ARGUMENT
This imaginary discussion follows the assertion of two friends, reflecting on an exhibition of Picasso’s prints that they had seen, that some of them are pornographic. It is in the form of a Socratic dialogue.
CHARACTERS
Stevie: A philosopher.
Alex and Pat: two friends, students of philosophy.
Pat. We recently saw an exhibition of Picasso’s etchings. I must say we thought some of them were, well... pornographic.
Stevie. Really? I accept that some of his work could be described as erotic, but pornographic? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Alex. They were definitely pornographic: women with their legs apart showing everything they’ve got.....
Stevie. I think I know what you are referring to. They are definitely very ‘strong’ and I can see that some people might take offence at them; and there was a time of course when such openly erotic works by artists would have been hidden from public view. But I would hesitate to call them pornographic. However, I am open to persuasion; should we discuss this and examine the idea?
A. Willingly.
P. Of course; and if you can persuade us we are also open to change.
S. Good - to begin then. Do you think that the portrayal of the naked body is itself in any way pornographic?
A. Well that obviously depends on the way it is portrayed, but as a generalisation I shouldn’t think so; however, that is a very wide question.
P. You are right, Alex. That is too broad a statement; we have to be more specific and deductive in our examination.
S. Good – then we will have to start with the idea of good and evil, or moral and immoral with reference to the portrayal of the human figure.
P. Yes, and to examine that I suppose we have to decide whether a particular good in the world is general or absolute, or specific to the case in question; whether something which is good is always so, or whether it is good in some circumstances and not in others. And, contrariwise, the same with the idea of evil or badness.
S. And from where do we get the idea of 'the good' anyway? Is it just an idea, intuition or feeling of Man’s, or does it stem from God or the nature of some divine essence in creation? It seems that our question is becoming much bigger.
A. That is assuming that there is a God – if there is no God then some would say that ‘anything is permissible.’
S. Sure. Some people have argued that. And therefore it follows that all rules and ethical decisions are man-made and can be altered according to circumstances. But let us see if we can agree on what is good. Can we say that God is all good and cannot create anything that is not good? Of course sometimes some things are not good in a material sense or in their consequences for us, or for other species; as when a storm threatens our lives, for instance. But in essence can we say that God cannot create anything that is not good?
P. I think we can.
A. But as we agreed, that depends on whether or not there is a God.
S. Of course, but if there is no god then everything that is created is just is, and is neither good nor bad.
A. Agreed
S. So if all that is is just is, it is also not not good. Wouldn’t that be so?
A. I think we could say that would be so.
P. I am not sure; it may be harmful, like drinking poison, or a cataclysmic event that will put an end to the world.
A. Or in your case, Pat, eating too many sugary things which will make you fat!
S. Yes, on a personal level, for those things which benefit mankind, or an individual, we can say, without ascribing them to God, that some things are good for us and others may be bad; or good under some circumstances and not so in others. But, in 'the nature' of things, that is to say the condition of created things, there is no morality. The natural world is indifferent to judgements of good and evil. With regard, however, to their impact on us, who are moral beings these are practical and moral decisions. We may come to examine these later when we are discussing the specific case of whether some of Picasso’s works may be considered pornography.
P. Aren’t we doing that now?
S. Yes, but first we have to find a firm basis on which to construct our idea of what we consider good.
A. Quite so.
P. Yes, I can agree on that.
S. So can we agree that as God is all good all things created by God are good; and if created, not by some supreme intelligence but as a result of some cosmic event or accident, then they can’t not be good because they have given rise to us, and the capacity to appreciate the great wonder and beauty of all things created?
A. We can.
P. Yes, we can certainly agree to that.
S. So it follows that the human body is good; in its entirety and in its various parts.
A. It does.
S. Then if we, for the sake of argument, accept that the universe and all in it had a creator (however you wish to conceive of that creator), and all is good, to regard any part of his/her/its creation as something of which to be ashamed, something to be hidden from sight, may be taken as a snub or insult to the creator, God.
A. Yes, surely; but what if there is no creator?
S. Then, as we have said, nothing is neither good nor bad in an absolute sense, everything just is – as it happens to be – and any judgement as to what it is right or wrong to show is a moral issue and purely human, and is therefore capable of change in different circumstances.
P. As, for example, we consider it wrong for a man to touch certain parts of a woman's body without her permission.
A. Although there may be circumstances when this would be considered acceptable. If the woman was unconscious due to an accident and it was imperative that she be moved immediately, perhaps by a bystander, in order to avoid further harm; or if she needed to be examined or her clothing removed by a doctor or paramedic; this would normally be considered permissible.
P. This is fine, but then where do we get the idea that some parts of the body, i.e. those that we call private, should be concealed as much as possible?
S. What do we think? Where does that idea come from, and is it universal in all societies and customs?
A. Certainly it is more prevalent in Western and European societies, those founded on the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don’t think it is so prevalent in Buddhism and Hinduism. We have, for instance, the celebrated example of the sculptures on the Hindu temple of Kajuraho, where voluptuous scenes of sexual congress among the gods are depicted very graphically, even showing actual penetration in some instances; scenes which would never have been countenanced by the Christian church, and which proved so shocking to ‘upright’ early European explorers and the administrators of the British colonial period.
P. And we have the example of the so called ‘uncivilised’ or ‘primitive’ societies of pre colonial Africa, Australia and the Americas where Christian missionaries not only taught the indigenous peoples that their beliefs were wrong, but that it was ‘sinful’ to go around in a state of nature.
A. Also, we must remember, that in pre Christian times, in ancient Greece there are many examples of completely nude statuary, it was later generations that insisted on hiding the genitalia behind a fig leaf. There was what we might describe as a cult of the body: in the male the athlete and soldier and in the female the perfection of beauty. Athletes competed in the nude; although this was an all male affair: women weren't permitted to compete or attend.
P. I think that in Athens that was so; I understand that in Sparta young men and women competed together in the nude.
S. Your example of the Kajuraho temple sculptures, Alex, may be very relevant when we come on to consider Picasso’s erotic oeuvre. Can we think of any other examples previous to the more liberal climate ushered in by the twentieth century?
A. Well the frescos on the walls of the Roman villas in the city of Pompeii comes to mind. The most notorious being the one showing a man weighing his enormous penis on a pair of scales in the House of the Vetti; and images of sexual intercourse found in the House of the Centenary
P. There are also of course examples of medieval erotic sculptures to be found in churches, where the masons or wood carvers have given free rein to their imaginations. They are hard to find but one imagines they were much more prolific before the puritans of later ages destroyed or defaced them.
A. Yes, there is the example of the 'Sheen a-na-gig.' These sculptures, found in Medieval Churches, more commonly in Ireland, are basically representations of a diminutive female displaying an enormous vulva stretched wide by her hands which takes up the greater part of the sculpture. The purpose of this open display of genitalia is not understood but one theory is that placed over doorways they were intended to ward off evil. Whatever the reason it seems to indicate that in former times certain church authorities, for symbolic and or didactic reasons, were happy to permit public display of images of both male and female genitals; and that craftsmen were sometimes indulged in their representations of the act of copulation, such as can be found sometimes in misericords, those often humorous and bawdy carvings found under the choir seats in some churches.
P. And that the representation of sexual parts and sexual congress in a religious context, in addition to being an occasion for simple indulgence in bawdy humour, may also have symbolic overtones.
S. So we can see that, whatever moral judgements may be made and for whatever reasons, be it symbolic, didactic, for erotic pleasure or for the sake of breaking taboos, there is something of a long tradition in art of depicting the genital areas of the body, can we not?
A. Yes, we have to accede to that.
P. Then, more recently, in the nineteenth century there are the Shunga prints of the Ukiyo-e school, of which Utamara, the Japanese master of the woodcut is probably the greatest exponent. These are exquisitely made, beautiful works, but due to their explicit subject matter, every bit as uninhibited as the Kajuraho Temple sculptures, were, in the west, often hidden away. The British Museum, for example, has a large collection, along with many other examples of erotic art from all periods and societies, which until recently were only available to view with special permission, but which are now occasionally put on public display and published in books.
S. From where then do we get this compulsion to cover up and in particular to hide the genital regions, both in life and generally in depictions of the human body? Why should it be OK for a man to expose his finger for instance, or an artist to paint a man’s finger, but not his penis; since, going back to our acceptance that all things created, whether by God or the chance workings of nature, are essentially good? If both are equal creations of God or nature why hide one of them? And if indeed, created by God, then couldn’t it be considered an insult to insist on hiding any part of his creation away from public view?
A. That is an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me before.
Well I suppose there are three reasons why we have come to cover our bodies. The first is purely practical, to keep warm; the second for reasons of morality, because some parts are considered private; and the third for adornment, to beautify: giving rise to fashion and the desire to have a range of clothes to wear.
P. The last is an aesthetic reason, which might also affect the second, we urge people to cover up because we don’t want to see the less pleasing parts of their anatomy.
A. Exactly, Pat. The sight of an overweight forty something shirtless male strolling around the streets of Benidorm, his stomach overflowing knee length Bermuda shorts, is not a pretty one.
