Orbitting Helios ad Nauseam

Portrait of an Unknown Woman, 1883, by Ivan Kramskoi (1837-1887)

Women of Amphissa, 1887, by Lawrence Alma-Tadema (1836-1912).

Here Lawrence Alma-Tadema depicts a scene from a story told by Plutarch. The women sprawled on the ground are followers of Dionysus, the God of wine, and are seen recovering from a dancing ritual from the night before. These women originated from the city of Phocis, and had wandered into the marketplace of Amphissa. These two cities, however, were at war. The group lined at the back, clearly separated from their way of dress and posture, belong to Amphissa. Recognizing the danger the disoriented followers were in, the women of Amphissa form a circle around them, offering their protection and giving them food.

This isn’t a stupid question at all! (And your English is great btw). With nudity and art, there has always been some really weird rules as to what makes the art appropriate, or “indecent.” During the Victorian age, sexuality and nudity were filled with contradictions. With Western art, especially during the Victorian ages, they had some pretty strict rules. Interestingly, places like Japan, however, were pretty comfortable with nudity in art because of their communal bath houses (so it’s seen a lot during the ukiyo-e movement, there’s actually some, uh, pretty kinky stuff from that).

The basics with the Western side of things is that if it’s portraying an ideal, religious or mythological, it’s pretty much a-ok. While a lot of change was happening in the 1800′s, especially in terms of art (Romanticism and abstraction for two examples), they still had rules in art and if anyone broke these, then it could cause quite the scandal. It created a bit of a war between “high art” and “low art.” A large part of this is due to class distinction. For example, Olympia, 1863, by Édouard Manet (1832–1883).

This painting is beautiful, and is modeled after Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1538). The reason this painting cause such a stir in society was not because of its nudity, but because of the person the woman represents. There are hints in the painting that she is a prostitute, and from the gaze of the woman - looking directly at the viewer - she is not ashamed of her sexual independence.

Another example, with an earlier painting, is La maja desnuda, painted by Francisco Goya (1746-1828).

Goya was accused of moral depravity because of this painting, and a replica was later painted with the subject fully clothed. The reason Goya was put on trial was not because of the nudity, but the implications that this is not a mythological woman, but a daring subject.

What was considered “appropriate” included a number of ideas such as a reclining nude: a more vulnerable looking woman meant a more modest woman. That’s why the women in the above paintings are so scandalous. In France, a tasteful female body in art represented equality, something fought for in the Revolution. In England, they wanted to represent English ideals and proud stories, so paintings like Edwin Landseer’s ‘Lady Godiva’s Prayer,’ 1865, were admired. Godiva was a noble woman with a fascinating story, so she was acceptable.

As the acceptance and esteem for classical antiquity in art grew more and more, the admiration for nudity in art did too. This is clear with the Classical revival, Pre-Raphaelites, and other movements. Nude figures began to represent the ideal beauty in art. The exceptions of using mythological and allegorical context for acceptable art, Orientalism was used. They didn’t depict Western culture, so they worked with different rules (which I won’t go into now.) 

We live in a free Africa!