From: Christina Z. Anderson (tracez@mcn.net)
Date: 09/13/00-06:19:42 PM Z
> You appear to have forgotten about the Greeks and Roman. Just have a
> look at their sculpture. You will many examples of the female body
> presented as beauty and perfection.
> Sandy King
I suppose I should jump in here and answer some of your questions, Sandy,
since my book was discussed. First of all, you are right, that the nude in
Greek and Roman times was both male and female, and the body appeared fairly
perfectable. However, as Judy pointed out, the nude first appeared in Greek
and Roman times as male, fully 300 years before the female nude appeared,
because it was the male body that was considered pretty darn incredible,
which it is. And, for lots of other reasons, the male body was the norm for
the nude. When the female body appeared, it appeared in a chaste way
(first, of course, clothed statues were the norm, and then the naked body
appeared in the Knidian Aphrodite), not in a "proud to be nude, let's let it
all hang out" kind of stance that was the norm for the male body. It
appeared as chaste, vulnerable, and covering (barely) certain body parts,
aside from the fact that body hair if you know what I mean was not even
suggested. This, of course, all applied to the societal conditions of the
time.
Then, the nude in general disappeared from vogue for about 1000 years
and came back again during the Renaissance, first in male form, just as
before, and then the female form. However, it wasn't until much later in
art history that the female form almost became synonymous with "nude",
because still in the Renaissance the female body was thought to be
disproportionate and unmathematical. Unpredictable, perhaps?
Since the Renaissance, we have had certain stereotypes continually crop
up in the representation of women nudes--the modest nude, the reclining nude
or whatever, that have continued to define women in a pretty narrow way,
i.e. sexually. Hey, I love a sexy nude, many modern artists doing a great
job with the nude in erotic ways and even stereotypical ways (Tom Wesselman,
Eric Fischl, for instance) but the point of my book and also the point of
much current art photography and art in general nowadays is to represent the
body in all its facets, real, old, young, imperfect, active, scarred, etc.
that gives a more realistic framework within which to place "woman" as a
whole.So it's more of an update, if you will, that can round out the typical
represention we see of the female body.
> OK, I have some questions. Neutral questions I believe, at least my
> perspective on nude photography is pretty neutral.
>
The body in art is never neutral; it could never be. It always says
things about the artist and the time period in which the art occurs. It's
how we view ourselves. I personally have a problem with Joel Peter Witkin's
use of the body (gasp--how politically incorrect I am) because he degrades
it. You could defend him until blue in the face and I would still say that
however honorable his intentions are, artistically, the effect on the viewer
is a negative one. It must turn some on because people buy his work. For
me it's a crock. Man, am I opening a can of worms here....> Judy Seigel
wrote:
>
> >
> >The objection, as Greg points out, is the pretense that the eroticized
> >stereotype of slender, young, sexually attractive women is a "neutral art
> >convention." (If that's "neutral," I'm the Queen of the May.)
>
> What is a "neutral art convention"? Is neutral art somehow of a
> higher order than non-neutral art?
>
>
>
> > And the
> >stereotype *is,* in a variety of ways, harmful to all women -- as I've
> >written at greater length elsewhere, even on this list (tho I don't
recall
> >the subject line, it went on for a while).
>
>
> What exactly is harmful to women in your opinion, the erotic
> presentation of women, or the "eroticized stereotype"? Is there a
> difference? And who is being harmed, the woman that offers herself
> for erotic or eroticized presentation, or the woman who views these
> presentations.
> Neither: what can be harmful is a society that expects women to fit into
certain molds of beauty. Men, too. I think the muscular male nude can do
as much a disservice to men, as beautiful as it is to look at.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT