"Can Beauty Ever be Considered a Moral Trait?" Part Two: Naturalism and Repose

Introduction

Perceptions of the female body begin to change from the 15th century through to the 20th century; there is a greater emphasis on naturalistic representations, propositions and poses. From Giorgione to Rubens to Renoir, the female body takes a distinct turn away from the previously aesthetically contorted forms. Bodies have natural more diverse shapes and are more comfortably posed in this period. Neither mathematics nor morality dictates the form of the female nude during this time.

That is not to say, however, that feminine subjectivity has broken free of its constraints; the gaze of the artist and the connoisseur is still the male gaze, but there is, nevertheless, growing diversity in the representation of the female body. The growing diversity of representation of the female form over this period represents a diversity of taste. The weakened strictures of style open up a space for reflection and reform with regard to feminine subjectivity, in particular towards the end of this period in the 19th century when the first wave of feminism hits.

 Venus Awakens: The Nude in Repose

The reclining nude is a special feature of this period; prior to the 15th century the reclining nude - the nude in repose - is almost non-existent. This represents an important shift in the recognition of feminine subjectivity and the values that emerge from its increasing presence. Two of the earliest, and most famous, reclining nudes belong to Giorgione and Titian, both "Old Masters." There is some controversy about Giorgione's Sleeping Venus (it was completed posthumously by Titian), but this does not concern us here. For my tastes, Sleeping Venus is the best example of the reclining nude discussed here.

Venus lies outside, totally disrobed, and on the verge of sleep; she is at rest in a rural scene. Her relaxed demeanour blends well with the relaxed rural setting (a "sleepy" village); her white skin, however, contrasts with the earthy colours of the fields and the village. Her repose fits into the scene by standing out, so to speak. She is relaxed, the scene is relaxed (I say "sleepy" because there's not another soul around); yet her figure dominates in the foreground, everything else is blurred by the whiteness of her skin.

Her hand rests discretely on her pudendum, concealing her genitals; her breasts, however, are unashamedly bare. The use of the hand to conceal the genitals is a common theme for the reclining nude (as we will see). It can be argued that this motif represents a sense of modesty (arguably, imposed), or an enduring discomfort with female sexuality, perhaps both. Either way, it represents an "aesthetic seal" that encloses the feminine form. The vagina is a confusing mess to the gender whose genitals sit (somewhat) neatly outside the viscera.

The hand replaces the "fig leaf" in the functional role of the aesthetic seal from older represents (see the previous post in this thread), but it perpetuates the discomfort the male gaze has for female sexuality; or, rather, the functional dimensions of female sexuality. It has always been acceptable for the breasts to be exposed, but not the vagina. Although, the vulva and labia is obscured by neither hand nor fig leaf on the Venus of Willendorf. Her breasts are far more prominent, but she shows no shame or modesty about her sexual organs at all (she does, however, lack arms and a discernible face, which I've discussed in the previous post).

Titian's Venus of Urbino differs in certain significant aspects to Giorgione's. The aesthetic seal remains in place, but Venus is awake, and therefore not passive; moreover, she gazes back at the (presumably male) gazer.

Her belly is a little plump, but not distended; her breasts are small, but proportional. Her gaze, while directed at the viewer, is not intimidating. Her head is tilted in a bashful/flirtatious mode, engaging but not intimidating. It is, perhaps, the "ideal" female gaze, at least from the perspective of the male: her gaze is inviting, yet she remains "modest" with the appropriately placed hand. What is important, however, is that gaze meets gaze, even though it is the inviting female gaze meeting the (unrepresented, and therefore omnipotent) male gaze.

In Manet's Olympia, the gaze is different again, although the pose remains the same. Olympia's skin is far paler than the Venus of either Giorgione or Titian, her hand more firmly planted on her thigh, concealing her pudendum. Her body is more rigid, and her gaze less inviting. It is more obvious that Olympia is posing. Her engagement with the gaze with of the viewer is more forceful, or confrontational.

Not only is her pose more rigid, her body is leaner, more taut than the Venuses; her stomach is flatter, and her shoulders appear broader. She is also not as reclined as the other Venuses. Her pale white skin and lean physique, along with the presence of the African servant indicate a manicured lifestyle. It is also generally accepted that Olympia is a prostitute, based the symbolism in the painting (the orchid in her hair, for instance).

In terms of feminine subjectivity, there is mixed symbolism. The emergence of the reclining nude indicates a "relaxation" of sentiment toward female sexuality, but the prevalence of the hand, in place of the fig leaf, as the enforcing symbol of the aesthetic seal, implies an enduring discomfort with feminine sexuality. However, from Giorgione's Venus, to Titian's, to Manet's we can see a strengthening of the female gaze in response to the male viewer's gaze. The aesthetic seal remains, but the opening of the eyes - from sleep, to seduction, to confrontation, perhaps even daring - the returning of the gaze, is indicative of emerging feminine subjectivity.

Bathing Beauties: Naturalism and the Female Forms

 The reclining nude represents a growing acceptance of the female body; the viewer, the artist, and the connoisseur, however, remain almost exclusively male. Nevertheless, the gradual opening of the eyes of Venus is important in the evolution of the values that surround our aesthetic tastes. Manet's Olympia, in fact, was quite controversial, in part because of the confidence exhibited by the nude female subject, enforced particularly by her gaze.

