The Rite of Spring

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. 

The internet is for porn

So, I was trying to come up with a topic for today’s blog and did a google image search for “famous nudes”. I was expecting some famous paintings and sculptures. But the results are mostly porn, some celebrity nudes and celebrity fake nudes.

Seriously, what the fuck?!?  (Or perhaps I should ask “Why the fuck?”)

The first “art nude” result is Helmut Newton’s “Sie Kommen (Dressed and Naked)”. Okay, yes, This is famous. 

A bit further down is Paul Delvaux’s Nymphs Bathing.

I don’t recognize this painting or even the name of the painter. Does anybody else? Is it famous?

There’s an Edward Weston Nude in the Doorway (Charis, Santa Monica) which I almost missed because it's so subtle compared to all the porn on that results page. Edward Weston is fairly well-known. 

The next non-porn is this: Walter Chin 25 Nudes.

(I don't know this photographer. These seem to be more glamour/fashion photos, even though they’re nudes, i.e., not clothed. These appear to be fashion models, and this photographer’s work appears in fashion magazines.)

Porn, porn, porn, etc...then Arthur Hacker’s A Female Nude at her Toilet.

Again, I don’t recognize this.

Scrolling further down, the first famous nude painting that I recognize isn’t even a famous nude painting. It’s somebody’s imitation of a famous nude painting: Édouard Manet’s Olympia. 

Clearly, Trekkie Monster from Avenue Q is correct: the internet IS for porn.

Naked States (Spencer Tunick)

A few days ago I watched, for the second time, Naked States. It’s a documentary about photographer Spencer Tunick and his Naked States tour.

In 1997 Spencer toured the U.S. states, taking pictures of people (generally not “models”, just “normal” people) posing nude in public. Some were individuals or small groups, some were large groups of people.

The documentary came out in 2000.

He’s been arrested several times, in several locations. In the film his lawyer says that none of his arrests were the result of a complaint, but rather they all resulted from a policeman who happened by while the photographs were being taken.

The Naked States tour was instrumental in bringing Spencer’s work to the public, at least, certainly in the art world. Perhaps the documentary has brought him to a wider general public’s attention. Since doing this tour he’s gone on to do a Naked World tour, and other national tours and large “installations” at various locations.

I believe on this tour, he broke the then-record for the largest (most people) in a nude photo with 1,000+ people. His current record is around 18,000 people. (Wow. And by that, I mean “Wow” not “World of Warcraft”.)

On Spencer’s website you can view some of his work, find out about upcoming projects, and even “sign up” to participate in future installations.

Some quotes from the film:

In the documentary, one of his models says about the shoot, “As soon as I had my clothes off—I think it was actually getting them off and getting them back on that was more uncomfortable for me, than actually being nude outside.”

(I can completely relate to that. When I take pictures outside, behind my apartment, I’m just not that nervous while I’m naked, taking pictures. It’s a little before and mostly after that I feel nervous.)

Another of his models, says, “Being naked is just a wonderful experience. I highly recommend it to everyone. They should all run out of their houses immediately, and be naked. You don’t have to have people watching you, just go out at night sometime and walk around in the yard and see how good it feels.”

(Yes, I agree. It totally does feel great. Do it. You know you’re curious.)

In the documentary, Dan Speers, President of the Tri-State Metro Naturists group (based in New Jersey), says “For someone to tell me, especially a government authority, that I have to wear clothes—they’re telling me to be ashamed of myself. Government is mandating that people shame themselves.”

(YEAH! If I ever get arrested, I’m gonna have to remember that. Actually, in that case, it would be really helpful if I could get some of my pictures hung up somewhere—a gallery or coffee shop, even. Also, I’m still interested in taking pictures of other people. Anyone?)

“Venus” (Anna Utopia Giordano)

In her series, “Venus”, Italian artist Anna Utopia Giordano, using “Photoshop” techniques,  has “updated” a number of Venus paintings to adhere to contemporary standards of beauty for women.

It’s an interesting commentary on beauty standards, but also on the way the commercial beauty industry creates literally unreal images and, therefore, expectations. 

Mise à nu

This is kinda cool:

“Mise à nu” by Reynauld Drouhin 

(click the link & hover your mouse over the picture)

However, I wish there were more variety. All these women at least seem approximately the same height and basic size. I think it would be a much more interesting “work” if it had men and women of various shapes and sizes and colors.

It reminds me of a book I used to have: XXX: 30 PornStar Portraits by Timothy Greenfield.

I found a page on tumblr—clothed-nude.tumblr.com—that has a lot of similar type pics, with mostly men—some women and a few couples. But they’re not necessarily the same pose. And, like most collections of male nudes, a fair number of the pictures are a bit porn-ish. I’ve seen other such clothed/nude pictures that were clearly porn, which is kind of interesting too, for much the same reason.

