vince’s ear

Sigmund Freud once said “Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar.” This was long after the father of psychoanalysis wrote his books on the interpretation of dreams and hypothesized that symbols play a large role in dreams. You may have heard his famous comparison of a dream cigar to a penis (does it work vice versa?). When he made the aforementioned comment, he was stating that sometimes you need not read too into it, be it a dream or a “Freudian slip.” But then again, sometimes you do need to look underneath the surface and question what it is you are really seeing. That phallus in the castle on the cover of “Little Mermaid” is unmistakably real and not a figment of your suppressed subconscious. So let’s just call a nut a nut.

This post is a sequel to yesterday’s post Art or Pornography? in which we looked at some examples of controversial art throughout the centuries and how societies have differed in their interpretation of them. While the sex-charged frescoes of Pompeii were commonplace and hardly considered vulgar to ancient Romans, Europe in the Victorian Age of the 19th century generally held much different views on nudity in art. Today we generally see a more relaxed view on nudity in fine art, like in Antiquity. It’s safe to say that what we call pornographic versus fine art may depend on our culture and the time we live in. While culturally we differ from the liberalness of Pompeii, at least we can get away with creating art similar to theirs. So when in Rome…

I was given a link to an interesting article (kudos goes to Karen!) about Leonardo and certain body parts appearing in his work called Divertimento da Vinci. The blog concentrates on symbolism used in Leonardo’s work and the influence of Hermeticism (a religion involving magic and ancient Egyptian rituals) in art. The particular post was called “Do You See Leonardo’s Penis?” and asks the straightforward question about a drawing called Virgin and Child With Saint Anne and John the Baptist. This reminds me of my post Disrobed: Nude Paintings, Sculpture, and Photography and my spin on hidden sex references, but more on that in a minute.

Take a closer look at the left arm of Jesus as it touches John’s chin. If you give up, click on the picture for a better view. I know what some people might say, “Get your mind out of the gutter” or “You just have a dirty mind.” And while these may be true, you can’t ignore some of the signs that point to penis here: the significant veins, the thick wrist, the lack of strong contours of individual fingers, the too strong outline of the hand/glans.

If this is truly a penis showing up in Leonardo’s picture of the Baby Christ, then the question now is, “why?” First of all Leonardo has been known to include drawings and studies of the penis in his notebooks and standalone drawings, as well as androgynous figures- the Mona Lisa’s face resembles features of his own, the figure to the picture-left side of Christ in the Last Supper, Saint John, etc. So it doesn’t come as too much of a surprise to see this. Freud wrote about Leonardo’s childhood involving the painting version of Virgin and Child, With Saint Anne saying that a vulture is apparent in the folds of the Virgin’s clothing. This comes from a possible passive homosexual fantasy of Leonardo involving an attack by a vulture’s (kite?) tail in his crib. Whether this theory is true or not I believe there is much about this Renaissance Man that we will never begin to understand; he is a very interesting artist full of mystery.

Leonardo was not the only artist of the High Renaissance to include such ambiguous clues in his art. See some of the Ignudi on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel painted by Michelangelo Buonarotti (see above.) We know Michelangelo’s sexual preferences now and try as some historians may, they are undisputed. The only woman who he was friends with acted “butch,” and he said she was more a man than many men were. It is known that a grand nephew of his altered a collection of many sonnets that the artist wrote in prose involving a sexual interest he had with a young assistant before he died. In every instance of male reference (he, him, etc.) the words were changed to female. The Ignudi such as the one seen above were simply meant to be muscular nude athletes (”Man is the measure of all things…”), had no reference in the Bible and angered many Church leaders who claimed they were a stew of naked flesh. Michelangelo was a crafty man, and although the olives may have been biblical in nature, it certainly seems he pulled a fast one on the Pope and cardinals, and included a clear reference to the male body part, intact with foreskin and all.

Psychologists such as Freud, I’m sure, have many interpretations of Leonardo’s arm, etc. and some of them make good points. However, as I said in the Nude Art post, a more on the surface explanation might be the answer. It is a well known fact to advertisers and other visual media professions that the subconscious plays a large role in our conscious actions. Therefore little tricks can be played on the sub-mind to conjure up strong emotion designed to do one thing: buy. Could it be these artists knew of this trick to get people to buy their art? It’s absolutely possible.

While the penis tower on the Little Mermaid is probably a prank played by some overworked and underpaid graphic artists, advertisers in big media are much more deliberate in their schemes. It is not uncommon to uncover a hidden skull in an ice cube, a vagina in a flower, the words “sex,” “fuck,” “death,” and “die” on labels, soda machines, and anything else. The main purpose is to create strong emotions relating to our most strongest of concerns- sex and death. You’ll also see strange things to make the subconscious do a double take such as a third arm appearing on people and much more complex situations that our logical thinking conscious would barely believe.

