Dan Harlow

For years now, Spencer Tunick has been talking nice, average folks into taking off all of their clothes in public and letting him take pictures of them. At first quite a few people thought he was a kook or even a voyeuristic pornographer. What nobody knew back then, except Spencer most likely, was that the point of his art was not something sexual but rather a statement about the condition of the human being in the modern world. Though often his photographs have involved mass nudity in open urban areas such as parking garages and city streets, recently he placed his nudes on the foot of a melting glacier to expose the truth about global warming and how fragile we humans are in the face of mother nature.

Nudity has always been an interesting subject in art and its depictions have gone through a few transitions in it’s history. Some of the earliest art consists of fertility idols which often were exaggerated female forms. The image on the right is of the “Venus of Willendorf” and dates from roughly 30,000 - 25,000 bce. Carved from a pebble and once painted red ochre, it was carried around in the palm of the hand much like one would an amulet. Carvings such as these have been discovered all over Europe from France to Italy to the Danube basin “and even as far east as Asiatic Russia”. The exaggerated form including the swollen breasts, stomach and thighs most resemble a pregnant woman and may have been carried by a tribal priest or elder who was given offerings to pray for a couple who wanted a child. Important to keep in mind here is that though the image is not sexual in nature (desire), it does imply sexuality as far as the act of sex and fertility are concerned.

Though it would be unreasonable to assume that in pre-history people were not aroused by the nude form of either sex - after all a good looking person has a better chance to attract a mate and have children - it is unknown if the art and artifacts uncovered during this period in history could ever be considered pornographic or were ever used for self stimulation.

The Greeks were famous for their celebration of the human form. The early Olympics were a show of strength and skill and were played in the nude. Classic representations of the “perfect” human form are found in museums all over the world to this very day and by all accounts the Greek image of male perfection with it’s muscular, stoic self confidence has changed little, if at all, through all history. Even 1500 years after these sculptures Kouros (youth) were made and the pudgy female was considered the height of sexual beauty in art, the male was still portrayed as fit and trim - only the king was obese; his knights and princes were much leaner.

The Romans of course took things quite a bit further and openly celebrated the nude form and were not ashamed to carve phallic symbols in temples and even indulge (at least at the imperial level) sexual practices that have rarely been rivaled in scale or possibly even perversion.

Possibly due to the blatant and public sexuality of the Romans, the era of Christianity rejected not only the public displays but even the psychology of the human form. No longer was the body a temple to be worshiped because now one was to worship God and not the sinful lusting of the body. This rejection of the nude form had a profound impact on art and artists who were still eager to explore the themes of the body wanted to find a release that did not run the risk of angering the church.

The answer lay in the pages of the bible itself and especially in the first few chapters of the bible before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Here was a chance for artists to explore the themes of beauty and sexuality without offending the delicate sensibilities of the church. And not only did the church approve of these works, but in fact they were encouraged by the very fact that they were allowed to be displayed publicly in all the churches. At the Sculpture of Autun by Gislebertus we are given what is considered to be the most sensuous nude in all of medieval art. Here Eve is shown nude, one her hands and knees, her breasts bared directly to the viewer and the fruit of temptation held lazily in her left hand. Imagine being alive when this was new and you lived in a repressive culture (especially sexually) where any impure thought meant hours and hours of prayer to forgive and then you walk into Autun Cathedral and see this Eve. I would bet good money that it helped fill the seats (especially with men) and I also guarantee the church knew it too.

Of course the images of a nude woman holding the fruits of temptation before a man did little regarding women rights and is an image that is still so powerful to this day that women are still in many cultures seen as tempestuous and evil and are forced to endure prejudice (and worse) in many cultures - especially religious.

The Catholic church had a powerful hold over all aspects of life through pretty much all of the western world and though the quality of art steadily improved, the subject matter rarely ventured into controversial waters. As with all periods in history though this slowly began to change. After the reformation the church was no longer the central influence on the public and private life of all citizens. For the first time pretty much ever people were beginning to be allowed to think for themselves. Technology such as the printing press and even public education was cheap and allowed the uneducated masses to gain access to knowledge previously forbidden to them. Though the governments at the time still wielded much power over the average citizen, rulers really only wanted peace and taxes and didn’t concern themselves with public morality nearly as much as the church had. In other words, the western world was becoming secular and the world of art and science exploded.