What I find most interesting is that some of the subjects look more comfortable in one or the other picture. Of course, some look almost the same—you know, their face, their expression. And that, to me, is not so interesting.

In this “work” (Mise à nu) it seems the artist has purposely chosen poses which are perhaps supposed to be neutral, and in which the expression is the same in both the clothed and nude pictures. But to me the subjects mostly seem stiff and uncomfortable.

I’ve seen other nudes that seem to take this neutral approach. It’s as if the artist is trying to not present an emotional expression, but rather just present the body. But I think that expressionless faces are almost impossible. I think we tend to either look for emotional content in faces or impose emotional content onto face.

I tend to find that unsatisfying in much the same way I find it unsatisfying to hear someone read a poem with a neutral sort of presentation. (I had a college professor who did that. I hated it. It all tended to be monotone except the end of each line would go up just a little in inflection.)

I do realize that in many of my pictures in this blog I have a similar, arguably neutral expression. So, maybe I’m not the best model. If I could ever find anyone else to actually pose for me (I’ve had a few people who’ve said they might be willing to, but it’s not happened yet), I’d be interested in trying this kind of thing.

Any takers?

childhood myths

For a long time I’ve had an interest in nudity. In the past when I’ve looked at photography and paintings I was generally more interested in, found more appealing, people—portraits, figure studies, etc.

Anyway, I was thinking about this interest not long ago, and I remembered something from my childhood.

My family are not nudists. Or even casually naked at home. Seeing people naked was not something that happened in my family’s house while I was growing up. When my younger siblings were babies, I may’ve occasionally seen them naked. But not my parents. I n ever saw my mother naked. I think I may’ve seen my father naked maybe twice—in a changing room at the beach or somewhere like that.

And while my parents were never super preachy at home about nudity or sexuality being sinful, I did have instilled in me this sense that being naked was inappropriate. And, of course, at church I learned that sex outside of marriage was a sin, etc.

What was emphasized by my parents was intelligence, knowledge, studying, learning. We knew how to use a dictionary and we had a full set of the World Book Encyclopedia. And we were encouraged to look stuff up if we didn’t know how to spell it or what it meant. So the encyclopedia was a good thing, full of useful, important information.

Well, at some point I discovered a few exciting entries in the encyclopedia: “sculpture” (or maybe “art”?) and “mythology”. What was exciting was that there were pictures of nudes in these entries.

(You know, stuff like that.)

I was maybe 10 years old or so—definitely pre-pubescent. So, my interest, my excitement was not of an adult sexual nature. In other words, I wasn’t masturbating to those pictures. I would sit on the floor behind the couch, in front of the shelf where the encyclopedias stayed, and look at these entries. It was the same as when I would look at other entries. I wasn’t trying to hide it, exactly, although I did have an awareness that I could get caught and that would be bad.

I never did get caught. I had some sense that nudity was forbidden or naughty or something. But, at the same time, this was in the encyclopedia, which was supposed to be a good thing. Confusing, eh?

I think at some isolated times as a child I saw some National Geographic nude natives. Again, it wasn’t exactly a mature sexual thing. But I had what seems like a natural interest in seeing nudity as a child. And as an adult, I’m still interested.

Of course, nudity gets all mixed up with sex. That’s where the naughty/inappropriate thing comes in. I mean, I don’t think that sex should be considered naughty or inappropriate, but that’s what we get in our culture.

Sad. 

Carving

A few days ago I retrieved some stuff that had been in a friend’s basement the past several years. In one of the boxes was a small carving, like a small wooden statue.

My ex gave it to me. I’d forgotten about it. I used to think it sort of represented us: one figure bald and the other with long-ish hair. I’m bald; she has hair.

I always really liked it. And I still do, but now it’s a little depressing.

Yeah, ‘cause I’m alone.

I’ve actually been thinking about her lately, a little more than usual. It’s been about 6½ years since we broke up.

The suggestion has been made that my being naked is a sexual thing, but when she and I were together I enjoyed being naked just as much. Also, before she and I met, I liked being naked. So, it’s not ‘cause I’m not getting any that I’m naked all the time.

Anyway...

I miss her. I miss her-then, not her-now. I don’t know her-now all that well. We’re still friends. We keep in touch on the facebook. She’s married. She has cats. She’s a different person now.

Since her there’ve been people I was interested in, but nothing much ever came out of those relationships—well, maybe some anger and hurt feelings.

I suppose I just miss being with somebody, and she’s the person I was with most recently and the longest. 

Tableau Vivant...a bit more

(This is more about the piece from my this morning's entry.)

