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! 
Leave a comment