemporary figurative artist Robert Liberace: "Maenid" - oil on board

In addition to developing strong technical skills by working from the nude, the artist has the wonderful opportunity to simply create a beautiful picture. This sounds a little silly, but aesthetics are no less important than any of the other points I've brought up. The visual impact of a strong composition, color harmony, and gesture can make for a great painting, without needing any kind of underlying message or narrative. One artist whose work does just that - depict beauty for beauty's sake - is California artist Jeremy Lipking. He is one of many amazing artists who are currently helping to revive realism, and I absolutely adore his work. Here is one of my favorites, "French Beauty." This painting is not even about the porcelain nude on the couch - it is more about the stunning combination of colors and shapes, and the pleasing direction these visual elements take the eye around the painting. That red makes me exclaim, "Wow!" every time I look at it!

 

Jeremy Lipking - "French Beauty" - oil on linen

Here is another example by North Carolina artist Scott Burdick -- a piece he created simply for the sake of beauty.

Scott Burdick - "Forest Beauty" - oil - 40" x 30"

As I said before, there is a huge responsibility on the part of the artist as we walk a fine line by using nudity in our art. What is our purpose in painting the nude? Is it to show beauty, or incite arousal? With pornography so prevelant in our culture, and a heightened sense of eroticism in Modern art especially, it's no wonder that parents are hesitant to take their kids to art museums. I hate to subjectify the matter too much, but it really comes down to the individual. One person's art might be another's pornography. The artist may have pure motives in creating a fine art nude, simply with the intent of making a beautiful work of art and celebrating the human form... but the viewer might take it differently. Like so many other things in this world, art can start out as something good and then be perverted into something that is not. It is the artist's responsibility to keep his or her work within the proper context and to know know their own heart. The artist should also be sensitive to the viewer; if, by painting nudes, we are leading someone else astray and causing them to stumble, then to us it is sin. From a Scriptural standpoint, we can refer to Paul's epistle to the Romans: "So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:12-17)." The artist is obviously not the only one who must be responsible in this matter. If you know your own weakness, then learn to discern what to look at and what to avoid. But don't judge others for their artistic sensibilities.

Finally, the concerned parent asks, “Why subject my child’s innocence to nudity for the sake of beauty?” The answer is: sensitivity, education, and timing. These will be different for everyone because children mature at different rates. If nudity will cause the artist or viewer to stumble, then it should best be avoided. But I firmly believe that children should be educated about art history, so they can understand why fine art nudes are more than something to giggle at in museums! We should explain to our children that God made man and woman naked in the beginning, and that He pronounced His creation "good." But when sin entered the world and the man and woman disobeyed, they were ashamed, not of their bodies (for their bodies were God's creation), but of their sin and the realization that they were naked. Naked does not equal "bad" - instead, there is a proper time and place for it.

I thought I would close with one more example from a contemporary painter (forgive the lack of sculptural examples - I am somewhat biased, being a painter myself...). Below is a painting by Ohio artist Carl Samson, entitled, "Triumph of Truth". It is the perfect allegory of traditional art taking back its ownership from Modernism, by depicting an athletic, spritely young woman standing defiantly atop a dead Minotaur, a subject often painted by Picasso, but in Samson's painting, rendered realistically. This painting sums up beautifully everything I have discussed from art history and in my points about the purpose of nudity in art. I would like to quote Carl Samson himself here as he explains his painting further: "In 1907, Picasso painted 'Les Demoiselles D'Avignon' - a full frontal assault on all that was held dear by the great painters... The Demoiselles, incidentally, are featured behind this model in my painting. She's strong, confident and intent on exacting some revenge for all the injustices perpetrated on the fairer sex by Monsieur Picasso." Samson has created a masterpiece, which perhaps makes a prophetic statement about the direction of fine art. Beauty is making a comeback, with works like "Triumph of Truth" proudly paving the way.

Carl Samson - "Triumph of Truth" - 96" x 62" - oil on canvas

This concludes my discussion on nudity in art from a Christian perspective. Of course, I am happy to answer any questions you have - and if you disagree with me, by all means, leave a comment! I love controversial discussions, especially over things I'm passionate about. Thanks for reading. :-)

For Further Reading and Review, here are some of my recommendations:

• Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, by H.R. Rookmaaker
• The Arts of the Beautiful, by Etienne Gilson
• Art and the Bible, by Francis Schaeffer
• A Christian View of Philosophy and Culture, by Francis Schaeffer
• The Judgment of Paris: the Revolutionary Decade that Gave the World Impressionism, by Ross King
• Article by Matthew Clark
• State of the Arts, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr. 
• It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God, compiled by Ned Bustard

On Medieval Nudity and the Art of the Sensual

I'm back! I wanted to address a couple of questions that were brought up by one of my readers before I continue forward in art history.