Okay, so... a “Tableau Vivant” is a living picture: an artistic picture or series of pictures made with live people, as opposed to being painted or sculpted or photographed; often tableaux vivants (that’s the plural) are recreations of pre-existing works of art.

Several examples (obviously, pictures of paintings & pictures of tableaux vivants based on them):

A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte (Georges Seurat)

The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)

Olympia (Édouard Manet)

Girl with a Pearl Earring (Johannes Vermeer)

Vieja Friendo Huevos (Diego Velázquez)

The (too soon cancelled) TV show Arrested Development had an episode featuring an annual “Living Classics” pageant, in which families or groups would do tableux vivants.

The Creation of Adam (detail from The Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo)

Mrs Henderson Presents is a film about a theatre which did tableaux vivants.

The DeliriumConstructions is an ongoing photographic project by artist Sarah Small in which she explores emotional responses of bringing together unexpected people.

One example:

Pearl Ring (Sarah Small)

Tableau Vivant of the Delirium Constructions is a series of pieces that involve live musical performers/models/movers, some clothed and some nude. It’s a sort of extension of Sarah Small's photographic work intended to “celebrate humanity by representing a visual and sonic encyclopedia of the human condition.” (quote from http://www.livingpictureprojects.com/)

I think watching it on video (you can find a link in this morning’s entry) creates a distance from the piece which I assume wouldn’t be there if experienced live. I think it would be a really interesting thing to experience, as either a participant or an observer. Although, I suspect from what I’ve seen in the videos, I would desire more interaction and specificity from the performers.

I found myself wanting to know more about the various couples, groups, even individuals. What were their relationships? Why are some clothed and some not? What’s going on with this or that individual who seems very different from the others in some way or another?

I also think it would be really neat to put together some sort of performance not unlike hers, here where I live. I can’t imagine how I would find enough people who’d be willing to do it. Or a venue that didn’t cost a bunch o’ money to rent. Anyone?

Tableau Vivant (a morning quickie)

This is another of those days where I'll have to leave soon to actually go do some "work". So I may do another entry this afternoon.
But here's this:

Sarah Small's Tableau Vivant of the Delirium Constructions

I guess you'd call it either performance art or maybe an "installation". Not sure. I haven't read up on it too much. I'm not sure I understand exactly what she's doing, but it's very interesting, if, at times, boring.


Here's a (26 minute) video (not a "morning quickie"):

http://vimeo.com/27949634

In the news: NYC artist & public body-painting

Artist can paint nude models only after dark

(Reuters article)

So, this artist—Andy Golub—was arrested for painting nude models in public in New York City. New York State law allows public nudity by people “entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment".

You can be naked if you’re “entertaining”, but not just because you like it? Well, whatever.

The court is allowing the artist and his model to go free, and the charges will be dropped in 6 months if they are not arrested again. He’ll be allowed to paint bare breasts any time, but during the day the models have to at least wear “g-strings”.

I’m not sure whether or not this is a good thing for public nudity proponents. It’s half-way good for artistic expression, in that he can paint mostly nude people, but a little bad that he has to wait until dark to paint fully nude people.

But on the bad side (for public nudists) is that the court is upholding a distinction: some nude is good and some nude is bad. Just being naked is bad, but naked entertainment is okay.

As is often the case, I don’t quite understand. 

art

A few years ago I worked at a small private university where sometimes an art class would put up paintings, drawing, photographs, whatever, in one of the hallways of the arts building. It was a public hallway, outside of the more “formal” art venue on campus. Sometimes there were sheets for comments from passersby. That building happened to lie between one of the parking lots and the rest of campus, so lots of people would go through that hallway on the way to somewhere else. I think that made it a perfect place to hang art. 

It was also the perfect place to cause a little “controversy”. One of the students in some class submitted a full-frontal male nude photograph. Well, .someone saw it and got uncomfortable (I imagine), and wrote a letter to the dean complaining about the pornographic picture.

It wasn’t pornographic. Clearly the purpose of this photo was not to turn anyone on. It was not a sexually explicit photo, just a guy with no clothes on in an unremarkable pose. His penis was not erect; there was no smirk on his face...just a naked guy in a studio somewhere: blank wall behind him. Black-and-white, nice lighting, in focus, nice-looking guy, perfectly normal-looking penis (i.e., not crazy, giant, porn penis). But it was really quite tame, boring even. Not worthy of sparking controversy. Yet, it did. There were a few letters in the school paper; people from off campus, maybe a few alumni, but also folks not directly connected to the school weighing in.

I think the dean asked the art teacher to take down that picture. Of course, that sparked a little more response. But it ended with the teacher taking down the whole group of pictures, and whatever else it was, a few days early. That’s unfortunate.

Anyway...here’s an “artistic” pic for ya. Well, maybe not artistic, but it’s in black-and-white.

"good morning"