(It’s a review in The Daily Mail of a performance by Amanda Palmer in which there was a “wardrobe malfundtion”, and the review only talked
about that. Nothing at all is mentioned about the music, and very little is
said about any other aspect of the performance.)
I don’t know what’s going on here. I don’t know why there’s
a mix of clothed and naked people. But it does conform to an often-seen
approach to nudity in opera—that is, the singers are clothed, and it’s
non-singing extras or dancers who are naked.
Gounod’s Faust (I don’t know the production info. Anyone?):
Another not-unpopular choice—one
or two naked people, again, not singing, surrounded by clothed principals and
clothed chorus.
My first semester in college I took a music class—I think it was Intro to Music Lit, one of those courses for music majors that you were supposed to take before your main music history classes—in which, at some point half-way through the semester, we watched a video of part of The Rite of Spring.
The Rite of Spring, or Le sacre du printemps, is a ballet with music by Igor Stravinsky.
And Vaslav Nijinsky
choreographed the original production for the Ballets Russes in Paris in 1913. Both the music and the choreography were considered outrageous and nearly caused a riot by the audience.
It was definitely “pushing the envelope” in its day.
The score is now considered a major work of early 20th century “classical” music.
Well, when I watched this video in that class, just a little over 20 years ago, it wasn’t “outrageous”, but to me it seemed quite new and a little shocking. There was some nudity.
(AHHH! Naked people! AHHH!)
There was a solo dance in which the female soloist sort of danced her dress off. I didn’t know the piece then. I didn’t know that it is often performed with nudity. I was just surprised by the fact that her dress was falling down and she didn’t stop dancing, and no one stopped her to tell her. I thought at first that perhaps it was just one of those live performance accidents, but it eventually became quite clear to me that she couldn’t not be aware of this situation.
I don’t remember what the class discussion involved after we watched the video. So I don’t recall if the nudity was even brought up.
I have occasionally looked for that version, but I haven’t found it yet. I don’t recall any names—the dancers or company involved.
(None of these are from that version.)
Thinking about it now, I find it shockingly ridiculous that I found it surprising and shocking and had never seen any artistic performance before then which included nudity. And I can’t imagine I was the only one in the class who had that same level of ignorance or, if you’ll pardon the pun, that lack of exposure.
We still find nudity shocking today—at least nudity that doesn’t fit into certain acceptable or expected categories. Naked babies are fine. Nakedness in pornography is pretty-much a “given”. Nakedness in (some) cable TV and movies is okay as long as it’s set up right: a love scene or a shower scene or if it’s done for comedic effect. But it must be “pointed to” in a sense; it must be filmed in such a way as to bring it to our attention and played for the most titillation possible.
(BLECH! We suck.)
Ya know folks, artists are entertainers. Yes, we sometimes present nice, fun, sweet, pretty, socially non-problematic work which is extremely unlikely to offend anyone.
BUT!!! We also are instigators, commentators, instructors, and many other things ending with “-ors”. Sometimes we present challenging, uncomfortable, ugly, shocking, surprising work that you very well may find offensive or may not even fully understand. If you’re shocked or surprised or offended, then you should ask yourself why.
What is being presented here that I find problematic in whatever way?
What is the author or creator of this work trying to do?
Should I be offended? Am I supposed to be upset about some external thing?
Or perhaps should I be re-examining myself and my assumptions about art and life?
. . . . . . . . . . .
Well...
If you’re still with me...
This turned into more of a rant than I expected. I’m quite certain I know why that is. Most likely I shall share that here sometime soon.
This song demonstrates part of what I hate about contemporary popular music.
It’s just so fucking repetitive.
If you strip it down to its basics, except for the bridge, I think it’s pretty-much the same 3 chords over and over and over. But you don’t ever really hear the chords that much. What you hear is vocals and drums, and much of the rest of the “accompaniment” is like repetitive background noise.
I listened to another song by the same singer (“Pocketful of Sunshine”). It’s similarly, annoyingly limited in musical variety, when you “strip it down” to the basics. It’s mostly 3 or 4 chords.
