By Alons Artero
“Lust–Rejection. In general, and apart from other considerations, these are the two emotions produced in us by the sight of the naked body. Reflecting on this fact may open the door to a new, more balanced and healthier vision. Perhaps Phidias would nod with a smile.”
The preceding text was the mental response I gave to a question that was asked of me. A reminder note, to be expanded later. What follows is that expansion.
Although these are basically the two emotional reactions to the sight of a nude, in these lines I will deal only briefly with “rejection.” Lust is more evident and easier to understand. Nor will I speak of a third vision or attitude which, although basic and innate, is inhibited and repressed from the earliest influences of culture and education that shape the child’s mind. This vision or attitude may take years to recover. Some never recover it. And yet it is the most natural, balanced, and healthy.
Years ago I held an exhibition. A fellow painter attended with her 10- or 12-year-old daughter, whom I will call Valéria. At one point they approached me and my colleague told me that her daughter wanted to ask me a question. Valéria asked me, visibly upset and offended: “Why do you paint nudes? What need is there?”
I could have answered like the famous Catalan sculptor Clarà, when he was asked why all his sculptures were nudes. He replied: “Because I prefer to copy the work of God rather than the work of a tailor.” But a child, or an honest adult, does not deserve such an answer, however poetic and witty it may seem.
If the nude is indecent and immoral, why is it compulsory study and practice in all official Schools of Fine Arts?
At that moment I replied: “Why not (paint them)? In a few years, ask me the question again and I will gladly answer you as you deserve,” aware that she was too young and too upset to understand a reasoned explanation.
With the passage of time, and reflecting on the question and on the attitude of rejection toward the nude, I realized that she was not the only one who needed an explanation. A couple of examples will illustrate this:
While still an art student, I went on vacation to Paris. In addition to visiting the Louvre and other exhibitions, I bought several art books. One of them was confiscated at the border for being considered “pornography,” due to the nudes it contained.
On another occasion, at an exhibition I held, the gallery managers forced me to remove a painting of a nude, considering it offensive, immodest, and immoral.
“Why paint (draw, sculpt) nudes?”
Not everyone who asks this question dares to express it aloud, as that girl did, because they have lost the unconscious spontaneity and courage that childhood innocence confers. That does not make them any less deserving of an explanation.
Erudite treatises have been written and cultural TV programs have been produced about the nude in art, to which one may turn for a more comprehensive view.
Here I only intend to offer a couple of facts and ideas that help answer the question and, more importantly, to understand why we raise the question in the first place.
Are we aware that this rejection, this discomfort before the nude, is not innate, that it is something learned, instilled by a particular culture and education?
The first recorded reference we possess, in our Judeo-Christian culture of rejection of nudity, is found in the Bible. Genesis 3:8–11: “But the Lord God called to the man (Adam) and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ And he said, ‘I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.’ And God said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?’”
Before disobeying the divine command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had felt neither guilt nor shame, as shown by God’s question: “Who told you that you were naked?”
And why is being naked a problem now? This implies that before disobedience to the divine command, nakedness was not a problem.
Let us look at other cultures. And I will not mention the Bushmen of Africa, nor some tribes of Mato Grosso in Brazil, so that it cannot be said they are uncivilized peoples.
In Greece they practiced a cult of the naked body. With one small detail: until Phidias, the male nude could be reproduced, but representing the female nude was forbidden, as it was considered impure and lacking beauty. Today that stale, age-old machismo would make us smile.
Until the mid-twentieth century, women were not allowed to study at an official School of Fine Arts. Perhaps to protect them… but from what?
Let us look at India.
Let us remember that astronomy in India, together with China, was among the most advanced in the world. And the mathematics that replaced Roman numerals reached us from India, through the Arabs.
Well then, sculptures of nudes, with explicit sexuality—without discrimination of gender—are found in Hindu temples, the most sacred places revered by a great majority of Hindus. Thus we can see that rejection of the representation of the naked body is not universal, but cultural and specific to a particular time, place, and society.
Some artists of the past rebelled against this “taboo” related to the representation of the naked body.
It is obvious that posing the question obeys prior conditioning.
I found on Google this phrase attributed to Albert Einstein: “Beauty resides in the heart of the one who contemplates it.” And the following comment: “This phrase reminds us that beauty is not only a matter of appearance, but an inner sensitivity that we must cultivate from childhood.”
To Einstein’s phrase one might add: Beauty and indecency reside in the heart of the one who contemplates it.
This is not intended to pass a Manichean judgment on the viewer. Quite the contrary, since it is in our hearts, in our minds, we have the capacity, the power, the freedom to choose. It is simply a matter of decision and will.
Thank you, Valéria.