P. Quite; in fact Alex the image that you have just planted in my mind is making me feel quite queasy!
A. But to answer your question, Stevie: from where do we get the notion that we should cover up and hide the ‘private’ parts of our bodies? I would say that it comes from Genesis and the doctrine of ‘Man’s first sin.’ And the church and religious thinkers and leaders through the ages have promulgated the idea so that it seems to have become one of the central tenets of belief.
P. And wormed its way into the subconscious minds of ‘civilised’ people everywhere, wouldn’t you agree, Alex?
A. Quite.
S. And why would church leaders wish to do that?
A. Well, in order to control people and their behaviour, I suppose.
P. Principally through indoctrination and a culture of fear. Fear of the body, fear of sexuality and fear of the consequences of disobedience.
A. In this life and the next. If you convince people that their most basic sexual instincts are sinful and if ‘improperly’ directed will lead to eternal damnation, then you have a hold over them.
S. And do we still live in fear of the body and sexuality?
A. Well in many parts of the world, and amongst some religious conservatives, yes; but generally we live in more enlightened times and we have a more rational or liberal acceptance of the body.
P. And representations of the body; certainly in the west. For this reason, maybe, we see the hold on people’s minds by religious authorities generally relaxed, and ‘the church’ in retreat, certainly in the west; although there remain, as you say, Alex, conservative elements, people of strong religious or cultural beliefs, who think that the body should be largely hidden from view.
A. And even some who think that depictions of the nude body are evil.
S. Good, so far; but let’s not get sidetracked by the more extreme views except to consider why, to us, representations of the nude are more acceptable. In the west we live in a community which, historically, had an almost universal acceptance of Christianity. Now that is very much in decline but, nevertheless, it has informed and conditioned, and still strongly influences our cultural background. Yet you said, Alex, that fear of the body is mainly encountered in the Abrahamic religions. Then why, do you suppose that we have such a strong tradition in western art of portraying the nude; and sometimes very ‘fleshy,’ not to say voluptuous portrayals, as for instance, Titian, Rubens and Correggio, right through to Courbet?
A. Well, I suppose it comes from the Renaissance, more specifically the Italian Renaissance, when along with a rediscovery of Roman and Greek sculpture a rebirth of Classical culture occurred; translations of ancient texts and a reassessment of man’s place in the world – a more humanistic approach and a greater focus on life as it is lived now and less of a concentration and sacrifice of the present to the life to come; a greater worldliness. Not only a renaissance of classical ideas but the birth of secularism, might we venture to say?
S. And all this was tolerated by the church and the powers that reigned over the world and men’s minds?
A. Not just tolerated but encouraged by the church in this wider outlook and emergent art of the body. Pope Julius II, for instance was a great patron of the arts, commissioning Michelangelo and others.
Of course there were reactions against this freeing up of men’s minds, and against the depiction of nudity - notably from preachers such as Savonarola who caused the people, in a rage of religious fervour, to discard luxurious lifestyles and destroy their precious artefacts and works of art.
P. The Bonfire of the Vanities!
A. Yes, until the people rebelled against him and he ended up on the bonfire himself. Some also tried to stifle scientific research and the ideas of Galileo, but by and large these were just the birth-pangs of the modern age, and the new freedoms and the spirit of enquiry, which was also the freedom to paint the human body as it is seen, and in new and un-thought of ways, was unstoppable. Previous to this representations of the nude figure were largely confined to Adam and Eve.
P. And images of the dammed being cast into Hell. Such images were religious and strictly Christian, and functioned not just as objects of devotion but were also containers of information, acting almost as instruction manuals for how to avoid sin and lead the good life and thereby ensure a place in Heaven. But the Renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman art and mythology gave artists a great source of subject matter for depicting the nude, albeit thinly veiled by a cloak of mythological storytelling, but chiefly for its own sake. This also infused much Christian religious art as well.
A. As we see, for example, in Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling and the ‘ignudi,’ representations of the nude male figure which have no reference to Christian iconography. They are there, as far as we can tell, simply because of Michelangelo’s delight in representing the naked male form in athletic poses.
P. And they were accepted by the church, and the popes who regularly prayed in the chapel.
A. Similarly with the figure of the naked Christ which he later painted in the Last Judgement behind the alter, and which clearly depicted his genitals. Even before it was finished, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the work. The most famous complaint being from the Vatican’s Master of Ceremonies, Biagio da Cesena, who said that “it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather for the public baths and taverns.” In revenge, Michelangelo painted him into the lower right corner of the painting as Minos, the mythological king of Crete - with donkey ears indicating foolishness - who after death became one of the three judges of hell, his nudity covered by a snake coiled around him biting his genitals. It is said that when Cesena complained to the Pope, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.
Near the end of Michelangelo's life the Council of Trent ordained that a piece of cloth should be painted over Christ's offending part, and those of the dozens of other totally nude figures. Daniele da Volterra, who had been acquainted with Michelangelo, was then hired to paint loincloths and veils onto all of the figures in the Last Judgment, earning him the nickname “Il Braghetonne”, literally meaning “the breeches maker”.
P. And these additions to the modesty of the participants were over subsequent centuries augmented by further pieces of drapery. These have now been removed in the recent restoration process. But I notice that the 'breeches maker's' additions have remained, no doubt to avoid offending the many visitors that stroll through the chapel.
S. So we can say that during the Renaissance it once again became possible, now against the background of a Christian culture, to represent the nude, at least if it could be justified by the choice of biblical or mythological subject matter.
A. Yes.
S. Can you give us some examples, Pat?
P. Yes indeed. From the Renaissance we can think of Correggio's Antiope Asleep, Titian's Venus of Urbino and Danaë, then Bronzino's Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time, followed by Tintoretto's Susanna and the Elders and Origin of the Milky Way, and then many of Rubens's paintings, such as The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus, the portrait of his wife Héléne Fourment, and several versions of The Judgement of Paris, all of which give him an excuse to delight in the painting of female flesh; then we think of Rembrandt's Bathsheba, which is a tender painting of his young wife, but couched in the guise of a Biblical story. This continues right into the 19th century with 'Classical' artists such as Ingres's La Grande Odalisque and very fleshy Turkish Bath, Regnault's Three Graces and David's Mars Being Disarmed by Venus and the Three Graces, not to mention the ‘salon’ painters such as Bouguereau with his kitschy fantasies (which seem designed to titillate and I would say do border on pornography,) and Boucher's frothy evocations of young women, such as Miss O'Murphy and Diana and Callisto; although their works were biblical or allegorical stories....
A. To give them an aura of respectability.
P. Sure,.... nevertheless they show a strong interest on the part of the artists in representing the nude figure for its own sake.
Then we might mention the Romantic artist Delacroix: think of his Woman With a Parrot and Death of Sardanapalus; or Courbet's The Painter's Studio and his most notorious work: a realistic depiction of the fleshy groin of his favourite model Joanna Hiffernan (who incidentally was Whistler's lover) entitled The Origin of the World. An image which brings us directly back to our consideration of Picasso and provokes controversy and censorship even today, but since its acquisition by the French state is reportedly the second most sold postcard of the Musee d'Orsay.
S. Very much so: then we could argue that the artists you mention were depicting the nude for its own sake but finding justification by ‘clothing’ their maidens and heroes in the vestments of mythology or the Bible?
P. Sure, although it has to be said it is the female form that was mostly painted, and mostly painted by men....
A. And viewed by men....
P. Yes, although there were a few women artists who occasionally tackled the subject prior to the birth of Modernism, such as Lavinia Fontana and that wonderful artist Artemisia Gentileschi; and then in the early 20th century of course we have such notable examples as Susanne Valadon and Laura Knight, and of course nowadays it raises no eyebrows to see paintings and sculptures of the nude by women artists; and female art students work in the life room, drawing from male and female models, alongside their male colleagues.
S. So, would you say then that nowadays depicting the nude, in drawings, paintings and sculptures for its own sake, and not simply in order to study the anatomy of the living form so as to more convincingly depict a clothed figure, is perfectly acceptable subject matter for the artist; and furthermore that it has even achieved a noble status in the cannon of art.
A. Yes, I think we can.
P. As a broad statement yes; although I think we can’t deny that an element of voyeurism is there, and probably always will be because of the fact that what is normally hidden or ‘prohibited’ has a fascination for us, and due also to the cultural baggage that we all carry around.
S. So far so good. Can we say then when this change from ‘the nude as carrier of Biblical and mythological messages’ to ‘the art of the nude’ came about?
P. Well, I would suggest it happened in the late 19th century. There may have been isolated examples of course, in the years preceding, but the big change, the big shock we might say, came in 1865 when Manet showed his Modern Olympia. This was basically a pastiche of Titian’s depiction of Venus, but updated to a modern setting, with a modern young woman; a young woman moreover who would have been recognised, known to Parisian society as a courtesan; this was shocking to the public.