That’s what popular music has been for a while. A few chords plus attitude.
I think the audience has become more technologically sophisticated and wants new and more and better—look at movie special effects. But I think we’ve become so much less sophisticated in terms of our understanding of or our desire for content.
The basics are so damn basic that you have to throw a bunch of shit on top of it. Forget well-crafted songs. Just give us a lot of attitude and a decent-sounding voice (which is likely edited and manipulated in the studio), then layer a bunch of annoying sounds on top of it so it seems like something is happening.
Oh yeah...don’t forget the pretty face.
I don’t know, it just seems a bit like waving your arms and yelling “Whoo-whoo-whoo”, flashing lights in people’s eyes and calling that great dancing.
A thousand little awards I have to choose between.
I could spend a lifetime earning things that I don’t need.
That’s like chasing rainbows and coming home empty.
PRE-CHORUS (This is just like a chorus, but it’s followed by another chorus, so we call it a “pre-chorus”.)
And if you strip me, strip it all away,
If you strip me, what would you find?
If you strip me, strip it all away,
I'll be alright.
CHORUS
Take what you want, steal my pride,
Build me up or cut me down to size.
Shut me out, but I’ll just scream.
I'm only one voice in a million but you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that.
VERSE 2 (abbreviated—probably nobody notices much, or minds, because it’s all the same repetitive stuff)
I don't need a microphone to say what I been thinking.
My heart is like a loudspeaker that's always on eleven.
PRE-CHORUS
And if you strip me, strip it all away,
If you strip me, what would you find?
If you strip me, strip it all away,
I'll be alright.
CHORUS
Take what you want, steal my pride,
Build me up or cut me down to size.
Shut me out, but I’ll just scream.
I'm only one voice in a million but you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that.
BRIDGE
‘Cos when it all boils down at the end of the day
It's what you do and say that makes you who you are,
Makes you think about, think about it, doesn’t it?
Sometimes all it takes is one voice.
CHORUS
Take what you want, steal my pride,
Build me up or cut me down to size.
Shut me out, but I’ll just scream.
I'm only one voice in a million but you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.
But in researching the topic of nudity in opera, I came upon this video.
I’m not sure if this counts as onstage nudity or if it’s a wardrobe malfunction, but considering the dress (which is kinda awesome) it’s either the former or the later just waiting to happen.
Catherine Naglestad “Ah, mio cor”
An issue I have with this particular video is that, given the explicit sexiness of that black dress, I don’t really buy the fact that the “boy” is a boy.
Yeah, pants roles (female singers playing young male characters) are a traditional operatic convention. But I often have difficulty turning off the part of my brain that says “that’s a woman”. And in this case, it’s even worse. I think the fact of seeing breasts onstage makes me all the more aware of the breasts on that “boy”.
Another point about this video: I’m not sure how I feel about the contemporary look and feel of an older opera, one which has the sound and feel of an older opera. Maybe it’s just the harpsichord, but for whatever reason, the visual doesn’t match the aural. I don’t mind a director’s changing the setting, nor doing a sort of minimal set, etc production, nor even something more surreal and eclectic—if it works. I suppose even changing the time period would be okay in some cases. But if it sounds old, putting it in a modern-looking and modern-feeling setting seems odd to me.
I don’t seem to have any problem with taking it in the opposite direction: for example the musical Les Miserables is set in revolutionary France in the early 1800s, yet the music is contemporary pop-ish musical theatre. I’m fine with that. And of course, I’ve seen productions and movies of Shakespeare plays that put the action in a more contemporary setting. Some were effective, some weren’t. There’s a great film of Richard III set in 1930s England. I think it works quite well.
So what’s the difference? I don’t know.
Anyway...my original point was: here’s an opera production that fits what a friend of mine was talking about when she said “More graphic nudity, sex, violence is definitely a trend in opera. I think it's trying to appeal to our dulled senses.”
If you’re interested, here’s my first naked opera entry:
This performance got me kinda curious, as it’s actually not horrible, and I started looking for other Salome’s dances. From the videos I found, when there’s actual nudity it’s usually for just the final second, before Salome collapses and some people rush around her and cover her with a cloak or something. I can’t seem to find many of those videos online now. Maybe someone felt embarrassed by the bad choreography and had them removed.
