The other day in my art class, I got very little respectful feedback from
my (adult) classmates, and this due to the subject of my project.
Indeed, I dared to draw a naked body, and my drawing was instantly
called obscene. I utterly disagree.
First of all, nudity is the obligatory way to represent anatomy
and all its details; we can see for example in all the statues and
paintings representing Greek or Biblical heroes that the hero is naked
to show his strength with the details of the muscles and his sacredness
(Michelangelo's David or other Italian contemporaries), or even today to
show the extreme humanity of the subject (Schiele, Gauguin, etc).
Linked to that, we can affirm that nudity is the purest form of
humanity (and was used to show one's humanity in medieval religious
paintings, like Adam and Eve), or represented the sacredness of a being
(gods in mythological paintings of the following time period, like in
Boticelli's Birth of Venus) and therefore is in itself the opposite of
obscenity.
Now, I agree that many artists (Rodin, Buffet, etc.) used nudity
for eroticism, whose point is obscenity, and that it can hardly reach this
goal without naked figures. But eroticism is very different from nudity,
for the simple reason that eroticism seeks to shock the viewer through
obscenity and nudity to convey the human or sacred atmosphere.
So, if there is nudity in my works, it doesn't make them obscene.
It shows the aesthetic of the body, the humanity in the characters, and
transforms the atmosphere to something deistic. And disrespecting them
because of that is absolutely idiotic.
Marlene
No comments:
Post a Comment