What is interesting about this period in history (up to and including today) is that unlike the Greeks and Romans and even medieval artists who freely depicted both the nude male and female, the new age of enlightenment seemed almost exclusively concerned with the nude female. Heroic warriors standing mightily with brazen nakedness were replaced with the sexuality of the woman and the soft lines of the nude female. To this day when one speaks of beauty even women will agree that the female form is the ultimate definition of beauty whereas the male form is considered rigid and even almost completely undressed in public while the man is typically more covered up.

One could argue that art as an oppressor of women is still a valid point and that artists objectify women by painting them nude but not the male. Certainly one can make a case that modern porn does little to empower women beyond being mere objects of sexual gratification. Yet there is a power in some of the art as well for women. Having been represented as sexual objects in art for so long, women pretty much now own sex and are the givers of and takers away of it for men. Whereas before the nude male was a symbol of ultimate power, the nude female is the new symbol of power because they have the ability to control fertility. In a sense all women have become the Venus of Willendorf that the male must pray to.

These themes of turning the female form from a purely sexual devise into something more realistic has been explored but has yet to become mainstream in any sense.

The four paintings I have included above I chose for a very specific reason to show a progression of artistic styles regarding the nude female. The first painting is by Titan and is titled The Venus Of Urbino. Art depicting the pagan gods was another favorite of artists during the years of the Catholic church but were mainly enjoyed by the wealthy and were not available for viewing by the general public. In other words, the rich were able to get away with more. Anyway, Titan’s nude from 1538 is far from erotic here but the subject is aware that she is beautiful. If anything the picture has a pleasant and kind intimacy to it and is not overtly sexual.

The second painting is by Goya titled Nude Maja from 1805 and was painted almost 300 years later. The pose is similar to Titan’s but the sexuality is much more overt. Not only is she the only figure in the painting, but she is obviously inviting the viewer to engage her sexually.

The third painting is by Manet and is titled Olympic and was painted only 60 years later than Goya’s in 1863. Here the girl is obviously a prostitute and though she is sexual there is a harshness to her, almost a professionalism to her nakedness. She is neither seductive or coy and her servant (possibly as stand in for the viewer) seems to have a look of shocked judgment on her face.

Finally the last painting is by Rouault from 1906 and is titled simply The Prostitute. There is hardly anything appealing here and is a grim assessment of the state of sexuality in the modern world. Here it is dirty and shameful - shameful in the Catholic sense and indeed is a full circle in sensibilities to that earlier time of universal church domination.

Of course all four paintings are dealing with sex in one way or another, a fact that is usually inescapable when painting or photographing a nude woman. Yet some artists have tried mightily to break this sexual tradition. A good example is the incredible lifelike polyvinal sculpture by De Andrea titled Seated Woman from 1978. The nude here is not sexual at all, she just is an average woman of modest income and build. She does not even care that she is naked; she does not tempt or really seem to care one way or the other about pretty much anything. She is just a seated nude woman and nothing more.

And how does all this relate to Spencer Tunic?

In a world that values sexual beauty as a marketing tool and form of false self esteem for both sexes, Spencer Tunick is interested in exposing the body for what it is - a device that is a master and slave by and of nature. He places his subjects in man-made settings (even the glacier is man-made because of how global warming has affected it) to show how fleshy and weak we are compared to what we have created but also how powerful we are too because these fleshy beings have created all that surrounds them. Tunick has incorporated and is aware of the entire artistic history of the nude form in his own work and as his projects grow larger and larger he pushes into new artistic territory that has never really been explored.

Spencer Tunick is quite possibly the most important artist alive today because his work challenges thousands of years of artistic expression and forces the viewer to rethink our own physicality and our relationship to nature and each other as human beings. His work is secular and religious and is inclusive not divisive which is something we as a species need allot more of these days. Perhaps he is even starting a much needed revolution.

Popularity: 8% [?]