Anyway, in the story this dance is supposed to be a seduction, part of a deal between Salome and her step-father, Herod.
(Hey kids, it’s bible-story time! Yay! ...seriously, the story comes from Mark, chapter 6)
He says if she dances for him, he’ll give her whatever she asks. Then she does this sexy dance and asks for the head of John the Baptist, who they have in the dungeon.
A major problem with the “Dance of the 7 Veils” is that it’s a lengthy (usually) solo dance for an opera singer. “Traditionally” opera has had a lot of stand-there-and-sing-and-look-dramatic type of performers. And I think it’s still often the case that opera singers aren’t necessarily great movers. There’s just not much emphasis on movement in their training, certainly less than in the training that actors, especially musical theatre actors, get.
So the “7 Veils” Dance often ends up being Salome running around a lot and acting “sensual” &/or distraught, taking off a “veil” or two, then more running and sensual/distraught-ess...maybe some slow “seductive” moves? Well, the full dance is about 9 minutes long. What the hell do you do with an opera singer for that long?
Tiziana Sojat as Salome (not sure where or when)
Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you just have boring choreography, or a really bad “dancer” doing what might otherwise be decent choreography. Or maybe you just have a non-dancer doing bad choreography invented by a non-choreographer.
So, if you have a soprano who doesn’t really move well, and who isn’t okay with taking her clothes off, you’ve got a problem. Back in the day, a lot of your big sopranos were exactly that: big sopranos. And as a friend of mine said, “Who wants to see Joan Sutherland naked?”
Well, this ain’t Dame Sutherland, but I suppose it’s pretty much the same:
Montserrat Caballe as Salome, Teatro de la Zarzuela de Madrid, 1979
Supposedly, in the original production, the soprano Marie Wittich (pictured here:)
wouldn’t do the dance, so it was done by a dancer. That might actually be a preferable situation for many productions. Recently there’s been more of a sexification of opera, and you’re seeing a lot more attractive “big” singers these days. (I’ll write more on that soon.) So, of course, if you have a singer who can handle the music and can move well and isn’t shy about taking her clothes off in front of an audience, then, by all means, go for it.
Catherine Malfitano as Salome, Berlin, 1990 (with Horst Hiestermann as Herodes)
“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.”
–Mark Twain
I don’t know that Twain meant exactly this, but, to me right now, this is saying that clothed people either don’t take naked people seriously or they ignore them (us).
Is that it? Just two choices? Leer or avoid?
Well, I’m going to address the avoiders.
You can see what I mean here, toward the end of Erykah Badu’s “Window Seat” video:
People see, react for a moment, or less than a moment—surprise, shock, dismay, whatever—then nothing; they turn away, or they stoically avoid reacting, or rather avoid showing any reaction.
But that in itself is a reaction. It’s also a sort of dismissal.
If you look at the “art school” definition of “nude” (I wrote a bit about this in “Nude vs. Naked") it’s a sort of presentation, a costume of sorts, or, yes, perhaps an objectification. It’s an invitation to view, to consider, to respond to the nude person. Or perhaps it’s a challenge. And avoidance of the nudity is a response of sorts. But it’s refusal to participate, a refusal to consider, to think, to be involved; it’s a rejection—a rejection of the invitation, of the challenge, and, ultimately, it is to some degree a rejection of the person or persons presenting the nudity.
In talking to a few people about this blog I’ve been trying to work out, to figure out and articulate, the reasons I started this.
Yes, it's a sort of “coming out”, but also I was hoping to prompt discussion, reaction, comment...something. But sometimes the silence is deafening. On the facebook, where I post links to the blog, a few people have responded on their own; some others I’ve asked for a response, and mostly gotten something. But some people don’t respond, even when asked directly. For example someone “liked” a (cropped) picture I posted on the facebook. I wrote and said “Hey you liked that picture. Thanks.” Her response was the she wished she were that brave. So, assuming that she at least was aware that the picture was from my blog, I asked if she had any feedback on the blog. And since then, nothing, even after I wrote again to say sorry if it was awkward or uncomfortable and feel free to change the subject. Still nothing.
