 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
If you're coy, or easily
embarrassed, put on your dark glasses whilst you read this. And make sure your
maiden aunt is out of the room. Don't want to make her blush, do we?
I'm interested in
exploring our attitudes to nudity, especially as it applies to art; art of all
types, whether that's painting, sculpture, theatre, cinema, or literature. The
latter, of course, is my personal concern, as a writer.
Before we look at the
issue as it relates to art, we need to understand what it means in life in
general. It goes without saying, of course, that we're born naked. To
understand why there's so much guilt, embarrassment and general negativity
toward social nudity I'd need to go on for chapters. So, I've placed a potted and
personal hypothesis at the foot of this piece, for those who are interested or
curious. But, for our current purposes, it's enough to accept that nudity is a
subject cloaked in secrecy, guilt, excitement, passion, disgust, admiration,
lust and hypocrisy.
Because this natural state
has developed associations that are so unnatural, writers and artists have had
to approach it with a full awareness of the contemporary spread of attitudes.
In earlier times it was a little easier, since the majority of educated people,
those who'd come into contact with works of art portraying nudity, were also
subject to the thinking imposed by the moral authority of the church, synagogue
or mosque. I exclude the eastern religions, as they have generally displayed a
much more enlightened and liberal attitude to the subject.
In our current
multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-ethical society in the West, the situation
is fraught with danger. On the one hand, the extreme sects of the Abrahamic
religions universally condemn public nakedness, probably for the reasons
explained below. But, on the other, those individuals and groups who are
liberal in thought positively embrace nudity as a desirable state both publicly
and privately.
When portraying the human
body in its natural state we, as artists, are forced to consider the possible
attitudes of those we hope to entertain, educate, impress or arouse. Visual
artists are constrained more by simple taste and the likely location of their
works than by other considerations. So, it's fine to portray the full frontal display
if it's confined to the art gallery, where people go by choice and must know
that they may be faced with such sights.
'I tell you, Ethel. She
was showing everything. And I do mean everything. I mean, I didn't know where
to look!'
'I bet Bert knew where to
look, though, Gloria, didn't he?'
'Certainly did. I hauled
him out of there as quick as I could.'
However, if a pictorial or
plastic portrayal is to be on general public view in the street or similar
location, the display is normally neutered to some extent. Erect penises and
hairless and/or detailed vulva are generally frowned on and therefore avoided.
And, in advertising, the airbrush becomes the weapon of choice against truth.
In writing, we have the
double-edged benefit of the genre and the sub-genre. If we want to indulge in sexual
fantasy, we can do so with little restriction under the umbrella of 'erotica'.
That's fine. But what about the serious writer who wants to portray the natural
in a work of a more literary nature? That it can be done and even appreciated
is demonstrated by the successful publication of such works as Lawrence's 'Lady
Chatterley's Lover'. Though even such well-established works as this are
vilified, banned, and even burned in some of the more extreme communities.
What is difficult, is the
portrayal of nudity devoid of sex, though not of gender. It's as if the very
introduction of nudity is considered a preparation for sex. So, the heroine who
naturally chooses to do her housework free of the encumbrance of clothing is inevitably,
in the minds of most readers, prepared and ready for a sexual encounter, either
alone or with some expected partner. The man who prefers to swim naked in the
private lake is subject, in the minds of the readers, to some expected sexual
act yet to be described. In writing, as in life, it's almost impossible to
remove the general association between nudity and sex.
I started this feature
with the question: 'Can humans see nudity in art as purely aesthetic?' My
conclusion is that, in most cases, the answer is 'No', which is a shame. The
human body is possibly the most beautiful living form in existence. Of course,
as a human, I'm biased in favour of the human form, and in particular, as a
man, of the female human form. That's a biological essential. Does that mean,
however, I'm incapable of appreciating that form without the association of the
possibility of sexual activity with it? Does it mean I look at a picture of a
naked woman and always wish to have sex with her? If I study a piece of sculpture
am I seeking a way to enter it? As a woman, is it possible to watch a nude man
dance or exercise and see him only as a beautiful form? To what extent are
desire and arousal associated with nudity? Is the association inevitable?
I suppose, what I'm trying
to discover is whether it's possible for us to view or read about nudity from a
neutral position in which sexual interest plays no part. And the answer appears
to be that we are hard-wired to associate nudity with sex. There are
exceptions, of course. To the normal mind, for instance, the nude child,
corpse, and victim of torture or rape, all evoke emotions far away from sexual
desire. To the heterosexual, nude depictions of the same gender can be viewed
dispassionately and to those who love the same gender, the nude of the opposite
is something devoid of sexual attraction.
So, if I want to make my
heroine both attractive and nude, I must accept that she will be viewed in a
sexual manner, even when that aspect isn't intended. I must be aware that my
male nude hero will excite female, and some male, readers in ways not
necessarily meant. This natural response therefore challenges the writer to
portray such characters with care if they are to convey the image intended. It
makes the process more demanding and difficult. Perhaps that's why so few
writers are willing to step into this territory, or to turn all nudity into
eroticism. It's a shame, but it seems inevitable.