A. And then he followed this up with the even more provocative Dejuner sur l’Herb, or picnic on the grass, which took Georgione’s Music Party as a model and showed a nude woman seated with two clothed men, thought to be set in the Bois de Boulogne in Paris, a place associated at the time with prostitution. This painting was seen as scandalous, called by the Emperor Napoleon III as an 'offence to human decency' and caused the Salon de Refuses, where it was shown, to be shut down.
S. And why was that, do you suppose?
A. Well, they were too ‘modern.’ Apart from the ‘flat’ technique of painting, which critics also objected to, they were depicting nude women in a modern setting, virtually stripped of all classical reference. They were thought to be immoral.
S. Pornographic?
A. Possibly. The paintings of Titian and Giorgione were perfectly respectable, and men from respectable ‘society’ could look at them in the company of their wives; but these paintings from the young upstart Manet were considered beyond the pail.
S. And now they are thought to be perfectly acceptable, and are exhibited in the world’s leading galleries, are they not?
A. Yes. The public in general, at least in western societies, have no problem with nudity as such in artworks.
P. Although there are some groups, I am thinking of conservative Muslims and maybe some conservative Christian and other groups who have a problem with nudity in art.
A. Yes, those who, at the risk of generalising, we could say have little interest in or understanding of the role of art in society on the one hand, or the historical development of cultural ideas on the other. However, as a general rule we can say that most people nowadays will not object in principle to the depiction of the nude figure in art.
S. So far so good. We have established then that today in western art the nude per se is respectable as subject matter for the artist?
P. Evidently so.
S. Yet you have called Picasso’s etchings pornographic, even though, as with the case of Manet, they are considered as artworks and may be shown in prestigious galleries and museums. Are you still of this opinion, and in what sense do they differ?
A. Well my original objection was that they go too far in showing the women in attitudes that may be encountered in pornographic magazines and exposing their genitals to public view.
S. Yet we have agreed that no part of the body, in itself or in its reality, should be considered ‘bad’ or less ‘good’ than any other.
A. Well...., yes we have.
S. And that the obsession with ‘private’ parts of the body in Judeo Christian and Islamic culture as somehow shameful, not to say evil, was perpetrated on the ignorant in order to maintain control over their bodies, and through their bodies their minds and eternal soul; and that in more enlightened times and among more educated classes we have largely got over that. Notwithstanding that we still have this shyness and sense of shame about exposing our bodies to all and sundry: the cultural baggage that you mentioned Pat that we all carry around with us.
A. Yes that is unfortunate; it is something that we find difficulty in overcoming.
P. Quite. It is definitely something learned and not a natural response. I am thinking not only of ‘primitive’ peoples of Africa and south America who went around more or less in a state of nature until they encountered Western missionaries who told them it was ‘wrong’ and that they should cover up; but also I am thinking of a particular case that I read about of a young woman, the daughter of ‘naturist’ parents who was quite used to going around in the nude with people of all ages at weekend camps, and was not shy at the age of twelve to strip off in the shower at school, but when one day she walked out of the changing room without bothering to get dressed was reprimanded by the teacher. Until that day she had no sense of shame about her body, or idea that her nudity could cause offence; it was a sad loss of innocence.
S. Yes, I agree, a true fall from paradise. But let us get back to the subject of nudity in art. Can we make a distinction between representations of the nude in art and the representation of the nude in pornography; and in depictions of the genital regions in particular - that area of the body that seems to make people feel the most uncomfortable?
A. Well, I suppose that we could make a generalised distinction depending on the primary aims of the image makers.
S. And what are those?
A. The aim of the artist is very diverse and multilayered; but, let us say, that historically it was to edify and raise the viewer’s vision to contemplation of the divine, or of the sublime in art and nature.
P. That is certainly true, but today we may have a less elevated concept of the role of art. Now we look for a ‘buzz’ a thrill of delight in sharing in an artist’s ‘take’ on his subject – the way it is painted, the structure of the composition, the use of colour, the ‘expression’ of his psychology and personal point of view, his thoughts and dreams and his struggles to make manifest his aims in the work. What we would call the artist’s ‘vision of the world.’ The artist is putting his innermost thoughts and dreams, his experience and peculiar vision, his insights into the way the world looks and may be represented into his work. ‘Bearing his soul’ for the world to see, some might say.
A. It is difficult to put into words exactly what an artist is up to but yes, as a generalisation I think would go along with what Pat is saying; and in particular that could be a way of looking at the work of an artist like Picasso.
P. All of these may be encountered in all art forms and different genres of art as well as specifically in depictions of the nude.
A. Although we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there may also be an element of voyeurism, as we have said, in all depictions of the nude, and in viewing them, by men or by women; both on the side of the artist and on the side of the viewer.
P. That is true, because of what we were speaking of before: the ’cultural baggage;’ there is always a spark of curiosity, a little frisson of delight in viewing the nude figure, whether in a photograph or painting.
A. Something which the advertising industry knows only too well and plays upon. And possibly something which wasn’t experienced by the teenage girl in your example until after her ‘fall’ from innocence' and her coming ‘down to earth.’
S. Good, so we seem to be saying that the artist, in depicting the nude, as with other subject matter, has his sights set on higher, or at least other, aims than a simple 'topographic' representation of a naked figure, such as might be found in a book on anatomy. He is trying to say something about our relation to the thing represented, or expressing his experience of looking at the thing represented, or ideas about how the thing may be represented. Could we say that is a fair summary of the aims of art?
A. I think I could go along with that.
P. Me too, as a generalisation I think that states the case in clear enough terms.
S. Then, by contrast, what do we think pornography is doing? How does the photographer of images of nude women for a pornographic magazine differ from the artist as we have characterised him; or indeed the well respected photographer of the nude, such as Bill Brandt, Lucien Clergue, Helmut Newton or Robert Mapplethorpe. In what way can the aims or intentions of the two be said to differ?
A. Well, it is difficult to make a clear distinction, particularly I would say in the case of the latter two as their photographs, which often fetishise the nude, can seriously challenge the boundaries of what is 'acceptable.' However, as we have said the artist, and I would generally include here those photographers of the ‘artistic’ nude such as you have mentioned, is aiming at a personal vision, maybe of beauty, maybe of exploring novel ways of representing the figure, or perhaps the expression of his thoughts, dreams and fantasies. His intention is to communicate these through his chosen visual medium, and to communicate ideas and elicit responses above and beyond the mere appearances.
P. Or if he is attempting to purely represent the surface appearance he is doing it from a philosophical standpoint: of the individual confronted by the ‘impossible,’ some might say the ‘heroic’ task of representing in paint as accurately as possible what falls within his visual field; in this case the nude figure. I am thinking here of Lucien Freud, or of those larger than life-size nudes of the American artist Philip Pearlstein.
A. Or perhaps of the extraordinary paintings of the British artist Jenny Saville.
P. Yes, Alex, we can include her, and I would say that I am broadly in agreement with your definition.
S. Well we seem to be in broad agreement there and have made some useful distinctions. But another thought occurs to me: can we say then that there is a distinction between the drawn image and the photograph? That an erotic drawing is ipso facto an artwork and therefore not to be considered in the same light as pornography?
P. I shouldn't think so. Perhaps it depends on the main intention of the artist, or the commissioning body for the piece, what do you think Alex?
A. Well I think that now we are entering a very grey area. Perhaps we could argue that if the primary intention of the commissioning body, and by extension the artist, is to provide an object that will promote sexual arousal, usually in the hope of monetary gain, then, whatever skill or artistic merits may be perceived in the work, I suppose that we should classify it as pornographic.
P. Yes, this would have been primarily the case before the invention of photography. There are erotic drawings depicting episodes of sexual intercourse that were produced for 'gentlemen's' consumption. This activity has largely been taken over by the 'adult' publications that are normally found on the top shelves of the newsagents; and of course nowadays by internet websites.
S. And the author of the pornographic photograph? What are his intentions?
A. Well, by and large I think we can say that his intentions are not ‘artistic’ in the sense that we have defined it, although some photographers of pornography and highly eroticised images may claim artistic merit for their work it is clear that the main motivation is the simple arousal of sexual desire, rather than an attempt to transmit an idea of the artist's experience or feelings, any sense of a personal vision, we might say, through the medium of the nude figure.
P. And there is often a concentration on the most obvious sexual parts, or placement of the model in suggestive poses, in order to stimulate sexual arousal.
A. But this 'concentration' might also apply to many works of art which we think of having a more 'elevated' ambition.
P. Such as the Picasso's we are discussing, So this is a very 'grey area.'
S. Well then, are there any other circumstances where this area of the body has been or may be depicted and emphasised that we would say are not pornographic in intention?
P. Yes, medical publications and books of anatomy, in short anything with a scientific or educational purpose, may render this area in drawings or indeed photographs. They can't be said to be pornographic in intention.
A. No more than Leonardo's anatomical studies where he was dissecting corpses, attempting to understand the human form in all it parts and details, even to the depiction of a child in the womb and the birth canal.