Add to that the continuing loss of friends. Another sometime in the last 24 hours.
Deafening.
Sure, you might say that many people just don’t know how to respond to this blog. Well, to that I say bullshit. To that I say too many people just go through life trying to be safe.
When I was in college there was once a girl who I thought was really cute; I started chatting with her and after a little while I asked her out. She gave me some excuse that she couldn’t. It was a perfectly reasonable excuse, so I asked again—another reasonable excuse. Third time, same thing, so I asked if she was really that busy or if she just wasn’t interested, and if it was the latter, I just wished she say so. See, I wanted to believe that she was telling the truth. I would’ve told the truth. I’ve pretty-much always felt like this. Just say that you don’t want to go out with me, or hire me, work with me, whatever. I’d much rather you be clear and say what you mean. I can take rejection. I’ve certainly been rejected before and I expect to be rejected again. But I’d like to know, maybe even have the chance to ask if there’s some reason that would be helpful for me to know about for my own edification.
It turns out that girl in college was a lesbian. When I asked the third time, she told me. Okay. Fine. She could’ve said so the first time and saved us both the effort—of my coming up with a possible date idea and her coming up with a reasonable-sounding excuse. But I guess she was trying to be safe. She didn’t know how I might react to her being a lesbian.
So let me say, loudly: I’m not gonna yell or make fun of you for being a prude or feeling uncomfortable or perhaps having a job which you fear losing if my links to this blog show up on your facebook newsfeed. I respect directness and honesty. However, I might “call you out” for running away, unfriending me without a word.
Update 11/11/2011:
So, I had an unusual unfriending/block last night: someone I knew in college. But it wasn’t a simple, silent unfriending.
She sent me a message. It read:
you are really starting to creep me out with all this nudity naked blog stuff. Honestly, I don't want to see anyone's body on stage or off unless I'm dating them or they are my kids.
And then she unfriended me. And blocked me. Which means I can’t write her back to respond. I was going to say something like “Okay. Ya know, all you had to do was say that you didn’t want to see the links I post, and I’d’ve put you on the list of folks I don’t post to.”
Anyway, 2 things:
1, If I’m only “starting” to creep her out, why the unfriending? I was gonna take her off the “post to” list, but she took care of that.
And 2, I had earlier asked her opinion about a topic I’m working on for a future blog. It was something she had experience with, and she responded with a few things on that topic, including a couple of “haha”s. Not, “ohmigod, I don’t wanna talk about this”. And it wasn’t as if I’ve been posting things directly on her wall or constantly talking with her about this blog.
Ah well, at least she wasn’t silent about it. So, good for her on that count. I definitely heard her.
“...I’m coming out. I want the world to know, got to let it show...”
"I'm Comin' Out" video:
I don’t mean to steal anybody’s thunder...or to diminish the social pressures facing gay, bi-sexual & transgendered people. However, it’s generally considered unacceptable to be naked most places, and often illegal. And when you appear naked, other people there—even casual passersby— know right away.
I know some may argue about people “becoming” gay, when that happens, etc. But, I can confidently proclaim that I was born this way. And I challenge anyone to say I wasn’t.
So, I hope I’m not stepping on anybody’s toes here, but I’m going to embrace National Coming Out day on a more personal level than usual and post this blog a little wider today on the facebook. Don’t worry: I’m still not gonna post to minors and a few other folks.
Anyway...
I’m straight.
I’m naked.
Whoo-hoo!
I even have a flag.
Sadly, it’s damp & cool today, or I might be sitting outside typing this.
Anyway, I’m just gonna copy (& edit) & paste a couple of things I wrote last year on National Coming Out Day. It may be a little long.
A couple of years ago I worked for one semester at a private Baptist University, where the head of my department asked me to not tell the students that I was not a Christian.