Why my interest? Well, I'm
writing an epic fantasy set in an invented land with invented history and
customs. For reasons too complex to discuss here, I've made the major religion
of that land one where worship and nudity go hand in hand. It's been difficult
to convey the necessary spiritual aspect without unintentionally causing some
level of sexual arousal in my readers. But it looks as though I'll have to
simply accept that such is inevitable and make the best of it.
I'd appreciate any input
from my readers here. Suggestions, ideas, arguments are all welcome.
#####
My View of How Nudity Became Associated with Guilt and Sex.
The vast majority of
indigenous peoples living in the tropics when first discovered by western
explorers, lived as naked tribes, though some wore minimal cover. Those of us
born in less friendly climates initially took to clothing as protection against
the cold, since our skin no longer bore the hair of our earlier ancestors.
There are different theories as to how we became the naked ape, and I'm not
intending to discuss those here but I'll point you in the direction of The Descent of Woman, by Elaine Morgan,
for one of the more credible explanations. (For
a review of this excellent text follow this link). The simple fact,
however, that we were and are, to all intents and purposes, hairless made clothing
a necessity for survival.
It's likely that two
different, though related, causes made us consider nakedness in public a bad
thing. As long as we lived in small tribes that were extended families, sexual
availability and display of gender were no problem. Once, however, we began to
organise into larger communities, constant nakedness, with it's inevitable
consequence of stimulus and availability, made some sort of cover essential.
Otherwise people would be at it all the time, no work would get done and the
women would be perpetually pregnant. At about the same time as larger
communities developed, so also, as a consequence, the social contract began to
be formed in a rudimentary way. Those who laboured to provide food, hunting
weapons and other social needs, were defended by others who formed protection
against the raids of other similar communities.
Thus, in a nutshell, was
formed the basis of modern society, with leaders overseeing producers. That it
all got considerably out of hand early on is a matter for a different
discussion. However, as a consequence of their positions of power and all the
benefits that brought, leaders needed some device to stop workers from
rebelling. Thus religion came about. Early religion was cleverly combined with
what were, at the time, plausible answers to otherwise unfathomable mysteries.
Leaders formed associations between the powers of their gods, the invented afterlife,
and behaviour in everyday life as a means of controlling their people.
In the early Abrahamic
religions that now rule over most of the world the concept of guilt was
introduced as a means of controlling a subjugated and resentful population. It
was a convenient way of making those who served into a flock that was, to some
extent, self-governing. Introduce the idea that selfish and anti-social actions
will eventually result in an eternal afterlife spent feeding the flames of some
sort of hell and you have a powerful tool of control.
Once guilt was established,
it was a relatively simple matter, using fear and ignorance, to persuade people
that reward was a divine matter used to benefit goodness, whilst punishment was
reserved for those who were bad. However, it suited those in control to determine
what was perceived as good and bad. It also suited them to have degrees of such
qualities determined by the individual's position in the hierarchy that was the
natural outcome of developing society.
So it was that a natural
state, nakedness, became frowned on in public, even though such nakedness might
be beneficial for reasons entirely separate from sexual activity. Many
activities are actually easier whilst unencumbered by clothing; Labouring in
the tropics and fishing in the shallows are obvious examples. And the
relatively recent introduction of special clothing to cover us whilst we swim
is a natural progression of the guilt theme.
Having established control
through guilt, the leaders then discovered that they'd shot themselves in the
feet. Nudity is the preferred state for sexual activity. Sexual activity is enhanced
by power, which we all know acts as an aphrodisiac (in itself a matter fraught
with questions). So, leaders were now in a state where they'd made clothing
essential, even in places where it was really unnecessary. But they wished to
have their women (by this time it was almost exclusively men who were in power,
of course) naked and available for sex. Thus came about the introduction of
revealing wear, especially for women, in those situations where it was
permitted. Not because women necessarily wished to be on display but because
their men required it.
The nature of the guilt
association allowed the hypocrisy of partial cover to become an acceptable
alternative to nudity. Partial cover, with its promise of the hidden and its
drawing of the eye to the most sexually attractive parts, became more alluring
than actual nudity, for many men. Clothes for women, initially, and more
recently for men, except when there's a deliberate intention to make them plain
and unattractive, are designed to draw the eye of the opposite gender. This is
the hypocrisy of guilt born of religion. In hiding the sexual attractiveness of
the naked genders, those in power devised a system where the clothed genders
are, if anything, considered even more attractive.
Many of you, especially
those with religious sympathies, will utterly disagree with what I've said
here. Of course you will: you've been indoctrinated from birth by ideas that
are now so ingrained that they're integral to your being. But a logical
examination of the reality must conclude that what I've suggested as the
development of sexual guilt as a socially protective device imposed for reasons
of power is at least as credible as any other theory. The topic needs a full
length book to develop properly, but those with open minds will understand my
drift.
####
No comments:
Post a Comment