The Dutch word for “sex” was found written in the background, barely visible in one of Rembrandt’s paintings. Little tricks like this may have caused subconscious feelings that will make the viewer remember the “product” and unknowingly wish to have it, or at the very least think about it more and more. Another example is Rembrandt’s “Night Watch.” It is easy to argue against instances of subliminal advertising because you will always find them in the most subtlest of ways. Take the shadow from the Captain’s hand draping across the cross of the Lieutenant. In a way it appears the boss is copping a feel on the subordinate’s genitals.

Georgia O’Keefe (see Ice cave above) was a nineteenth century American master who painted flowers and skulls, and other nature scenes mostly from around her native New Mexico. The flowers were often very vaginal in appearance, and if asked, I don’t even think she could deny it. She was known for her blending of representation and abstraction, so why not make the flowers look a vagina?

These all could possibly follow along with the advertiser’s motives as far as inducing a sale. I believe the subliminal advertising tricks went away mostly in the seventies but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of it today. Although today modesty is a forgotten virtue and soon you’ll probably see the naked bodies anyway. So much for subliminal.

Or in the case I think of Michelangelo little things like these could be subtle jokes, or Georgia O’Keefe who painted what she wanted to paint. They don’t require answers.

We all know sex sells. And I think it would be a good time to let you know, this whole sex post has been a ploy of mine to get you to buy my Kindle book. Your subconscious can’t deny it.

Suckers!

Art versus pornography: the Mona Lisa versus “Moaning Lisa,” the “piece de resistance” versus a piece of a-… you get the picture. We can all agree that classic works of art such as Leonardo’s mysterious La Gioconda are in a higher league and quite different than regular porn store smut. Of course. But is there a time when we can’t tell the difference?

In Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mister Rosewater the main character’s ultra conservative senator father at one point quips that the difference between art and smut is essentially pubic hair. He says no beautiful works of real art contained the body hair of the pubic area and most respectful works at least contained the censorship of a nice Christian fig leaf. Heaven forbid the human body is viewed as it was made in the image of God. That would be blasphemy. Without going on a rant about neo-conservative religious views on censorship and book burning, Senator Rosewater brings up a good point here. Though I beg to differ.

Can Senator Rosewater be saying that Michelangelo’s David is pornographic because his perfect body shows a tuft of pubic hair? Uber-conservatives such as Queen Victoria in the past have requested that a fig leaf be placed over the shepherd boy’s petite uncircumcised wiener for her visit. We wouldn’t want the old monarch to faint at the sight of a penis, with pubic hair or not. One can’t begin to tell me that David is not a work of art because he decided not to trim his nether regions.

Yet we all know different societies and times hold different values. Primitive societies lacked shame when revealing their bodies in their dress and art, to include classic antiquity in Rome and Greece (see Pompeii frescoes). It was the uptight ultra religious societies of Europe that lasted from after Rome on through the Middle Ages and varying in certain levels up to and beyond the Victorian Age of the 19th century that often called for modesty and fig leaf attitudes. Some cultures, particularly in “civilized” countries such as England would have their citizens cover their whole body in dress even in scorching weather.

So you can imagine their art, and how they might consider it naughty that Honoré Fragonard gives us a glimpse of a leg in the Swing. Fragonard’s Swing represented a form of erotica, lacking nudity but hardly lacking imagination. The evident affair between the woman on the swing and the hiding man in the foreground perfectly poised to see up her dress made for a sultry situation that would make young fops in those days blush. The more revealing Stolen Kiss, painted in 1770 almost shows cleavage as the young woman removes her most outer garments and obviously anticipates a more intimate situation with her young lover, who eagerly kisses her. Many of Fragonard’s paintings involved ambiguous situations which subtly imply more “indecent” undertones.

Pubic hair in paintings made a debut later in Goya’s Naked Maja, who reclines comfortably showing her untrimmed naughty bits. Nobody really knows who Maja was exactly, but she sure shows off some dark pubic hair tot he viewer- though it has been thought the painting itself was meant to be a private addition to the more public Clothed Maja. No doubt in those times the Nude Maja was viewed as pornographic and unacceptable for fine art. But that would all change depending on social climates and individual points of view.