... As the semester dragged on, I found it harder and harder to not talk about my lack of faith. Only one person, other than the head of the department, ever asked me directly about what I believed. I told her the truth. I’m agnostic. But there were so many other times when I could tell that people were assuming that I was like them, that I shared their faith... I was in the faith “closet”. There was something about me that was rather significant, and I knew that most everyone else around me was not “that way”, and they assumed that I was just like them and not “that way” either.
... My being asked to not reveal that I wasn’t a Christian was a symptom of the larger problem of a focus on the appearance of things at the expense of the substance... That attitude is in direct opposition to my feeling about life, how people should communicate with each other, and... teachers and schools ought to be encouraging students to examine things and explore the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. I think this is a general problem in “the church” and the reason behind so many church/minister scandals. They’re busy working on the appearance of right-ness or righteousness and not dealing with the substance or truth of things.
... Before that experience, I knew that I considered it important to tell the truth. It’s something that I value. But I now know that it’s also very important for me to not not tell the truth. Not telling the truth about something feels just like lying, which I hate.
... The whole experience of feeling “closeted” in that way was just dreadful. And I didn’t even feel any shame about being agnostic. How horrible would it have been if I thought it was bad or evil or sinful or unnatural or just plain wrong to be the way I was.
It’s not wrong or evil to be agnostic. Sometimes it can be difficult. But there are people out there who are like you and others who aren’t but will support you and love you and not think that you’re bad because of it.
And it’s not wrong or evil to be gay. Sometimes it can be difficult. But there are people out there who are like you and others who aren’t but will support you and love you and not think that you’re bad because of it.
In college, after a friend of mine came out, I decided to do an “experiment”.
I went around to lots of people I knew and did the whole spiel: “There’s something I want to tell you; my family and some friends already know, but I feel I’m ready to let everybody know; it’s not anything that has to change our relationship, I’m still the same person, but I just wanted you to know that I am a heterosexual.”... With most people there was a moment mid-spiel when they realized what (they thought) I was going to say.
... I remember one guy—and he was the type you might expect to come out one day (I once described that type as the north-Alabama youth pastor type: a bit flamboyant with no overt sexual interests and very much in love with God/Jesus and his mamma)—who just seemed to be listening, not reacting, until I got to the end, “heterosexual”, and he exclaimed “Chris, no!” Like many people, he picked up on the context clues and his brain heard me say “homosexual”. I just remember his reaction in particular, because his voice got high-pitched ... and he seems so upset that I could be gay. It went against his Southern, religious upbringing.
... I would like the moral of this story to be something else, something like “support your friends and loved ones and strangers who come out because we’re all just people who need love”. But I realize the story doesn’t really support that. I guess the actual moral is that “most if not all of us make assumptions and judgments that may not be true”.
It’s National Coming Out Day, and that’s my coming out story. I know the day isn’t about doing informal social experiments on your friends. So let me say this: stop the hate; stop the condemnation. Those attitudes are based in fear. But you don’t need to be afraid of homosexual people. The “gays” are not out to get us “straights”. Sure there may be the occasional individual who threatens you somehow and happens to be gay, but there are scary straight individuals too. Straight guys out there, if some gay man really wants to have sex with you, then you should feel flattered that someone finds you attractive even if you don’t reciprocate. Or, if he’s really making unwanted, inappropriate advances, now you have some idea of (the beginning of) what a woman might feel when men make those advances toward her. You can feel better about yourself, &/or learn something. Isn’t that a win-win? Well, maybe not.
Anyway... If you have a religious objection to homosexuality, here’s something for Christians: stop focusing so much on a few passages in the Old Testament and the letters of Paul, etc; look instead at what Jesus supposedly said, you know, the “red-letter” words in some of those Bibles. He was not all about hate, and hell-fire and damnation. He was not all about “don’t”. he was really quite radically about “do” love people and “do” help people and “do” forgive people...even the ones you don’t like or maybe who you don’t think deserve it. Now, if you’re Muslim or Hindu or something, I can’t help much. I just don’t have much background there. Sorry.
In conclusion...love and support your people, no matter their gender preference/identity.
Yeah, that's still the conclusion.
Also, your naked friends need love and support too, not fear and avoidance.