My friend Matt, a fellow Hillsdale grad, had a two-fold question as follows: "Firstly, if Medieval artists wished to point to genuinely divine things and ultimately to God, using human symbols - Mary, Jesus, the saints, animals, etc., why did they avoid nudity? On the contrary, by and large they piled clothing on their characters. Were all the artists simply prudes? Perhaps the iconographic nude can't and won't open directly up to the contemplation of God. Why is this? Is it something to do with purity? Has it something to do with Him being an infinite person?

Secondly, Titian carries this sort-of Platonic Christian humanism, that you describe, to a high erotic pitch that barely remains appropriate. By precisely that balancing act his paintings have a sensuality that has never in my opinion been matched. But what exactly is the relation between the intellectual experience of sensuality, perfected in the art of the nude, and the knowledge of beauty? Is the sensual aspect of the nude really the best way to get at beauty? Are there others? Did Titian indulge so much in the human side of Venus that he missed the divine?"
 
To answer Matt's first question, there is some nudity depicted in Medieval art, but it was a culure dominated by the Christian faith. From the fall of the Roman Empire and the split of the Greek and Latin churches onward, there were still oppositional forces in play: pre-Christian culture versus a new Christian worldview. Early on, the Christian faith stressed the value of chastity and celibacy. Nudity had negative associations with pagan religions, and unlike the Greeks and Romans, whose focus was on a fleshly ideal, the Church had no need (or desire) to display nude deities in their art. There were also new attitudes against nude athletics, public bathing, and even the value of the human body. Adam and Eve were still depicted nude, but most of the time, nudity was meant to be a representation of the shame, helplessness and depravity of man. I don't believe the artists were prudes (that comes later, with the Victorian era!), but they were creating their art within the standards and worldview of their time. There are a few nude icons painted in a positive light; they are usually depictions of martyrs, saints, or the resurrected Christ. Iconography was initially designed to be symbolic and unrealistic in an effort to avoid idolatry (again, a reaction to the pagan religions). It is ironic that many Christians went on to worship and pray to those icons anyway...

Matt's second question--"What is the relationship between the intellectual experience of sensuality, perfected in the art of the nude, and the knowledge of beauty?" --is one which has been addressed by the philosopher Etienne Gilson in his book, "The Arts of the Beautiful," which I recommend to every artist and non-artis alike! Gilson explores the meaning of beauty in his introduction to the philosophy of art. He says, "We are not saying that the beautiful itself consists in the pleasure it gives, but rather that the presence of the beautiful is known by the pleasure that attends its apprehension" (p. 23). He goes on to explain that beauty can be caused by nature, truth, or by a work of art "expressly willed for its very beauty". Thus, according to Gilson, the artist can't go wrong in their work as long as they are pursuing "as their proximate end the creation of beauty" (p. 45). The intellectual side of sensuality in art depends largely on the original intent of the artist. We may never know what Titian's thoughts were as he painted his Venus, but as Gilson points out, there is a specific distinction btween the artist's point of view and that of the spectator or the reader. True beauty does not cater to our baser instincts, except when put in the appropriate context - for example, sex within the context of marriage. But a work of art may still be "sensual" and "good," depending on its context and the dignity with which the artist portrays the subject.

Obviously there are many great works of art (landscapes, still lives, portraits, etc.) which display beauty without using the nude form as their subject matter. Nudity, in its proper artistic context, is just one of the many avenues by which we can somehow catch a glimpse of the true and the beautiful. (Hopefully, Matt, I've answered your questions, at least in part).

Nudity in Art, Part II

As I mentioned in my last post, nudity in classical art was meant to personify an idea or to reveal certain qualities of the human condition. During the Renaissance, the Catholic Church was still one of the biggest patrons of the arts, and as a result we have such priceless treasures as Giotto's The Life of Christ frescoes in Scrovegni Chapel and Masaccio's Brancacci Chapel. Both painters demonstrated new-found understanding of anatomy, foreshortening, lighting, form and drapery. Images of Christ being taken down from the cross, or being carried to his tomb, depicted Him nude or semi-nude. I find it refreshing to see the physicality of Jesus in Renaissance and Post-Renaissance painting, because the Bible tells us that He was both fully God and fully Man.

Giotto di Bondone, Lamentation, in the Scrovegni Chapel (1305) 

Of course, Michelangelo, who was greatly influenced by Humanism, took this physicality a step further in his commission for the Pope Julius II, painting the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel. The frescoes tell us the story of God's creation, man's fall, and humanity's utter need for salvation as offered by God through Jesus. With over three hundred figures, mixing both characters from biblical stories and figures from ancient mythology, Michelangelo successfully combined Christian theology with the Humanism of the Renaissance. While the amount of nudity met with some criticism, I am inclined to agree with Pope John Paul II when he said, "It seems that Michelangelo, in his own way, allowed himself to be guided by the evocative words of the Book of Genesis which, as regards the creation of the human being, male and female, reveals: 'The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame'. The Sistine Chapel is precisely – if one may say so – the sanctuary of the theology of the human body. In witnessing to the beauty of man created by God as male and female, it also expresses in a certain way, the hope of a world transfigured, the world inaugurated by the Risen Christ."

