TIMEezine at l'atelier bonita
established since december 2002
ONCE
UPON a
TIME
ezine at l'atelier bonita
established since december 2002
|
Censorship and Controversy Surrounding the use of the Human Form in Western Art by Gurpreet Gupta Click to View My Original Art Piece Censorship exists in many forms; social, political, cultural, religious and even self censorship. My original art piece is representative of some of these. Censorship is usually indicative of political and social climates. It also allows us to determine what a population deems as acceptable or unacceptable. This applies to art as much as any other form of expression. But why is there a need to censor? Why does the use of the human body attract so much controversy? Why is nudity seen to be obscene? Why is our natural state so offensive? Many unanswered questions and I will aim to explore the reasoning behind some of them. Throughout history individual expression and thought has lead to much outrage, controversy and criticisms and art has been at the forefront of much of this. In pre and post renaissance times the Catholic Church was very influential and much of the art produced was commissioned by them; so the Church had a lot of influence over what was painted and displayed. Therefore censorship by the church was common. In the late 1700’s, Goya was brought to trial by the Spanish holy inquisition for his “artistic misconduct”. Goya had dared to paint “obscene naked women” and for that he had to be punished, according to the church. The absence of any religious context or mythological link meant that the presence of a nude in Goya’s art was not justified. This was not an isolated incident, Michelangelo’s spectacular work, The Creation in the Sistine Chapel was also a victim of Church censorship. Initially most of the figures were naked; however the head of the Catholic Church saw this to be blasphemous. After the death of Michelangelo other artists were commissioned to cover up the nudity by painting on drapery. It is apparent that even in religious context nudity in art did not please the Catholic Church. This may have been due to religion’s demands for conformity to a certain set ideals or belief system. Therefore expression or even exploration of ideas outside this rigid belief system could have been regarded as threatening. Nudity in art may have been looked upon unfavourably because of its ability to tempt and arouse, both thought to be negative emotions as they take focus away from the idolisation of a higher being. In regards to The Creation, it is thought that the drapery was not insisted upon entirely for reasons of blasphemy. The fact that God was shown to be as vulnerable exposed and as perfectly proportioned as the average man might not have pleased the Church. In this context it could have lead people to believe that they were no different from God himself. In reference to my art piece, I have symbolised Church censorship through The Cross which hangs around the models neck as well as the drapery censoring her genitalia. The British flag has been purposely used as drapery as a symbol of political /state censorship. To me the British flag is representative of censorship, especially that of nudity. I feel that as a society, the British appear to have great difficulty addressing issues of sex and sexuality openly and therefore try to censor it. Political censorship today may have some of the same foundations as Church censorship once did. Whereby censorship of a certain view point or idea, is thought to make it easier to obtain a more subservient population. Nazi Germany is a prime example of the political suppression of art, where the unconventional was portrayed to be wrong or evil. Such unconventional work was called ‘Degenerate Art’. Degenerate art was typically anything, which did not follow the thinking of the National Socialist party and Hitler. Many expressionists such as Max Beckmann, Otto Dix, Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso were persecuted for their work. Pablo Picasso was extremely disliked due to his opposition to fascism and his work did not fill the purpose of promoting the Aryan way of life. Images such as that of Picasso’s Guernica (a graphic representation of a German bombing in Spain) exposed the true horrors of what war could do to human beings and were unacceptable as they did not fit in with Nazi propaganda. Even today Guernica is not seen as a suitable image for “selling” a war and why would it be? After all it shows mutilated bodies, suffering and the devastating effects of war. If there was not such a chilling reminder of what military operations would mean for civilians in the piece, it may not have been covered up in the United States as it was. Last year in January 2003 the Guernica reproduction which hangs outside the United Nations Security Council entrance, was covered with a large curtain. Obviously Picasso’s anti-war masterpiece was not an appropriate background for speeches advocating the bombing and invasion of Iraq. But should such art be censored and uncensored according to its use as government propaganda? As was the case in Nazi Germany, there is often a hostile reaction to art which is reflective of society or different to that which the public are used to. Edouard Manet’s reclining Olympia (painted in 1863) sparked strong negative comments both from the critics and the Parisian public. Manet strongly believed that an artist had to move with the times and paint what he saw. But Manet’s ‘ahead of the times’ depiction of Olympia was not well received, as the naked woman was obviously a prostitute waiting for her next client. The Parisian public may have found this quite difficult to deal with not only because it reflected upon the growing business of prostitution (which was corrupting their society) but also because the nudity had no justification. The woman was clearly not a mythological goddess or a biblical figure that shied away from the viewer, so why was she naked?! Nudity with no apparent purpose seemed to trouble audiences. Manet’s Olympia does not shy away from the viewer; she is bold and unashamed and stares directly back. Manet’s Olympia was not a passive participant as many female nudes had