nudity, nudity in art, violence & societal hypocrisy 2

in the previous post, i wrote from the premisse -for the time of that post being, for the sake of argument- that there is a proximity of nudity and sex.

however, this proximity is largely fueled by our own society's prudishness. in many more cultured `primitive' societies (in a warmer climate than our dutch one, i admit), nudity is/was a normal state of affairs, and not associated with sex at all.

this phenomenon can be easily observed for oneself, by visiting a sauna (in our parts of the world, people are generally naked in the sauna) or a nudist beach or similar. when everyone is naked, nudity quickly becomes normal, and the sexual part of it diminishes rapidly.

there is another effect of nudity which then becomes clear (when we have stopped associating it with sex). namely, nudity often dissolves status. nudity often dissolves power. we are all equal animals, under the naked sun.

yet many people are embarrassed by nudity, be it nudity of others or their own. this again in my eyes has largely to do with society's strange norms on beauty, ideal body proportions, sex, but also on openness, vulnerability.

&&&&&&

we dress up, to cover ourselves. cover your ass...this expression is not coincidental. and `cover your ass' in my eyes is a very big contributor to the sabotage of societal change and improvement. when searching for `cover your ass', observe that google does not auto-suggest this search term...because ass is considered a possibly offensive word by google...how hypocritical can we become?

conversely, when we are naked, we become ... in a sense open, unveiled, unthreatening, vulnerable, power-less, unequipped for violence, status-less, unmarked by social/societal trappings,...although of course we are then clearly man or woman.

but look around you, in our dressed world. is not everybody almost immediately distinguishable as man or woman? we seem to think this a very important distinction, and whole marketing campaigns are based on this difference. actually, our society is almost obsessed with sex and gender difference to the point of mental ill-health. certainly when you compare it to many of the easy, uncomplicated `primitive' societies i mentioned earlier.

so this is where our hypocrisy becomes clear. we are obsessed, as a society, with sex and sexuality...but we frown upon nudity, and google's safe search and search-suggestions shows that we actively try to maintain this situation in which nudity is charged...perhaps BECAUSE we wish to keep it charged, because of our fixation on sex.

&&&&&&

can there be a more innocent scene than naked children playing on the beach? however, things have gone so far that an artistic photographer will scratch his/her head twice before displaying pictures of naked children...because almost certainly someone will cry: abuse! porn!

but the world press photo award invariably goes to a photographer who has managed to capture a moment of great human tragedy...often extreme violence due to war, terrorism,...

%%%%%%

this is the sad sad situation in which i find myself as an artist. for years and years, nudity didn't interest me very much, because i saw it as a cliché. in classical art, i often saw nudity which struck me as artificial, maybe even as a cover-up for erotic desires without daring to be explicit about those desires. in more modern art, i saw a lot of nudity which struck me as a cliché also, in its (perceived by me) intent to shock, or to show the daring of the artist, or ...

but lately i have come to realize that all these so-called liberations of the sixties and seventies and... haven't liberated us in the least. not really.

in a society liberated from this sex-obsession, nudity would not be such a problem. and sexual violence would be virtually absent. sexual violence in our society occurs appallingly frequently, but of course no one talks about it.

%%%%%%

and what about sexual exploitation? in our society this is extremely appalling also. the scale of sexual slavery in prostitution-related business is truly shocking. in this, our own oh so `developed' society. and nobody talks about it. we have `liberated' tv-shows, in which mostly youthful people show any body part in any situation...mostly under influence of a lot of alcohol or other drugs. but it is a rare occasion indeed to see a documentary on the sexual slavery involved in prostitution-related business.

§§§§§§

so, you tell me why i'm finding myself reconsidering nudity as a cliché. i recently posted a painting called `the artist is always naked' which reflects some of this reconsidering. but there are many other connotations, which i find myself drawn to investigate. nudity and innocence, for instance.

on wikipedia, you can also read on nudity and art, and nudity in general. and what about google/blogger/blogspot?

well, i simply consider whatever i post on this blog to be artistic...therefore covered by the exception rule.


the artist is always naked ii (own work, 2012, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

and as a reference to the `primitive' society i mentioned:


self-portrait as naked shaman (own work, 2012, 21 x 29 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

nudity in art, violence & societal hypocrisy (also google, blogspot)

i've been putting this post off, since it bothers me that it should be necessary -in this day and age- to write about this subject.

all animals are nude. all humans are nude, under their clothes, under the shower, on the toilet seat, what have you. this nudity is natural, far more natural than its covering up.

yet, in this day and age, which is supposed to be modern, we still are the most absolute prudes when it comes to nudity. nudity is shameful. many consider nudity obscene. why, is probably because of the perceived proximity between nudity and sex, or sexual reproduction.

suppose even for a minute that this is true, this proximity. then still: all animals have sex. sexual reproduction is as natural as eating and drinking. however, in the `higher' animals, selection of a mate involves mating behaviour rituals. i can imagine that some form of seclusion, hidden-from-prying-eyes, is part of our natural mating ritual.

this does not for one minute start to explain why this `modern' society is so fxxxed up about sex, pardon my language. and much less so, why nudity-which-can be-seen is considered such a big deal.