P. Also comes to mind some pictures I saw in an article about performance art, I forget the name of the artist, what you might call 'self portrait' close up photographs of a woman sewing up her vagina; whatever you may think of this act the intention was certainly not erotic but, as the claim would be, a statement of feminist art.
A. Although, as we have said, these images are not intentionally pornographic there may be people who use them to fantasize for sexual gratification.
P. Yes, but you can't account for personal tastes, or 'misuse' of images. In all walks of life there there are people who will deliberately 'misread' an image, a belief system or an idea, to pursue their own agendas. You can't prevent that or legislate for that.
S. As we have seen in the Picasso's to which you have objected. There too the main focus and the central attraction for the eye of the viewer is often the female genital area. Sometimes this will be represented as a simple curved line dividing the pubic triangle and sometimes he will emphasise it with decorative flourishes, turning the vagina into some kind of exotic flower.
A. Yes, it could be seen like that.
S. So, do you think then that Picasso's intention was essentially the same as the photographer of pornography, that is the crude arousal of sexual desire, or does he wish to express other ideas, maybe something about his feelings or experience?
A. Well, I don't find them erotic in that sense; they don't cause feelings in me of sexual arousal or desire. How about you, Pat?
P. No, I would agree, that looking at these images in a gallery or an art book are not the same as looking at the photographs in a pornographic magazine; however, they do arouse in me similar sensations of distaste. They are not images that I particularly want to look at.
S. But isn't this more a question of artistic taste? We have agreed in a former discussion that liking or not liking a work of art, be it a painting, piece of music or a novel, etc. is personal and not something we have a lot of control over. We tend to either like it or not. Looking into the background, reading about the circumstances of its creation, discussing the merits with our friends: all of these can deepen our understanding of a work, but a greater understanding and appreciation doesn't necessarily translate into taking a liking for a piece which, for whatever reason, we dislike; although it ought to make us less likely to dismiss a work as unworthy.
P. I suppose I must agree to that.
S. Well then, to come back to the topic of erotic art, or the representation of eroticised subject matter in general, and to the case of Picasso in particular do we find in these anything other than a desire to represent the sexual act, or the sexual parts for reasons of self gratification? Why do you think these artist were so preoccupied with this subject matter in these works, and can we find an answer to these questions by a closer scrutiny of the works themselves?
We might also consider here the drawings and paintings that Egon Schiele produced between 1910 and 1915 which were so shocking and full in the face at the time that he was described as the pornographer of Vienna, but which are now considered to rank amongst the greatest works of the early 20th century, and which were the subject of a recent exhibition at the prestigious Courtauld Institute.
A. Yes, but even in more recent times artists have fallen foul of the law, or at least of a more restrictive, less liberal attitude on the part of public perceptions. In the seventies the etchings which John Lennon made with the encouragement of Yoko Ono, were seized from a gallery on a charge of indecency. These were fairly simple drawings, showing nothing like the complexity of Picasso's graphic work, but nevertheless very explicit, done I think in the spirit of a rallying call for more freedom, and perhaps with the somewhat innocent or naïve intention of liberating the depiction of the pleasures of sex from the darker regions of the mind, and the exclusive world of the pornographer. He was himself shocked by the reaction of the 'illiberal' comments in parts of the press, whom he thought, and probably rightly, were out to 'get John Lennon.'
P. Yes, there is certainly evidence which has recently come to light, that back then there were establishment figures who saw him and Yoko as a threat (to what exactly it is difficult to imagine), and through the agency of the press sought to denigrate them.
S. But the judge, in his wisdom, threw the case out and the pictures were returned to the gallery, and with the result that through the 'oxygen of publicity' they had a far wider audience. It is at least arguable that this incident, coming after the 'Lady Chatterly' trial brought about a more liberal attitude to the arts and allowed the reinstatement of erotic artworks such as Egon Schiele's.
A. If we look then for a comparison between Lennon's and Picasso's work we see that while Lennon was expressing the simple pleasure of a pair of young lovers in each other's bodies, presumably himself and Yoko, if we look closely at Picasso's works we see that he often shows an older man looking lustfully at and sometimes caressing the body of young woman, sometimes the man might be represented as a sculptor, sometimes as a minotaur, which can be interpreted as a representation of lust. As a man who was well known for his love of women and his sexual exploits these works have been seen as an expression of an older man's nostalgia for his youth and regrets for the loss of his libido.
P. Yes, he certainly was, by all accounts, very active in that department; and, it is said, treated his women abominably, having more than one mistress and keeping them 'in the dark' about each other.
S. As many men have done, in many walks of life, some of whom we deem worthy of our admiration in other spheres of their lives. Should we then, thinking of the case of the artist, condemn the work because we condemn the actions which might have given rise to it?
A. I think not. An artist's work cannot be separated from his character and actions, because these influence the shape that the work takes, and an understanding of the artist's life can throw a light on the work and increase our appreciation, but ultimately we as the viewer should take it on its own merits, as it appears to us, independently of the artist. An artist may lead an exemplary life, or he may have behaved in a morally reprehensible way: Carravagio was on the run for murder, Gauguin abandoned his wife and children, and took an underage Tahitian girl for his mistress...
P. And Richard Dadd killed his dad!
A. Precisely. So an artist like Picasso is giving voice to his feelings and desires, and at the same time pushing the boundaries of artistic expression; and I would say the same about the photographers we have mentioned.
S. And would you say the same about the authors of the purely pornographic image?
A. Well no; I think you may have got me there, Stevie. The author of the purely pornographic image can be quite cynical in his aims if he is 'in it for the money,' which I would think is the main intention in making images which are there purely to titillate, to indulge erotic phantasies and for sexual stimulation. I have to admit, now that we have discussed it in detail, and on reflection, that Picasso's images certainly do more than this.
S. And Pat, what is your judgement now? Would you still insist that the works that you encountered in that exhibition of Picasso's etchings are pornographic?
P. Well, Alex was always stronger in this judgement than I was, but no, now I would have to say that they are not, in the terms that we have defined it, pornography; however, I would categorise them as erotic art – and perhaps a more extreme and blatant end of erotic art, something I am not entirely comfortable in looking at; and while I hope am not considered prudish, perhaps something I am not too keen on looking at again
S. And that is your right and privilege. But I wonder, what is it that makes you feel uncomfortable? I suppose it is specifically the depiction of the genitals. Would I be right?
P. Yes, I suppose it must be that. I find it somewhat shocking. And I suppose I tend to equate that particular depiction with pornographic imagery.
S. Then, thinking back to what we have said about the censorship of Michaelangelo's Last Judgement, if Picasso had drawn in a piece of strategically placed drapery in each of his images then you would not find them so disturbing?
P. Well, the images of the females in these pictures are generally highly charged and provocative in their poses, aside from the particular depiction of that area, but yes, I think that must be so. A less suggestive pose or some covering of that area would make them more pleasing to me.
S. Then wouldn't we think that the work, as well as being less shocking, more 'acceptable,' would be less dramatic? In becoming less revealing it would become less revealing of the artist's imaginative interpretation of his dreams and desires; in fact less honest as an artistic statement?
P. Yes, I have to say that would be so; and as I have conceded, I suppose that I have to change my previous opinion.
S. So to summarise our discussion: firstly, while conceding that these particular images of Picasso's are indeed highly eroticised, with an unconcealed and frank eroticism – he certainly doesn't cloak his feelings and intentions - we agree that his primary intentions are to express his feelings, desires, visions of the female form etc through the medium of art; that his work rises above the merely prurient; and that therefore we have to put them into a separate category from the purely pornographic images that may be found in magazines usually found on the top shelves of the local news agents.
And secondly, that we cannot force ourselves to either like or dislike a particular artwork, but that whatever our personal responses might be to particular images we should be careful not to mis-categorise them due to an antipathy towards them, either through ignorance or hasty judgment.
Would you think that this is a fair summary?
A. Yes, I think so.
B. Agreed.
S. Well it has been a long and very interesting discussion; and I think for my part a beer is called for.
A. Yes; I thought that we were going to settle this debate in a few sentences but it has turned into quite a marathon. However, I do think it was necessary to examine the subject in some detail to do it justice. As for your suggestion of refreshment, Stevie I also agree to that, shall we adjourn to the bar?
P. Yes, let's do that. Alex, I think it is your turn to pay, I still remember your comment on my eating too many sugary things!
That concludes my case for the defence. The astute will make the charge that I have led the discussion by the nose; skewing the argument to reach the conclusion that I required – I can only plead guilty. But then Plato, through whom we know of Socrates' dialogues, however brilliant a writer, was not himself free of intellectual dishonesty in this respect.
The Sophists (so I understand, I am no expert) were more rigorous in their thinking and, like modern lawyers would argue on either side of a case, allowing reason and logic to lead them to the conclusion, however desirous or however unpalatable. But their arguments were not conclusive, leaving the listener in the air having to choose between conflicting alternatives, and thereby leading to a charge of cynicism. Which is the position that we are in today with regards to art: if you think it is art, then for you it is art; if you think it is pornography, then for you it is pornography. Make your choice and go your own way, and be thankful that you are not in a position to have to legislate on the matter.