Michelangelo, detail of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel (1508-1512), Rome 

The symbolism of the nude would carry on through the 18th century; we can see an excellent example of this in one of my favorite paintings from the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, "Peace and War," by the Italian artist Pompeo Girolamo Batoni (whose work - on a side note - would later greatly influence American artists Joshua Reynolds and Benjamin West). Perhaps ahead of his time, the phrase "Make love, not war," comes to mind when looking at this painting. War is represented by the Roman god Mars, who appears fierce and unstoppable in his armor. Pax, the goddess of peace, pleads with him with her gaze and gently pushes aside his sword. Her tender breasts are exposed to symbolize both strength and vulnerability. The two simultaneously come together, and push away. It is a work of art riddled with meaning, particularly as we look at the date it was created and remember the historical events taking place at the time.

Pompeo Girolamo Batoni, Peace and War (1776), oil on canvas

However, the above painting is perhaps an exception to the trends that were already taking place by the 18th and 19th century. Art was changing considerably. Not only did God disappear from art, but so did man. Obviously enough, art is a man-made thing. It is what separates man from the animals, for we do not find animals creating works of art, erecting buildings, or composing symphonies. However, the Enlightenment stripped from man even his humanity, by turning man "natural". The consequences were severe: if man is just another animal, then the great ideas believed for centuries to be principles of truth no longer have their meaning. Can there even be such a thing as "love?" Science's answer was that love is nothing more than libido, a carnal and animalistic instinct. Love is sex. The great art critic and historian, H.R. Rookmaaker, has summed it up this way: "Life itself, instead of the varied and deep meaning it had in biblical language - man's full being, his true humanity, his work, dreams and aims, so that Christ Himself was able to say that He is the Life -- life became nothing more than biological life, the beating heart and sexual urges and quest for food and drink. We can understand the man who, standing at the end of this development, asked recently in one of the underground papers, 'Is there a life before death?'" (Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, p. 47).

That being said, nudity in art changed along with the attitudes and beliefs of the times. Around 1800, the Spanish painter Francisco Goya painted his mistress in two versions, naked and clothed. In both paintings she is laying on a couch, evocative of the goddesses from the 16th century, which would have been familiar subject matter to anyone living at the time. However, this woman is not a goddess - she is simply herself, clothed and unclothed. It is possible that Goya created these two pictures to show that Venus was dead, and all that was left was a man and his mistress.

Goya, The Clothed Maya, and the Nude Maya (c. 1800-1803), Museo del Prado, Madrid

Gustave Courbet dealt perhaps the biggest blow to traditional themes. These themes included great facts of history, biblical stories, and mythology (such as our reclining Venus), and were used to illustrate both human and Christian truths. Courbet rejected any old ideas for choice of subject matter and began to paint exclusively what he saw in the world around him. He is famous for saying, "I have never seen an angel, so I shall not paint one." Instead he painted peasants and workers, shocking the public by making these paintings as large and important-looking as any of the portraits commissioned by kings and nobles. His paintings tell us that truth lies only in what we can see and feel.  

Eduard Manet took Courbet's ideas even further, and is particularly famous for his "Luncheon on the Grass" and "Olympia." While "Luncheon on the Grass" still looks ridiculous to us, 150 years later, we can only imagine the shock with which it was received in 1863. It depicts two fully-dressed men, picnicking casually with two women who are as naked as can be. Manet painted them on a huge canvas, which would normally be reserved for grander subjects. I would love to elaborate on the history of this painting (a great source for further study is Ross King's The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade that Gave the World Impressionism) ... but for our purposes here, the painting simply represents a rejection of the old, and an embrace of a new "reality:" that the only place we might see such a scene is in a brothel or among people of questionable propriety. Gone is the reclining Venus, or the fearless Lucricia demanding justice for the crime commited against her (another popular theme in classical art).

Eduard Manet, Luncheon on the Grass (1862-63), oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Manet's "Olympia" also translated the old theme to a contemporary one, by depicting a prostitute reclining on a couch, much like a traditional Titian or Giorgione, would have shown Venus. Instead she is a high-class prostitute, waiting for a client. She gazes out at us, unabashedly and without modesty. Manet included many little details in the painting to make it clear what this woman represented; for example, the black cat symbolizes prostitution, and the orchid in her hair, cast off slipper, and pearl earrings are symbols of wealth and sensuality.

Eduard Manet, Olympia (1862-63), oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay, Paris

In my next blog post, I will finish my brief discussion of nudity in art history, and talk about where Christianity ties in to all of this. My goal is help us become more comfortable walking into art museums, educating our children about art, and embracing art as a vocation, by understanding what we are looking at.

More to come. :-)