Seen above is Gustave Courbet’s Origin of the World. Painted in 1866, it shows the unashamed and detailed closeup of a woman spread-eagle revealing her genitals. Though the identity of the woman is known, in this painting the sitter, along with any surroundings, save for the sheets, are all unnecessary and subordinate to the main theme of the painting- the erotic depiction of a woman’s sex. The painting was shocking in its time, a time of questioning moral values. Courbet, along with Eduard Manet (Olympia) helped to revolutionize the depiction of nudity in fine art.

Throughout the years pioneers such as Fragonard have somewhat been pushing the envelope at some times with brash statements. Somewhere between art and pornography there lies subtle implications, or sexual innuendos. Just as Fragonard’s paintings imply the impending sexual encounter, such paintings as Kirchner’s Self Portrait with model imply the recent sex he’s had with the girl with his hair brush pointing toward his crotch. This is similar to some of Caravaggio’s darker subtleties like the David and Goliath with the David, holding the severed self-portrait head of Goliath, while holding the sword across his penis, or the Uffizi version of the Sacrifice of Isaac, which aside from the story and context of the situation, looks as if the child is a victim of rape more than anything else.

How about post-modern art? Take for instance My Lonesome Cowboy, by Takashi Murakami. It would be hard to defend this against accusations of porn. He’s ejaculating! Soft-core pornography on “Skin-emax” doesn’t even show erections, or penetrations, let alone the graphic depiction of male climax. In nude paintings throughout the ages the occurrence of an erection is few and far between. So some may argue that this particular variable may be the differing evidence of pornographic nature in art. It also occurred in ancient art such as the old Indian illustration for the Kama Sutra. Was that porn? Is Britney Spears Pregnant vulgar because of the position she’s in? Or is it a celebration of nature (The child is even crowning) and/or celebrities and/or female nudity in general?

It depends on the situation and presentation, but like most things it mostly depends on your own point of view. My Lonesome Cowboy is a work of art, and is not pornography, the same as many other works of art involving erections, sex, pubic hair, whether subtle or in-your-face. Art is too complex to be black or white, especially with so many questions on what can be considered art, completely aside from nude art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If tight-ass conservatives call a glimpse of pubic hair pornography, so be it- it hasn’t and won’t stop people from creating such art, or viewers from appreciating it.

See also Disrobed: Nude Paintings, Sculpture and Photography

I thought it would be funny if I presented twenty or so pictures taken from both paintings and downright porno and ask if you thought they were art or pornography- but I won’t be that cruel or indecent. However, some of the following unlikely paintings were met with criticism for their “indecent,” erotic, or pornographic nature, some in their own times, and some today:

Gods And Heavens

Ganymede was said to be the most beautiful person alive. Now a person with such a dazzling attribute on his heroic resume does not stay out of the attention of the most powerful gods for long. And like it or not, attention is what he got in the form of Jupiter literally sweeping him off his feet. Such a god need not waste time with traditional courting, you see.

Jupiter had set his sights on the young shepherd tending to his flock in the fields of Troy from way up on high on Mount Olympus. Bored with his concubines, Jupiter boldly swept down in the form of an eagle and grasped Ganymede in his mighty talons to bring him back to be his companion and cup-bearer to the gods.

The young hero quickly accepted his new life and became the best cup-bearer to the gods and Jupiter’s own favorite friend. In fact he was loved so dearly the mighty god would fling his eagle to the heavens to become the constellation Aquila (eagle), and the boy himself to forever be Aquarius (cup-bearer).

He would be immortalized through these constellations, and remains as well by the side of his god as the largest moon of Jupiter. Jupiter has many moons, but Ganymede is its largest one. The largest moon in the solar system in fact, being even larger than Mercury and Pluto.

From Wailing Babies To Willing Boys

The theme of Ganymede, probably more so than Bacchus, has been depicted in many different ways. Like Bacchus, being an ancient Greek story, his portrayals date way back to the first century or so A.C.E. One of the earliest is this mosaic found in Greece, showing the proud Zeus with wings spread full clinging to the also proud Ganymede, seemingly more than happy to go along for the ride. This mosaic is more a symbol of the story rather than a snapshot caught in time.

The later we go the more interesting the variety of portrayals. The manner in which the story unfolds is told in different ways depending on the artist’s intentions. Often called “The Rape of Ganymede” we sometimes see a somewhat cruel and realistic depiction of an abduction leading to unwanted sexual advances. In Rembrandt’s Rape of Ganymede the eroticism is stripped bare bones down to a fat baby screaming with wretched face hauled off by a dark and evil bird.

