After reading Smith’s article on the
Pre-Raphaelite view of nudity and discussing this article in class, it is
interesting to consider the reasons behind these views and compare them with
certain views of nudity and sexuality in popular culture today. The return to
painting the nude in the 1860’s was not extremely popular with many artists,
but one well-known supporter was William Etty. For the Pre-Raphaelites,
painting nudity was another way to go against the traditions of the Victorian
Era. The Victorian era, as discussed in class, was a very conservative time in
England where women were expected to be covered and submissive to men, views
that possibly descended from the conservative views in Christianity. The Royal
Academy curriculum also supported these views; students were not allowed to
paint the nude until after three years of study, which differed from the
French. Furthermore, by painting the nude, it went beyond simply an exposed
body, but the Royal Academy was concerned with the “moral integrity of the
model.” There was a fear that the
model’s virtue would be compromised if they were to sit for a nude portrait,
let alone exhibit it to the public.
Millais’ "Knight Errant" (1870)
and Leighton’s "Venus Disrobing" (1867) show some of the contrasts between nude
and naked as portrayed in art during this time. For Leighton, as Smith
discusses, he portrays Venus as the Greeks would, using classical knowledge and
technique. Venus is the Roman version of the Greek Aphrodite, the goddess of
sexuality and love. The goddess is not clothed, but seems comfortable in her body;
she is confident and graceful with a peaceful smile on her face. However, in
Millais’ "Knight Errant", Smith
explains this lack of filter on the woman’s naked body, unlike that of Venus.
She appears to be ashamed, scared, and there appears to be a scene where the
viewer is unaware of the exact events. It could have been a brutal scene,
implied by her being tied up and refusal to look at the knight. Unlike Venus,
Millais’ portrayal of the nude is not as the beautiful and seductive goddess,
but a woman with visible emotion. She looks like a real human being. This
brings the viewer closer to the person behind the painting, the model. While Leighton has a filter on his version
of the female nude, Millais’ nude is more naked, a shameful state that causes the
viewer to think deeply and feel uncomfortable about the lack of certainty of
her safety or profession.
Millais’
painting was a shocking piece for the Royal Academy in 1870, an era where people
were extremely conservative. Sexuality is still a complex topic in the media
today. In American society, sex is a selling point. Scantily clad women are constantly
in commercials and magazines. Even though women today have more freedom with
their bodies and appear constantly in advertisements, there is still an aura of
judgment surrounding these women and sexuality is still expected to be regarded
as a private subject. The acceptance of sexuality in art and the perception of it in every
day life is still a debatable subject today as it was in the Victorian
era.
I wonder if the reception of "Knight Errant" as shocking is tied to the 'invisible' presence of a model; critics at that time would have known that the form was based off of a woman posing in such a vulnerable manner. In "Venus Disrobing" it appears that the woman has been 'happened upon' and is unaware of a viewer and thus 'erasing' the presence of a model. In contrast the woman in "Knight Errant" seems aware of the viewers presence in her shameful pose, emphasizing the presence of the model of the painting. I think this also relates to sex and nudity in society today. For example any time a nude or partially nude photograph of a female celebrity is leaked she is often criticized for having taken the photo in the first place. I have often wondered why this is the case and after reading your post I think it may have something to do with the act of intentionally modeling for that photo.
ReplyDelete