The idea that Spencer is seeking attention is both valid but also a little misleading. When you look at his photographs of mass nudes in urban settings we see the human being for what it is - a weak, fleshy animal amidst concrete, glass and steel. When viewing the pictures it almost becomes hard to believe that these smallish, two-legged creatures are capable of creating so much. Also the idea of the mass nude does highlight the almost insect like quality the human animal resembles in the way we multiply across this planet.

Basically I find Spencer’s work to be extraordinary because his nudes challenge a long established history of artistic expression and opinion. His nudes are completely asexual and the more nudes he photographs the more asexual it becomes. His nudes are fragile and weak when juxtaposed to the environments he places them. His nudes are all the same too in that they are usually Caucasian (not always, but usually) so everyone is fleshy pink and soft unlike the rough, hard environments of the city street or railway station they are standing in.

In other words Spencer is challenging the entire notion of what it means to perceive the human being. He exposes us as the “animals” that we are and instead of portraying the nude as strong like the Greeks or sexual like during the Renaissance because he only makes us seem weak and helpless to all we have built and in relation the the planet and even the entire universe.

Considering the state of the world today where individuals and groups are so full of themselves with their arrogance and contempt for the planet and each other, Spencer’s work exposes mankind’s naivety. It’s a message more people need to hear.

An excellent post. I simply loved the way you’ve detailed the art of the nude in history.

Regarding Spencer Tunick, there is a view that because of the abundant pornography so readily accessible, the nude form has lost its earlier, original, impact. Not to mention the innumerable nudes, couples, and threesomes freely available today, there are also public streakers who bare it all just for publicity sake.

In this context, it is said, that the reason Tunick has to move on to larger and larger groups is because he is seeking to gain attention and nothing else. Since when is an art form greater or higher because it seeks attention for a noble cause?

The function of an artist is to create art; whether it is in support of a public cause is an ancillary aspect. This ancillary aspect doesn’t make the art more artistic. So I fail to understand how Tunick is the most important artist alive today and what is the revolution he’s starting.

Once again, barring your prologue and epilogue, I love your post. It is fascinating how you’ve expounded the history of the nude art form. I thank you very much for that. Great post.

(BTW, I discovered you through Paul’s Cafe Philos)