This imaginary discussion follows the assertion of two friends, reflecting on an exhibition of Picasso’s prints that they had seen, that some of them are pornographic. It is in the form of a Socratic dialogue.
CHARACTERS
Stevie: A philosopher.
Alex and Pat: two friends, students of philosophy.
Pat. We recently saw an exhibition of Picasso’s etchings. I must say we thought some of them were, well... pornographic.
Stevie. Really? I accept that some of his work could be described as erotic, but pornographic? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Alex. They were definitely pornographic: women with their legs apart showing everything they’ve got.....
Stevie. I think I know what you are referring to. They are definitely very ‘strong’ and I can see that some people might take offence at them; and there was a time of course when such openly erotic works by artists would have been hidden from public view. But I would hesitate to call them pornographic. However, I am open to persuasion; should we discuss this and examine the idea?
A. Willingly.
P. Of course; and if you can persuade us we are also open to change.
S. Good - to begin then. Do you think that the portrayal of the naked body is itself in any way pornographic?
A. Well that obviously depends on the way it is portrayed, but as a generalisation I shouldn’t think so; however, that is a very wide question.
P. You are right, Alex. That is too broad a statement; we have to be more specific and deductive in our examination.
S. Good – then we will have to start with the idea of good and evil, or moral and immoral with reference to the portrayal of the human figure.
P. Yes, and to examine that I suppose we have to decide whether a particular good in the world is general or absolute, or specific to the case in question; whether something which is good is always so, or whether it is good in some circumstances and not in others. And, contrariwise, the same with the idea of evil or badness.
S. And from where do we get the idea of 'the good' anyway? Is it just an idea, intuition or feeling of Man’s, or does it stem from God or the nature of some divine essence in creation? It seems that our question is becoming much bigger.
A. That is assuming that there is a God – if there is no God then some would say that ‘anything is permissible.’
S. Sure. Some people have argued that. And therefore it follows that all rules and ethical decisions are man-made and can be altered according to circumstances. But let us see if we can agree on what is good. Can we say that God is all good and cannot create anything that is not good? Of course sometimes some things are not good in a material sense or in their consequences for us, or for other species; as when a storm threatens our lives, for instance. But in essence can we say that God cannot create anything that is not good?
P. I think we can.
A. But as we agreed, that depends on whether or not there is a God.
S. Of course, but if there is no god then everything that is created is just is, and is neither good nor bad.
A. Agreed
S. So if all that is is just is, it is also not not good. Wouldn’t that be so?
A. I think we could say that would be so.
P. I am not sure; it may be harmful, like drinking poison, or a cataclysmic event that will put an end to the world.
A. Or in your case, Pat, eating too many sugary things which will make you fat!
S. Yes, on a personal level, for those things which benefit mankind, or an individual, we can say, without ascribing them to God, that some things are good for us and others may be bad; or good under some circumstances and not so in others. But, in 'the nature' of things, that is to say the condition of created things, there is no morality. The natural world is indifferent to judgements of good and evil. With regard, however, to their impact on us, who are moral beings these are practical and moral decisions. We may come to examine these later when we are discussing the specific case of whether some of Picasso’s works may be considered pornography.
P. Aren’t we doing that now?
S. Yes, but first we have to find a firm basis on which to construct our idea of what we consider good.
A. Quite so.
P. Yes, I can agree on that.
S. So can we agree that as God is all good all things created by God are good; and if created, not by some supreme intelligence but as a result of some cosmic event or accident, then they can’t not be good because they have given rise to us, and the capacity to appreciate the great wonder and beauty of all things created?
A. We can.
P. Yes, we can certainly agree to that.
S. So it follows that the human body is good; in its entirety and in its various parts.
A. It does.
S. Then if we, for the sake of argument, accept that the universe and all in it had a creator (however you wish to conceive of that creator), and all is good, to regard any part of his/her/its creation as something of which to be ashamed, something to be hidden from sight, may be taken as a snub or insult to the creator, God.
A. Yes, surely; but what if there is no creator?
S. Then, as we have said, nothing is neither good nor bad in an absolute sense, everything just is – as it happens to be – and any judgement as to what it is right or wrong to show is a moral issue and purely human, and is therefore capable of change in different circumstances.
P. As, for example, we consider it wrong for a man to touch certain parts of a woman's body without her permission.
A. Although there may be circumstances when this would be considered acceptable. If the woman was unconscious due to an accident and it was imperative that she be moved immediately, perhaps by a bystander, in order to avoid further harm; or if she needed to be examined or her clothing removed by a doctor or paramedic; this would normally be considered permissible.
P. This is fine, but then where do we get the idea that some parts of the body, i.e. those that we call private, should be concealed as much as possible?
S. What do we think? Where does that idea come from, and is it universal in all societies and customs?
A. Certainly it is more prevalent in Western and European societies, those founded on the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don’t think it is so prevalent in Buddhism and Hinduism. We have, for instance, the celebrated example of the sculptures on the Hindu temple of Kajuraho, where voluptuous scenes of sexual congress among the gods are depicted very graphically, even showing actual penetration in some instances; scenes which would never have been countenanced by the Christian church, and which proved so shocking to ‘upright’ early European explorers and the administrators of the British colonial period.
P. And we have the example of the so called ‘uncivilised’ or ‘primitive’ societies of pre colonial Africa, Australia and the Americas where Christian missionaries not only taught the indigenous peoples that their beliefs were wrong, but that it was ‘sinful’ to go around in a state of nature.
A. Also, we must remember, that in pre Christian times, in ancient Greece there are many examples of completely nude statuary, it was later generations that insisted on hiding the genitalia behind a fig leaf. There was what we might describe as a cult of the body: in the male the athlete and soldier and in the female the perfection of beauty. Athletes competed in the nude; although this was an all male affair: women weren't permitted to compete or attend.
P. I think that in Athens that was so; I understand that in Sparta young men and women competed together in the nude.
S. Your example of the Kajuraho temple sculptures, Alex, may be very relevant when we come on to consider Picasso’s erotic oeuvre. Can we think of any other examples previous to the more liberal climate ushered in by the twentieth century?
A. Well the frescos on the walls of the Roman villas in the city of Pompeii comes to mind. The most notorious being the one showing a man weighing his enormous penis on a pair of scales in the House of the Vetti; and images of sexual intercourse found in the House of the Centenary
P. There are also of course examples of medieval erotic sculptures to be found in churches, where the masons or wood carvers have given free rein to their imaginations. They are hard to find but one imagines they were much more prolific before the puritans of later ages destroyed or defaced them.
A. Yes, there is the example of the 'Sheen a-na-gig.' These sculptures, found in Medieval Churches, more commonly in Ireland, are basically representations of a diminutive female displaying an enormous vulva stretched wide by her hands which takes up the greater part of the sculpture. The purpose of this open display of genitalia is not understood but one theory is that placed over doorways they were intended to ward off evil. Whatever the reason it seems to indicate that in former times certain church authorities, for symbolic and or didactic reasons, were happy to permit public display of images of both male and female genitals; and that craftsmen were sometimes indulged in their representations of the act of copulation, such as can be found sometimes in misericords, those often humorous and bawdy carvings found under the choir seats in some churches.
P. And that the representation of sexual parts and sexual congress in a religious context, in addition to being an occasion for simple indulgence in bawdy humour, may also have symbolic overtones.
S. So we can see that, whatever moral judgements may be made and for whatever reasons, be it symbolic, didactic, for erotic pleasure or for the sake of breaking taboos, there is something of a long tradition in art of depicting the genital areas of the body, can we not?
A. Yes, we have to accede to that.
P. Then, more recently, in the nineteenth century there are the Shunga prints of the Ukiyo-e school, of which Utamara, the Japanese master of the woodcut is probably the greatest exponent. These are exquisitely made, beautiful works, but due to their explicit subject matter, every bit as uninhibited as the Kajuraho Temple sculptures, were, in the west, often hidden away. The British Museum, for example, has a large collection, along with many other examples of erotic art from all periods and societies, which until recently were only available to view with special permission, but which are now occasionally put on public display and published in books.
S. From where then do we get this compulsion to cover up and in particular to hide the genital regions, both in life and generally in depictions of the human body? Why should it be OK for a man to expose his finger for instance, or an artist to paint a man’s finger, but not his penis; since, going back to our acceptance that all things created, whether by God or the chance workings of nature, are essentially good? If both are equal creations of God or nature why hide one of them? And if indeed, created by God, then couldn’t it be considered an insult to insist on hiding any part of his creation away from public view?
A. That is an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me before.
Well I suppose there are three reasons why we have come to cover our bodies. The first is purely practical, to keep warm; the second for reasons of morality, because some parts are considered private; and the third for adornment, to beautify: giving rise to fashion and the desire to have a range of clothes to wear.
P. The last is an aesthetic reason, which might also affect the second, we urge people to cover up because we don’t want to see the less pleasing parts of their anatomy.
A. Exactly, Pat. The sight of an overweight forty something shirtless male strolling around the streets of Benidorm, his stomach overflowing knee length Bermuda shorts, is not a pretty one.