oh, you think i'm exaggerating, do you?

for your information, before even being able to let this blog come to you, i have to let google/blogger/blogspot know that this blog does not contain `adult content'. since this is primarily an art blog, i would suppose that it fulfills the criteria for not being `offensive'...but this may need some attention. what does google/blogger/blogspot mean by `adult content'? now, the thing is, i'm allowed to WRITE about sex, porn, anything you like...but i'm not allowed to post IMAGES of nudity...except for medical, or educational reasons...and they may allow artistic nudity on an exception-basis, individually accorded...

of course, i can post most if not all images of extreme violence, no problem, without being subjected to likewise ... intelligence-insulting, spirituality-insulting conditions.

would you believe this? i still have a hard time believing it. google's safe search does not filter out extreme violence, it filters out nudity (and sex, and porn). so imagine this child of say 9 years old. as a society we seriously consider it dangerous for this child to see images of nudity, but we think it's ok if this child sees beheadings, bombings, dead and mutilated victims of crimes...

and everybody says, well ok, i get that, that's logical...

making love is considered dangerous, killing is considered safe. i'm not exaggerating. this is the level of hypocrisy in our society, just in regard to nudity and sex. because for instance the painting below has been considered a true spiritual and classical work of art for centuries:


titian, venus of urbino

but manet's rendition of a similar lady raised a scandal:


édouard manet, olympia

(please follow the links by clicking on the paintings names, to read more about these paintings and the reactions to them).

&&&&&&&

just for your information: i consider most nudity to be a natural state of things. i consider most (non-exploiting) consensual sexual images to be a natural state of things. i think non-violent or non-degrading and non-exploiting porn to be generally loveless, but not very dangerous.

but i have never been so utterly sick as when i was watching a news report in which a soldier casually shot an innocent stander-by dead, just for nothing, out of irritation, boredom, `kicks'...who knows.

&&&&&&

we live in a society that spiritually speaking is more primitive than most societies we call `primitive'. and we are extreme hypocrites about nudity, sex and violence. is it any wonder that we are obsessed with sex and violence and technology in movies, rather than with love, building together, nature?

and we have not progressed much in the past 100 years, on the contrary i would say.

(to be continued)

notre dame des anges 2 (spiritual woman portraits)

notre dame des anges (radiant) (own work, 2011-2014, 55 x 80 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

repeated from the previous post: the woman portraits made in this series share the name `notre dame des anges´. this is a reference to the `medieval´ spirituality i mentioned above. but the portraits are of course not a depiction of maria. they are intended as portraits of contemporary women emanating this type of spirituality which i find hard to describe.

in this series i experiment with all sorts of visual elements. georgia o'keeffe (one of my all-time favourite artists) said:

“I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for."

(o'keeffe is just amazing, as an artist and as a person, and fits very well in the subject of this post, but i will devote a separate post to her in the foreseeable future.)

anyway, in this post i will show some of my experiments using paint. you will see that i do not shy away from outsider-like techniques. at the same time, i'm also studying the human form and body, as a means of expressing spirituality, vulnerability, openness, unarmedness etc. (this will lead to a next post on nudity in art, and double standards in society)


notre dame des anges as outsider (own work, 2010, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges (déshabillée) (own work, 2011, 50 x 90 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges at night ii (own work, 2010, 30 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

the colours of the above work are impossible to photograph, it seems, so i have little hope that what appears on your screen resembles the original enough, sorry. the same actually holds in a somewhat lesser but still annoying degree for most of the works in this post...one day i will arrange for a really good camera, and really good lighting conditions.


notre dame des anges (curly red hair) (own work, 2008-2012, 30 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges at night i (own work, 2003-2009, 30 x 40 cm, click on the image for an enlargement) (i posted this one earlier)


notre dame des anges (green hair) (own work, 2003-2009, 30 x 40 cm, click on the image for an enlargement) (i posted this one earlier)

notre dame des anges: series of spiritual woman portraits

notre dame des anges (blue ballpoint) (own work, 2010, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

my discomfiture with our modern `enlightened' society runs deep. i hesitate to put all of it in writing, since negativism is so often frowned upon. i admit there is something to be said for positive suggestion how to improve, rather than `just' criticizing.

i intend to do some more criticizing also though (like in the previous post's drawing).

but on the positive side, i have been working, for years and years, on a series of `spiritual´ woman portraits...whatever that may mean. maybe it means something like: in the spirit of what i perceive as medieval spirituality connected to maria, mother of jesus.

i wrote earlier on this blog about the stunning 'mare de deu' sculptures from 13th-16th century catalonia. all very different, all very individual, all seemingly derived from real persons (in my eyes of course).

i also stated earlier that i'm not a fan of religion. but some form of spirituality seems to me the only way for humanity to pull itself out of the endless cycle of poverty, violence, greed, hate, war, ... you know.

so the woman portraits made in this series share the name `notre dame des anges´. this is a reference to the `medieval´ spirituality i mentioned above. but the portraits are of course not a depiction of maria. they are intended as portraits of contemporary women emanating this type of spirituality which i find hard to describe.