On the total opposite end of the spectrum we have Correggio’s depiction of Rape of Ganymede, which seems a misnomer judging by the pleasant look on Ganymede’s face as he is swept away, clinging lovingly the same as he would on land or 10,000 feet above. This painting is sometimes called “The Abduction of Ganymede” similar to other versions called the “Kidnapping of Ganymede,” signifying possibly it’s not rape if he consents.

The traditional title of the classic story however is Rape of Ganymede. Between the Correggio and Rembrandt lie the remainder of the styles usually showing the Ganymede not quite sure if he’s into it or not, sometimes seeming dragged unwilling from his daily life, and other times probably wondering if his daily life was boring anyway. How often does one get the affection of a god? Wait till his friends hear about this.

Modern Ganymedes

Any beer drinkers recognize the picture at the top of the post? If you guessed it’s the original symbol for Budweiser you just earned 10 points. This is a drawing done by an F. Kirchbach around the turn of the 20th century meant to be an advertisement for Anheuser Busch celebrating Budweiser’s success. The drawing was kept as the symbol for the beer and appeared as is on the bottle for several years. It changed from here to there, and it seems the poor abductee was eventually released from Zeus’s talons to drop to his death because now a days there remains only the eagle.

I did my own version of the Ganymede theme for several reasons. One I like to practice with classical themes and styles. Secondly, I knew Ganymede would be naked and I was fine with that because as I’ve said before naked people are much easier to paint. And finally I just liked the story of Ganymede hearing it first from Isaac Asimov, believe it or not, when he talks about the moons of Jupiter in “Amazing Universe.”

I like to think mine ranks somewhere near the middle (not in quality of course, I’m not that egotistical) between Rembrandt and Correggio. In my opinion, no matter who is kidnapping, the abducted will not be quite so willing and will probably be a bit scared. Let’s not forget Zeus comes in the form of a giant hideous bird.

I think Ganymede’s face looking down shows his shyness, and the one arm locking onto the other shows a blocked off body language. Yet one hand is free, thus showing not a total aversion. He looks away from the eagle but knows exactly what is going on (playing a little hard to get, are we?). Zeus, although clearly having the upper hand subordinates his head to that of Ganymede, and wraps his wings as if to ask his approval, and offer affection.

I like putting my spin to things like this, and making things my own unique version. That’s the fun of painting, you put your own voice out there, depicting any subject in the way you see fit. You don’t worry about what the viewer will think- they will have their own opinions. It’s always fun to experiment, too. I like to throw tidbits of symbolism and innuendos in most of my paintings. This one being an emotionally charged scene calls for it naturally. Notice the eagle’s beak pointing in a certain direction. Afterall sex is the ulterior motive of many social gestures.

It’s not as sexually charged as say Bathers, another of mine with not quite so subtle a message. But interpret my paintings in your own way as you interpret any painting. I hope to do many more classical themes, and I can only hope my skill increases as I go. I look forward to the more ambitious versions of popular classical subjects, and I can only continue to practice until my skills reach that level.

Whether I get good at painting or not, who’s to say?

One thing is for sure, I will try to paint the best pictures I can and continue practicing, as sure as Ganymede orbits around his Jupiter.

Technorati Tags: ganymede, jupiter, greek, classical, mythology

Scandalous! Shocking! Without modesty! Nudity has been portrayed without shame throughout history and has been met with varying criticism depending on the time and culture.

Early Nude Art

Ever since early cave paintings the natural human form has been portrayed in its full unclothed glory. This was just how the artists saw his fellow people, and depending on the region, people wore very little anyway. Since then societies have presented the nude form in paintings, drawing, photography, and any other media. This either demonstrates humanity’s strong sexual nature, or just a propensity for making aesthetically pleasing artwork, or perhaps a combination of the two.

Perhaps no society was more naked in its art than Pompeii. This ancient Roman city would meet its doom at the wrath of Mount Vesuvius when the volcano erupted and wreaked havoc on the city below. The city would be covered and ruined by the lava flow but an 18th century find would uncover remnants of a forgotten world, including the remains of many of its inhabitants exactly how they met their fiery demise.

The society shows no sign of bashfulness in its many frescoes and surviving statues. In them you’ll find depicted sexual acts, more sex, sex, and just plenty of nudity. Being an ancient Roman city, they often depicted gods and goddesses in their art. The most risque probably being Priapus, the god of fertility. Also of interest are the many statues from early Pompeii, which today may raise a few eyebrows. This one’s no “David.”

Erotica

Further through art history, namely long after the invention of oil painting and when art drifted away from a dominant religious tone, nudity was a common thing. Retouching on the ancient themes, pederasty in Roman mythology in paintings and sculpture, carnal love, and in general sexuality (sometimes not so delicate) were painted time and again. This was perceived usually as good taste. Of course, that wasn’t always the general consensus.