P. Quite; in fact Alex the image that you have just planted in my mind is making me feel quite queasy!
A. But to answer your question, Stevie: from where do we get the notion that we should cover up and hide the ‘private’ parts of our bodies? I would say that it comes from Genesis and the doctrine of ‘Man’s first sin.’ And the church and religious thinkers and leaders through the ages have promulgated the idea so that it seems to have become one of the central tenets of belief.
P. And wormed its way into the subconscious minds of ‘civilised’ people everywhere, wouldn’t you agree, Alex?
A. Quite.
S. And why would church leaders wish to do that?
A. Well, in order to control people and their behaviour, I suppose.
P. Principally through indoctrination and a culture of fear. Fear of the body, fear of sexuality and fear of the consequences of disobedience.
A. In this life and the next. If you convince people that their most basic sexual instincts are sinful and if ‘improperly’ directed will lead to eternal damnation, then you have a hold over them.
S. And do we still live in fear of the body and sexuality?
A. Well in many parts of the world, and amongst some religious conservatives, yes; but generally we live in more enlightened times and we have a more rational or liberal acceptance of the body.
P. And representations of the body; certainly in the west. For this reason, maybe, we see the hold on people’s minds by religious authorities generally relaxed, and ‘the church’ in retreat, certainly in the west; although there remain, as you say, Alex, conservative elements, people of strong religious or cultural beliefs, who think that the body should be largely hidden from view.
A. And even some who think that depictions of the nude body are evil.
S. Good, so far; but let’s not get sidetracked by the more extreme views except to consider why, to us, representations of the nude are more acceptable. In the west we live in a community which, historically, had an almost universal acceptance of Christianity. Now that is very much in decline but, nevertheless, it has informed and conditioned, and still strongly influences our cultural background. Yet you said, Alex, that fear of the body is mainly encountered in the Abrahamic religions. Then why, do you suppose that we have such a strong tradition in western art of portraying the nude; and sometimes very ‘fleshy,’ not to say voluptuous portrayals, as for instance, Titian, Rubens and Correggio, right through to Courbet?
A. Well, I suppose it comes from the Renaissance, more specifically the Italian Renaissance, when along with a rediscovery of Roman and Greek sculpture a rebirth of Classical culture occurred; translations of ancient texts and a reassessment of man’s place in the world – a more humanistic approach and a greater focus on life as it is lived now and less of a concentration and sacrifice of the present to the life to come; a greater worldliness. Not only a renaissance of classical ideas but the birth of secularism, might we venture to say?
S. And all this was tolerated by the church and the powers that reigned over the world and men’s minds?
A. Not just tolerated but encouraged by the church in this wider outlook and emergent art of the body. Pope Julius II, for instance was a great patron of the arts, commissioning Michelangelo and others.
Of course there were reactions against this freeing up of men’s minds, and against the depiction of nudity - notably from preachers such as Savonarola who caused the people, in a rage of religious fervour, to discard luxurious lifestyles and destroy their precious artefacts and works of art.
P. The Bonfire of the Vanities!
A. Yes, until the people rebelled against him and he ended up on the bonfire himself. Some also tried to stifle scientific research and the ideas of Galileo, but by and large these were just the birth-pangs of the modern age, and the new freedoms and the spirit of enquiry, which was also the freedom to paint the human body as it is seen, and in new and un-thought of ways, was unstoppable. Previous to this representations of the nude figure were largely confined to Adam and Eve.
P. And images of the dammed being cast into Hell. Such images were religious and strictly Christian, and functioned not just as objects of devotion but were also containers of information, acting almost as instruction manuals for how to avoid sin and lead the good life and thereby ensure a place in Heaven. But the Renaissance and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman art and mythology gave artists a great source of subject matter for depicting the nude, albeit thinly veiled by a cloak of mythological storytelling, but chiefly for its own sake. This also infused much Christian religious art as well.
A. As we see, for example, in Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling and the ‘ignudi,’ representations of the nude male figure which have no reference to Christian iconography. They are there, as far as we can tell, simply because of Michelangelo’s delight in representing the naked male form in athletic poses.
P. And they were accepted by the church, and the popes who regularly prayed in the chapel.
A. Similarly with the figure of the naked Christ which he later painted in the Last Judgement behind the alter, and which clearly depicted his genitals. Even before it was finished, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the work. The most famous complaint being from the Vatican’s Master of Ceremonies, Biagio da Cesena, who said that “it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather for the public baths and taverns.” In revenge, Michelangelo painted him into the lower right corner of the painting as Minos, the mythological king of Crete - with donkey ears indicating foolishness - who after death became one of the three judges of hell, his nudity covered by a snake coiled around him biting his genitals. It is said that when Cesena complained to the Pope, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.
Near the end of Michelangelo's life the Council of Trent ordained that a piece of cloth should be painted over Christ's offending part, and those of the dozens of other totally nude figures. Daniele da Volterra, who had been acquainted with Michelangelo, was then hired to paint loincloths and veils onto all of the figures in the Last Judgment, earning him the nickname “Il Braghetonne”, literally meaning “the breeches maker”.
P. And these additions to the modesty of the participants were over subsequent centuries augmented by further pieces of drapery. These have now been removed in the recent restoration process. But I notice that the 'breeches maker's' additions have remained, no doubt to avoid offending the many visitors that stroll through the chapel.
S. So we can say that during the Renaissance it once again became possible, now against the background of a Christian culture, to represent the nude, at least if it could be justified by the choice of biblical or mythological subject matter.
A. Yes.
S. Can you give us some examples, Pat?
P. Yes indeed. From the Renaissance we can think of Correggio's Antiope Asleep, Titian's Venus of Urbino and Danaë, then Bronzino's Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time, followed by Tintoretto's Susanna and the Elders and Origin of the Milky Way, and then many of Rubens's paintings, such as The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus, the portrait of his wife Héléne Fourment, and several versions of The Judgement of Paris, all of which give him an excuse to delight in the painting of female flesh; then we think of Rembrandt's Bathsheba, which is a tender painting of his young wife, but couched in the guise of a Biblical story. This continues right into the 19th century with 'Classical' artists such as Ingres's La Grande Odalisque and very fleshy Turkish Bath, Regnault's Three Graces and David's Mars Being Disarmed by Venus and the Three Graces, not to mention the ‘salon’ painters such as Bouguereau with his kitschy fantasies (which seem designed to titillate and I would say do border on pornography,) and Boucher's frothy evocations of young women, such as Miss O'Murphy and Diana and Callisto; although their works were biblical or allegorical stories....
A. To give them an aura of respectability.
P. Sure,.... nevertheless they show a strong interest on the part of the artists in representing the nude figure for its own sake.
Then we might mention the Romantic artist Delacroix: think of his Woman With a Parrot and Death of Sardanapalus; or Courbet's The Painter's Studio and his most notorious work: a realistic depiction of the fleshy groin of his favourite model Joanna Hiffernan (who incidentally was Whistler's lover) entitled The Origin of the World. An image which brings us directly back to our consideration of Picasso and provokes controversy and censorship even today, but since its acquisition by the French state is reportedly the second most sold postcard of the Musee d'Orsay.
S. Very much so: then we could argue that the artists you mention were depicting the nude for its own sake but finding justification by ‘clothing’ their maidens and heroes in the vestments of mythology or the Bible?
P. Sure, although it has to be said it is the female form that was mostly painted, and mostly painted by men....
A. And viewed by men....
P. Yes, although there were a few women artists who occasionally tackled the subject prior to the birth of Modernism, such as Lavinia Fontana and that wonderful artist Artemisia Gentileschi; and then in the early 20th century of course we have such notable examples as Susanne Valadon and Laura Knight, and of course nowadays it raises no eyebrows to see paintings and sculptures of the nude by women artists; and female art students work in the life room, drawing from male and female models, alongside their male colleagues.
S. So, would you say then that nowadays depicting the nude, in drawings, paintings and sculptures for its own sake, and not simply in order to study the anatomy of the living form so as to more convincingly depict a clothed figure, is perfectly acceptable subject matter for the artist; and furthermore that it has even achieved a noble status in the cannon of art.
A. Yes, I think we can.
P. As a broad statement yes; although I think we can’t deny that an element of voyeurism is there, and probably always will be because of the fact that what is normally hidden or ‘prohibited’ has a fascination for us, and due also to the cultural baggage that we all carry around.
S. So far so good. Can we say then when this change from ‘the nude as carrier of Biblical and mythological messages’ to ‘the art of the nude’ came about?
P. Well, I would suggest it happened in the late 19th century. There may have been isolated examples of course, in the years preceding, but the big change, the big shock we might say, came in 1865 when Manet showed his Modern Olympia. This was basically a pastiche of Titian’s depiction of Venus, but updated to a modern setting, with a modern young woman; a young woman moreover who would have been recognised, known to Parisian society as a courtesan; this was shocking to the public.