by the way, there is a similar series in the same vein, with man portraits, called `seigneur notre retraite´, referring in the same way to a `medieval´ spirituality i associate with jesus.

not being in favour of religion didn't stop me from being surprised to realize that religious art is being discriminated against, in the `contemporary art world´. someone pointed this out, i have to google to see who it was, will come back to you on this later. then again, as this same person pointed out, there are many art genres which are not considered `worthy´ by the contemporary art-world's elite.


notre dame des anges (bookcover) (own work, 2010, 19 x 28 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges (cutout) (own work, 2012, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges (pencil) (own work, 2011, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges (in red) (own work, 2010, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


detail of notre dame des anges (in red) (own work, 2010, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


notre dame des anges texting (own work, 2010, click on the image for an enlargement)(i posted this one earlier)

art and life: societal criticism in art

i had a discussion with a dear friend, the other day. not known for my lack of radical views, i stated that i had trouble accepting that so many people in our western society seem to prefer 'positive' untruths to ... well, to the bleak truth that e.g. in a country like ethiopia people have to pick coffee beans at a wage of 40 eurocent a day...7 days a week, for 10 grueling hours a day...just so we can drink cheap coffee. please don't dismiss this statement too easily. think about it for some time.

she said: well, if you are so unhappy about exploitation of poor workers, why don't you do something about it? so i tried to explain to her that this is what i try to do -in my way, which is the only way that i see myself capable of keeping up over the years. which means talking about it, writing about it, painting and drawing about it...although most of my drawings and paintings approach the subject from the other way round: i try to portray how the world would look if we concentrate on a 'spiritual' interaction (compassionate, mild, respectful, you get my drift). and of course i have been buying fair trade as much as i can, for a very long time.

which brings me to another aspect of this thread which has been going on for quite some posts now: societal criticism in art. the theme of societal criticism has been around for centuries in art. a 19^th century example:


jean-françois millet the gleaners (les glaneuses, 1857, musée d'orsay, paris, click for enlargement)

we see three gleaners: poor women, who when the wheat had been harvested scoured the land for the remaining stalks and ears. The so prominent display of the poorest of the population was seen by many as an indictment of poverty and exploitation of the workers. from wikipedia:

Millet first unveiled The Gleaners at the Salon in 1857. It immediately drew negative criticism from the middle and upper classes, who viewed the topic with suspicion: one art critic, speaking for other Parisians, perceived in it an alarming intimation of "the scaffolds of 1793."[1] Having recently come out of the French Revolution of 1848, these prosperous classes saw the painting as glorifying the lower-class worker.[1] To them, it was a reminder that French society was built upon the labor of the working masses, and landowners linked this working class with the growing movement of Socialism and the dangerous voices of Karl Marx and Émile Zola.[2]

One critic commented that "his three gleaners have gigantic pretensions, they pose as the Three Fates of Poverty…their ugliness and their grossness unrelieved."[3] While the act of gleaning was not a new topic—representations of Ruth had already been composed—this new work was a statement on rural poverty and not Biblical piety:[3] there is no touch of the Biblical sense of community and compassion in contrast of the embodiments of grinding poverty in the foreground and the rich harvest in the sunlit distance beyond. The implicit irony was unsettling.

millet was a big source of inspiration for vincent van gogh:


vincent van gogh, the potato eaters (1885, Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam, click for enlargement)

$$$$$$

let me add a drawing which i made yesterday, after having had this discussion. i don't think it's my best work...since my subconscious seems to work better on its own, without a directive from my mind. but i do have enough image-creating experience to get things done, visually speaking. however, i'm left with a low expectation that any of my art works will really have an impact on this persistent problem of greed, wealth, uneven distribution of resources,...human nature you could say. you may call me negative for stating this. but i think we need this negativism in order for anything to change. much of the so-valued 'positivism' in my eyes serves to maintain a status quo which is decidedly injust on a global scale.


we trample on them, to maintain our luxury (own work, 2012, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

of human relations & dance of life 4

so, like i might or not have said in previous posts, i'm actually working my figurative butt off to develop some way to portray human relations, human emotions, human connections.

Kunst gibt nicht das Sichtbare wieder, sondern macht sichtbar.

('art doesn't show what is visible, rather it makes visible' - paul klee, 1920)

at times i have found it frustrating to have to explain the above to the lay person...but in later years i find myself explaining less and less. it is hard enough to come up with the images, the techniques, the perseverance in details... this reluctance to explain is not arrogance, it is a form of acceptance that some things cannot be explained.


of human relations (own work, 2009, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

some more drawings on dance...where in the first you could notice that i'm working on some new painting techniques to paint people...


dance 3 figures (own work, 2011, 30 x 45 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


dance 4 figures (own work, 2009, 10 x 15 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


dance 2 figures (own work, 2011, 15 x 16 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)


dance 1 figure (own work, 2011, 20 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)

dance of life 3

i came across a reproduction of one of my drawings at a friend's house last week...she made a photocopy of it during one of my previous visits because she liked it so much. i had already almost forgotten about this drawing, but it deserves a place in this thread on art, dance, life.


dance of life iii (own work, 2011, 21 x 30 cm, click on the image for an enlargement)