been portrayed previously. A similar theme can be seen in Manet’s Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe, which had a similar reception to Olympia. Critics did not understand the purpose of the nude women in the art if they were not nymphs or mythological beings. Many thought that Manet had crossed the line of what was morally acceptable. Such criticism of ‘human’ art is seen time and time again. Often it seems the easiest way to dismiss issues people do not feel comfortable addressing, such as that of prostitution. Public display of such bold female nudes also challenged the normal female stereotypes of the time. This would have been considered potentially dangerous by such a patriarchal society. The feminist art movement is one that has encountered much censorship. Historically in the west, the female body has been portrayed as a passive recipient for the male gaze. Many female artists have therefore felt the need to rebel against this objectification and suppression of their freedoms through their art, as Jenny Saville does. Even today public displays of nudity are somewhat taboo. However, it has become more acceptable in the form of paintings and sculpture. Although, the rise of photography (and increased realism) has resulted in further problems. Photographs of naked males or females in advertisement art are not socially acceptable; the genitalia will almost always be censored. The naked form still appears to cause offence, but there seems to be no real justification for it; in my opinion the naked form is ultimately the freest form in which one can exist. Therefore, it’s possible that it is this symbolic representation of freedom that is objected upon rather than the actual nudity. Breaking free of taboos and stereotypes has always been important in art. The use of the body as art has many taboos associated with it. One exhibition which sparked much controversy and outrage over the use of the human body was Günter Von Hagen’s Bodyworlds exhibit. The exhibition was a sobering display of plastinated bodies; many positioned in classical poses some which were adopted from the works of Vesalius. The exhibition opened to a barrage of criticism and protests about the way the bodies had been used. But why were drawings of the human form in such ‘outrageous’ positions acceptable yet the reality not so? The most controversial piece was found to be the pregnant woman (with the unborn foetus exposed) in what some say was a ‘playboy’ like pose. Many protests were made about this being “morally unacceptable” and critics said that Von Hagen had stripped his subjects of their humanity and glamourised death. I did not find this to be the case, in fact quite the opposite. The expressionate manner in which the bodies were displayed humanised them, making them life-like and therefore somewhat easier to relate to. There were many calls made to have the exhibition closed and at the time Von Hagen was even accused of contributing to the re-definition of human dignity which was associated with Nazi Germany. Yet again, we see how art is manipulated, by associating it with political policies which are now commonly considered to be unacceptable or even ‘evil’. Therefore leading to potential dismissal of the work’s importance and I believe the bodyworlds exhibition was very important. The display was an excellent way to educate the general public about the human body. It made the science of anatomy, as well as the issue of death more approachable. It may have been this blatant connection with death that caused so much controversy. To be made to confront such realities as of your own mortality and in such a vivid manner are often difficult to deal with. People often prefer not to address such challenging and uncomfortable matters and therefore would rather they just disappear; this may be the reasons why so many wanted the exhibition banned. There may be many other reasons why both critics and the public alike felt that Von Hagen had crossed the line. The use of the body itself as a piece of art often puzzles people. Drawings and sculptures of the body, which are used for scientific/educational purposes, are rarely questioned but in the context of art they are nearly always objected upon. With reference to my art piece, I purposely chose to have a drawn version of the pregnant woman from the exhibition as I felt it was a true symbol of controversy surrounding art in the 21ST century. It is also a statement about how we often are not as shocked by drawn images today, yet the reality which it is based on still seems to offend us. It seems that to be able to use the body as art it has to be given some justification, it is only then that it can be seen as acceptable. May be this is because people are unable to understand why something they (and so many others) use and see everyday should be considered as art, yet at the same time we revere the body to be something sacred (even after death). So what is it that so many object to when using the body in art? Is it the religious indoctrination of society from many hundreds of years ago that still makes it hard for us to accept that the body is not sacred and therefore should not be used for purposes other than worship. Or is it the rise of humanism that is the cause of such controversies today? The increase in civil liberties, freedom of speech and individual self expression means people are less afraid to express their views and opinions artistically (and otherwise); therefore people are just as ‘free’ to disagree and cause controversy. Ultimately, the human body will always be viewed from different perspectives by people and so there will always be room for controversy and censorship. ©2005 Gurpreet Gupta _______________ I was born and rasied in London, UK. I have always had an interest in medicine and have been studying medicine for the past 3 years. I have always enjoyed drawing and so try to keep interest alive, also this year i had an opportunity to study something different and so opted for Philosophym which has been really interesting. But it will be back to medicine soon and looking forward to that too. - Gurpreet Gupta |
ONCE
UPON
a TIME
ezine at l'atelier bonita
established
since december 2002