A. And then he followed this up with the even more provocative Dejuner sur l’Herb, or picnic on the grass, which took Georgione’s Music Party as a model and showed a nude woman seated with two clothed men, thought to be set in the Bois de Boulogne in Paris, a place associated at the time with prostitution. This painting was seen as scandalous, called by the Emperor Napoleon III as an 'offence to human decency' and caused the Salon de Refuses, where it was shown, to be shut down.
S. And why was that, do you suppose?
A. Well, they were too ‘modern.’ Apart from the ‘flat’ technique of painting, which critics also objected to, they were depicting nude women in a modern setting, virtually stripped of all classical reference. They were thought to be immoral.
S. Pornographic?
A. Possibly. The paintings of Titian and Giorgione were perfectly respectable, and men from respectable ‘society’ could look at them in the company of their wives; but these paintings from the young upstart Manet were considered beyond the pail.
S. And now they are thought to be perfectly acceptable, and are exhibited in the world’s leading galleries, are they not?
A. Yes. The public in general, at least in western societies, have no problem with nudity as such in artworks.
P. Although there are some groups, I am thinking of conservative Muslims and maybe some conservative Christian and other groups who have a problem with nudity in art.
A. Yes, those who, at the risk of generalising, we could say have little interest in or understanding of the role of art in society on the one hand, or the historical development of cultural ideas on the other. However, as a general rule we can say that most people nowadays will not object in principle to the depiction of the nude figure in art.
S. So far so good. We have established then that today in western art the nude per se is respectable as subject matter for the artist?
P. Evidently so.
S. Yet you have called Picasso’s etchings pornographic, even though, as with the case of Manet, they are considered as artworks and may be shown in prestigious galleries and museums. Are you still of this opinion, and in what sense do they differ?
A. Well my original objection was that they go too far in showing the women in attitudes that may be encountered in pornographic magazines and exposing their genitals to public view.
S. Yet we have agreed that no part of the body, in itself or in its reality, should be considered ‘bad’ or less ‘good’ than any other.
A. Well...., yes we have.
S. And that the obsession with ‘private’ parts of the body in Judeo Christian and Islamic culture as somehow shameful, not to say evil, was perpetrated on the ignorant in order to maintain control over their bodies, and through their bodies their minds and eternal soul; and that in more enlightened times and among more educated classes we have largely got over that. Notwithstanding that we still have this shyness and sense of shame about exposing our bodies to all and sundry: the cultural baggage that you mentioned Pat that we all carry around with us.
A. Yes that is unfortunate; it is something that we find difficulty in overcoming.
P. Quite. It is definitely something learned and not a natural response. I am thinking not only of ‘primitive’ peoples of Africa and south America who went around more or less in a state of nature until they encountered Western missionaries who told them it was ‘wrong’ and that they should cover up; but also I am thinking of a particular case that I read about of a young woman, the daughter of ‘naturist’ parents who was quite used to going around in the nude with people of all ages at weekend camps, and was not shy at the age of twelve to strip off in the shower at school, but when one day she walked out of the changing room without bothering to get dressed was reprimanded by the teacher. Until that day she had no sense of shame about her body, or idea that her nudity could cause offence; it was a sad loss of innocence.
S. Yes, I agree, a true fall from paradise. But let us get back to the subject of nudity in art. Can we make a distinction between representations of the nude in art and the representation of the nude in pornography; and in depictions of the genital regions in particular - that area of the body that seems to make people feel the most uncomfortable?
A. Well, I suppose that we could make a generalised distinction depending on the primary aims of the image makers.
S. And what are those?
A. The aim of the artist is very diverse and multilayered; but, let us say, that historically it was to edify and raise the viewer’s vision to contemplation of the divine, or of the sublime in art and nature.
P. That is certainly true, but today we may have a less elevated concept of the role of art. Now we look for a ‘buzz’ a thrill of delight in sharing in an artist’s ‘take’ on his subject – the way it is painted, the structure of the composition, the use of colour, the ‘expression’ of his psychology and personal point of view, his thoughts and dreams and his struggles to make manifest his aims in the work. What we would call the artist’s ‘vision of the world.’ The artist is putting his innermost thoughts and dreams, his experience and peculiar vision, his insights into the way the world looks and may be represented into his work. ‘Bearing his soul’ for the world to see, some might say.
A. It is difficult to put into words exactly what an artist is up to but yes, as a generalisation I think would go along with what Pat is saying; and in particular that could be a way of looking at the work of an artist like Picasso.
P. All of these may be encountered in all art forms and different genres of art as well as specifically in depictions of the nude.
A. Although we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there may also be an element of voyeurism, as we have said, in all depictions of the nude, and in viewing them, by men or by women; both on the side of the artist and on the side of the viewer.
P. That is true, because of what we were speaking of before: the ’cultural baggage;’ there is always a spark of curiosity, a little frisson of delight in viewing the nude figure, whether in a photograph or painting.
A. Something which the advertising industry knows only too well and plays upon. And possibly something which wasn’t experienced by the teenage girl in your example until after her ‘fall’ from innocence' and her coming ‘down to earth.’
S. Good, so we seem to be saying that the artist, in depicting the nude, as with other subject matter, has his sights set on higher, or at least other, aims than a simple 'topographic' representation of a naked figure, such as might be found in a book on anatomy. He is trying to say something about our relation to the thing represented, or expressing his experience of looking at the thing represented, or ideas about how the thing may be represented. Could we say that is a fair summary of the aims of art?
A. I think I could go along with that.
P. Me too, as a generalisation I think that states the case in clear enough terms.
S. Then, by contrast, what do we think pornography is doing? How does the photographer of images of nude women for a pornographic magazine differ from the artist as we have characterised him; or indeed the well respected photographer of the nude, such as Bill Brandt, Lucien Clergue, Helmut Newton or Robert Mapplethorpe. In what way can the aims or intentions of the two be said to differ?
A. Well, it is difficult to make a clear distinction, particularly I would say in the case of the latter two as their photographs, which often fetishise the nude, can seriously challenge the boundaries of what is 'acceptable.' However, as we have said the artist, and I would generally include here those photographers of the ‘artistic’ nude such as you have mentioned, is aiming at a personal vision, maybe of beauty, maybe of exploring novel ways of representing the figure, or perhaps the expression of his thoughts, dreams and fantasies. His intention is to communicate these through his chosen visual medium, and to communicate ideas and elicit responses above and beyond the mere appearances.
P. Or if he is attempting to purely represent the surface appearance he is doing it from a philosophical standpoint: of the individual confronted by the ‘impossible,’ some might say the ‘heroic’ task of representing in paint as accurately as possible what falls within his visual field; in this case the nude figure. I am thinking here of Lucien Freud, or of those larger than life-size nudes of the American artist Philip Pearlstein.
A. Or perhaps of the extraordinary paintings of the British artist Jenny Saville.
P. Yes, Alex, we can include her, and I would say that I am broadly in agreement with your definition.
S. Well we seem to be in broad agreement there and have made some useful distinctions. But another thought occurs to me: can we say then that there is a distinction between the drawn image and the photograph? That an erotic drawing is ipso facto an artwork and therefore not to be considered in the same light as pornography?
P. I shouldn't think so. Perhaps it depends on the main intention of the artist, or the commissioning body for the piece, what do you think Alex?
A. Well I think that now we are entering a very grey area. Perhaps we could argue that if the primary intention of the commissioning body, and by extension the artist, is to provide an object that will promote sexual arousal, usually in the hope of monetary gain, then, whatever skill or artistic merits may be perceived in the work, I suppose that we should classify it as pornographic.
P. Yes, this would have been primarily the case before the invention of photography. There are erotic drawings depicting episodes of sexual intercourse that were produced for 'gentlemen's' consumption. This activity has largely been taken over by the 'adult' publications that are normally found on the top shelves of the newsagents; and of course nowadays by internet websites.
S. And the author of the pornographic photograph? What are his intentions?
A. Well, by and large I think we can say that his intentions are not ‘artistic’ in the sense that we have defined it, although some photographers of pornography and highly eroticised images may claim artistic merit for their work it is clear that the main motivation is the simple arousal of sexual desire, rather than an attempt to transmit an idea of the artist's experience or feelings, any sense of a personal vision, we might say, through the medium of the nude figure.
P. And there is often a concentration on the most obvious sexual parts, or placement of the model in suggestive poses, in order to stimulate sexual arousal.
A. But this 'concentration' might also apply to many works of art which we think of having a more 'elevated' ambition.
P. Such as the Picasso's we are discussing, So this is a very 'grey area.'
S. Well then, are there any other circumstances where this area of the body has been or may be depicted and emphasised that we would say are not pornographic in intention?
P. Yes, medical publications and books of anatomy, in short anything with a scientific or educational purpose, may render this area in drawings or indeed photographs. They can't be said to be pornographic in intention.
A. No more than Leonardo's anatomical studies where he was dissecting corpses, attempting to understand the human form in all it parts and details, even to the depiction of a child in the womb and the birth canal.