In Michelangelo’s career, he painted the human form realistically and without apologies. The subtle homo-erotic tones of the Sistene’s ceiling probably went straight over the head of the pope and any other religious leader for that matter. The musculature of the male form painted in detail and the poses of the many male figures probably would have been omitted from a religious painting. The olives resembling certain parts of anatomy were perhaps there as a joke or subtle reference.

In the case of Caravaggio, his pubescent cupid displayed in “Amor Vincet Omnia” or Love Conquers All , would in these days be met with hostility, and the artist considered a pedophile. But in those days, the nude form young and old was nothing to shy from, and the boy was simply another model paid to pose. Caravaggio’s painting is characteristic of his work, steering clear of the idealized subjects, instead showing a common street boy, crooked teeth and all.

Much modern debate has come over Amor’s primary owner keeping the painting behind a curtain. While some say that he was embarrassed of the supposed eroticism and kept it hidden, others say that covering a painting is meant to keep it as a piece de resistance, to be uncovered only after the rest of the artwork was shown, as the best of show.

Borderline Pornography

It probably wasn’t until the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe, particularly Victorian times of the 19th century when nudity in art started to seem inappropriate. In an age when even in the summer one must cover themselves with layer upon layer, and sexual matters altogether were strictly taboo, its no wonder the paintings were more G rated. This isn’t to say that the subtle was absent. Take this Fragonard painting The Swing. It was also called “The Happy Accidents of the Swing.” Humorously showing a glimpse up a dress, an unquestionable infidelity, and a cupid statue with a “hush” gesture all show this French painting’s sexual symbolism.

Tame by today’s standards, The Swing was quite sultry in its day. Going further into the beginning of the nineteenth century, Goya would make a breakthrough in erotic art and paint the first showing of pubic hair. See “The Naked Maja“, which was the complement of the Clothed Maja. Both paintings are wrapped in mystery, as to who the model is and who the intended recipient, but most people conjecture Fransisco was romantically involved with the sitter. Either way, it would get the artist into much trouble. It even got him fired from a lucrative court position, as a result of the Spanish Inquisition deeming the painting obscene.

Later we continue to have scandals resulting from a repressed mass of people. This John Singer Sargent painting called “Madame X” was originally painted with one shoulder strap off and on her arm. Mothers cover your children’s eyes, they’ll be scarred for life! Sargent later had to repaint the strap in it’s correct position, to appease the prudish public.

In the nineteenth century, the “Father of American Painting” Thomas Eakins would be in hot water for removing the loincloth of a nude model in an art class. One of the girls promptly told her parents of such a horrible thing, which would lead to Eakins’ removal from professorship at the Pennsylvania Academy. Eakins wasn’t ashamed of the naked human body and frequently shot many nude photos, even posing nude himself on the other end of the camera as well. His paintings sometimes had nudity in them as well.

Subtle Undertones?

Modern photography is rife with naked forms ranging from the sexually charged to the artistic erotica. Modern advertisement also has subliminal sexual undertones for its psychological value, portraying people in borderline explicit poses and gestures in an effort to maximize effectiveness. Sex sells!

Speaking of sex selling, the paintings of Rembrandt van Rijn have been known to contain subliminal messages to reach the subconscious. The Dutch word for sex has been found in the underpaintings of several works written in large, barely visible letters. The painting of the Militia of Captain Cocq could possibly have a deep subconscious image. See where that shadow is grabbing? Captain who? Interesting.

Modern and Contemporary Nudity

Painting in the modern day, especially at art schools involves the female nude for a variety of reasons. Besides its classical and/or romantic value, the female body is generally a good subject to paint for its curves and contours, giving the student valuable practice in form and shape.

One may say that society has come a long way since Fragonard’s Swing painting. But at the same time it is not that probable that a painting of a school teacher skinny dipping with his students would be generally accepted, at least not in modern America.

So times change, as well as views on sexuality, nudity, and the human body. Each society and culture has its own views, and inside each has subcultures with differing views and values, such as nudist camps. It also matters which part of the world you’re from, as a nudist beach in France is more the norm than a nudist beach in New Jersey.

No matter what day and age, boys will be boys and seek the naked drawings in art books, erotically charged paintings will turn us on, subtle sexual undertones may touch our subconscious and we will always have nude paintings on our walls for whatever the perceived value.

Technorati Tags: art, painting, sculpture, nude, nudity, erotica, erotic

Here is a good compilation of links to nude art on the internet called Cybernude

As featured on Associated Content