P. Also comes to mind some pictures I saw in an article about performance art, I forget the name of the artist, what you might call 'self portrait' close up photographs of a woman sewing up her vagina; whatever you may think of this act the intention was certainly not erotic but, as the claim would be, a statement of feminist art.
A. Although, as we have said, these images are not intentionally pornographic there may be people who use them to fantasize for sexual gratification.
P. Yes, but you can't account for personal tastes, or 'misuse' of images. In all walks of life there there are people who will deliberately 'misread' an image, a belief system or an idea, to pursue their own agendas. You can't prevent that or legislate for that.
S. As we have seen in the Picasso's to which you have objected. There too the main focus and the central attraction for the eye of the viewer is often the female genital area. Sometimes this will be represented as a simple curved line dividing the pubic triangle and sometimes he will emphasise it with decorative flourishes, turning the vagina into some kind of exotic flower.
A. Yes, it could be seen like that.
S. So, do you think then that Picasso's intention was essentially the same as the photographer of pornography, that is the crude arousal of sexual desire, or does he wish to express other ideas, maybe something about his feelings or experience?
A. Well, I don't find them erotic in that sense; they don't cause feelings in me of sexual arousal or desire. How about you, Pat?
P. No, I would agree, that looking at these images in a gallery or an art book are not the same as looking at the photographs in a pornographic magazine; however, they do arouse in me similar sensations of distaste. They are not images that I particularly want to look at.
S. But isn't this more a question of artistic taste? We have agreed in a former discussion that liking or not liking a work of art, be it a painting, piece of music or a novel, etc. is personal and not something we have a lot of control over. We tend to either like it or not. Looking into the background, reading about the circumstances of its creation, discussing the merits with our friends: all of these can deepen our understanding of a work, but a greater understanding and appreciation doesn't necessarily translate into taking a liking for a piece which, for whatever reason, we dislike; although it ought to make us less likely to dismiss a work as unworthy.
P. I suppose I must agree to that.
S. Well then, to come back to the topic of erotic art, or the representation of eroticised subject matter in general, and to the case of Picasso in particular do we find in these anything other than a desire to represent the sexual act, or the sexual parts for reasons of self gratification? Why do you think these artist were so preoccupied with this subject matter in these works, and can we find an answer to these questions by a closer scrutiny of the works themselves?
We might also consider here the drawings and paintings that Egon Schiele produced between 1910 and 1915 which were so shocking and full in the face at the time that he was described as the pornographer of Vienna, but which are now considered to rank amongst the greatest works of the early 20th century, and which were the subject of a recent exhibition at the prestigious Courtauld Institute.
A. Yes, but even in more recent times artists have fallen foul of the law, or at least of a more restrictive, less liberal attitude on the part of public perceptions. In the seventies the etchings which John Lennon made with the encouragement of Yoko Ono, were seized from a gallery on a charge of indecency. These were fairly simple drawings, showing nothing like the complexity of Picasso's graphic work, but nevertheless very explicit, done I think in the spirit of a rallying call for more freedom, and perhaps with the somewhat innocent or naïve intention of liberating the depiction of the pleasures of sex from the darker regions of the mind, and the exclusive world of the pornographer. He was himself shocked by the reaction of the 'illiberal' comments in parts of the press, whom he thought, and probably rightly, were out to 'get John Lennon.'
P. Yes, there is certainly evidence which has recently come to light, that back then there were establishment figures who saw him and Yoko as a threat (to what exactly it is difficult to imagine), and through the agency of the press sought to denigrate them.
S. But the judge, in his wisdom, threw the case out and the pictures were returned to the gallery, and with the result that through the 'oxygen of publicity' they had a far wider audience. It is at least arguable that this incident, coming after the 'Lady Chatterly' trial brought about a more liberal attitude to the arts and allowed the reinstatement of erotic artworks such as Egon Schiele's.
A. If we look then for a comparison between Lennon's and Picasso's work we see that while Lennon was expressing the simple pleasure of a pair of young lovers in each other's bodies, presumably himself and Yoko, if we look closely at Picasso's works we see that he often shows an older man looking lustfully at and sometimes caressing the body of young woman, sometimes the man might be represented as a sculptor, sometimes as a minotaur, which can be interpreted as a representation of lust. As a man who was well known for his love of women and his sexual exploits these works have been seen as an expression of an older man's nostalgia for his youth and regrets for the loss of his libido.
P. Yes, he certainly was, by all accounts, very active in that department; and, it is said, treated his women abominably, having more than one mistress and keeping them 'in the dark' about each other.
S. As many men have done, in many walks of life, some of whom we deem worthy of our admiration in other spheres of their lives. Should we then, thinking of the case of the artist, condemn the work because we condemn the actions which might have given rise to it?
A. I think not. An artist's work cannot be separated from his character and actions, because these influence the shape that the work takes, and an understanding of the artist's life can throw a light on the work and increase our appreciation, but ultimately we as the viewer should take it on its own merits, as it appears to us, independently of the artist. An artist may lead an exemplary life, or he may have behaved in a morally reprehensible way: Carravagio was on the run for murder, Gauguin abandoned his wife and children, and took an underage Tahitian girl for his mistress...
P. And Richard Dadd killed his dad!
A. Precisely. So an artist like Picasso is giving voice to his feelings and desires, and at the same time pushing the boundaries of artistic expression; and I would say the same about the photographers we have mentioned.
S. And would you say the same about the authors of the purely pornographic image?
A. Well no; I think you may have got me there, Stevie. The author of the purely pornographic image can be quite cynical in his aims if he is 'in it for the money,' which I would think is the main intention in making images which are there purely to titillate, to indulge erotic phantasies and for sexual stimulation. I have to admit, now that we have discussed it in detail, and on reflection, that Picasso's images certainly do more than this.
S. And Pat, what is your judgement now? Would you still insist that the works that you encountered in that exhibition of Picasso's etchings are pornographic?
P. Well, Alex was always stronger in this judgement than I was, but no, now I would have to say that they are not, in the terms that we have defined it, pornography; however, I would categorise them as erotic art – and perhaps a more extreme and blatant end of erotic art, something I am not entirely comfortable in looking at; and while I hope am not considered prudish, perhaps something I am not too keen on looking at again
S. And that is your right and privilege. But I wonder, what is it that makes you feel uncomfortable? I suppose it is specifically the depiction of the genitals. Would I be right?
P. Yes, I suppose it must be that. I find it somewhat shocking. And I suppose I tend to equate that particular depiction with pornographic imagery.
S. Then, thinking back to what we have said about the censorship of Michaelangelo's Last Judgement, if Picasso had drawn in a piece of strategically placed drapery in each of his images then you would not find them so disturbing?
P. Well, the images of the females in these pictures are generally highly charged and provocative in their poses, aside from the particular depiction of that area, but yes, I think that must be so. A less suggestive pose or some covering of that area would make them more pleasing to me.
S. Then wouldn't we think that the work, as well as being less shocking, more 'acceptable,' would be less dramatic? In becoming less revealing it would become less revealing of the artist's imaginative interpretation of his dreams and desires; in fact less honest as an artistic statement?
P. Yes, I have to say that would be so; and as I have conceded, I suppose that I have to change my previous opinion.
S. So to summarise our discussion: firstly, while conceding that these particular images of Picasso's are indeed highly eroticised, with an unconcealed and frank eroticism – he certainly doesn't cloak his feelings and intentions - we agree that his primary intentions are to express his feelings, desires, visions of the female form etc through the medium of art; that his work rises above the merely prurient; and that therefore we have to put them into a separate category from the purely pornographic images that may be found in magazines usually found on the top shelves of the local news agents.
And secondly, that we cannot force ourselves to either like or dislike a particular artwork, but that whatever our personal responses might be to particular images we should be careful not to mis-categorise them due to an antipathy towards them, either through ignorance or hasty judgment.
Would you think that this is a fair summary?
A. Yes, I think so.
B. Agreed.
S. Well it has been a long and very interesting discussion; and I think for my part a beer is called for.
A. Yes; I thought that we were going to settle this debate in a few sentences but it has turned into quite a marathon. However, I do think it was necessary to examine the subject in some detail to do it justice. As for your suggestion of refreshment, Stevie I also agree to that, shall we adjourn to the bar?
P. Yes, let's do that. Alex, I think it is your turn to pay, I still remember your comment on my eating too many sugary things!
That concludes my case for the defence. The astute will make the charge that I have led the discussion by the nose; skewing the argument to reach the conclusion that I required – I can only plead guilty. But then Plato, through whom we know of Socrates' dialogues, however brilliant a writer, was not himself free of intellectual dishonesty in this respect.
The Sophists (so I understand, I am no expert) were more rigorous in their thinking and, like modern lawyers would argue on either side of a case, allowing reason and logic to lead them to the conclusion, however desirous or however unpalatable. But their arguments were not conclusive, leaving the listener in the air having to choose between conflicting alternatives, and thereby leading to a charge of cynicism. Which is the position that we are in today with regards to art: if you think it is art, then for you it is art; if you think it is pornography, then for you it is pornography. Make your choice and go your own way, and be thankful that you are not in a position to have to legislate on the matter.