A parallel tradition during the period under focus here, is the emphasis on more naturalistic bodies. Rubens and Pierre-Auguste Renoir are excellent examples here. The term "Rubenesque" has come to denote a shapely or plump female physique. Rubenesque has positive connotations, as such. Rubens is renowned for his depictions of voluptuous, naturalistic women. Take, for example, The Three Graces. The women in this painting display a shapeliness that is absent from previous works; none of the Venuses have bodies like these. The larger posteriors and slight puckering are more realistic than, say Olympia's manicured body, although the Graces do retain fair skin of Venuses.

There is no ideal proportion to the bodies of the Graces, but this is what makes their bodies more natural; very few women have the classical proportions of the Athena of Knidos. Their bodies, however, are not purposely distended in the way of the Gothic nude. There is a great sense of ease or comfort in the subjects of the painting; the woman are unashamedly naked, ostensibly conversing, there is also considerable physical contact between the three women.

Importantly, there is no obvious attempt to obscure the vulva; "obvious," that is, in terms of a clear symbolic "aesthetic seal." There is no fig leaf, and the hands of the women are occupied in contact with arms and shoulders of each other. While there is no clear sign of the labia majora, as in the Venus of Willendorf. the mons pubis, at least of the Grace on the left, is not totally obscured. The woman are comfortable in the nudity, and the gaze of the male is less uncomfortable with seeing it; there is no expectation of mathematics or morality in the scene.

Rubens' Angelica and the Hermit, presents a voluptuous nude in repose, with a beseeching male - the hermit - at her side. Angelica is voluptuous and looking rather comfortable. To be sure, she is still the object of the male gaze, the viewers' and the hermit's. Her voluptuous form is in stark contrast to the bodies of the Venuses, and especially Olympia. Her skin, however, remains white, in stark contrast to the dark, earthy colours that surround her.

The aesthetic seal also remains. A sliver of drapery conceals Angelica's vulva; the Hermit, however, appears to be slowly pulling it away. Angelica is asleep, and appears to be neither consenting nor resisting the act of the Hermit. There is certainly something symbolic about the scene: a clothed male, eyes wide-open, slowly unveiling the naked body of a female, eyes closed and unresponsive, neither inviting nor rejecting the actions of the male. His gaze is neither aggressive, nor "sleazy"; perhaps a symbol of (wishful) self-reflection on the part of the true audience: the male connoisseur. Angelica is unconscious, and any desire she has is equally unconscious - hence innocent, at least insofar as connoisseur is concerned. The imploring look of the hermit is somewhat belied by the actions of his hands, and this dichotomy, against the background of the unconscious sexuality of Angelica, is arguably emblematic of the way the male connoisseur interprets his own gaze.

Before moving on, I must confess: Pierre-Auguste Renoir is perhaps my favourite artist. As fond as I am of Titian and Rubens, Renoir outstrips them both in my opinion. With this intrusion of disclosure complete, we can quickly move on. Renoir's bathers are exquisite, capturing the sense of voluptuous naturalism that is often characterized by the term "Rubenesque." The Large Bathers is a scene of women with women, being women. There is a sense of voyeurism in this painting, and many of Renoir's other bathing scenes; having said that, however, this voyeurism offers an insight into the feminine subject that is otherwise denied in most previous representations.

These women, while obviously posed for the purposes of representation, are not constrained by their pose; they are conversing while they engage in their ablutions. There is a relaxed demeanour about the women. The dark-haired woman, leaning back on one hand, the other held up, one leg partially raised, a supple contortion in her body accentuated by the folds of skin on her flank beneath her right breast. This is not the usual nude in repose, although her vulva and vagina are still obscured; the problem of her awkward pose and what it might otherwise reveal is unsubtly solved by the dress draped between her thighs. Her bolder companion, arguably the focal point of the scene, is unabashed in revealing her breasts in the act of toweling herself off, implying that there are no men about, that this is purely a woman's space. The third companion reveals only her back and buttocks as she is still in the act of bathing, or is simply reveling in the water; she does not seem too urgent to act, as her right hand spoons the water, perhaps absentmindedly while she enjoys the conversation.

The scene is filled with dynamic action, women in different stages of bathing; women, amongst other women at least, are not static forms. While certain hallmarks of the male gaze and the aesthetic seal remain, scenes such as these, and there are others of equal quality, open a window onto the subjectivity of women. There is a sense of joy in the naked conversation, with three different personalities on display.

The women here are not merely naked or nude, but socially nude; the male gaze is ostensibly invited into a private scene, as a voyeur, but is subverted by the distance established by the fact the women are not gazing back; their gaze is not seductive; their gaze is not stern; their gaze is not passive. Their gaze is simply not returned to the voyeur. Their gaze belongs to each other, dynamically in social intercourse. While the male gaze is still privileged, it is passive; the male viewer is merely an observer.

*

In the next blog, I will move in the 20th century, and in particular the advent of photography. Photography has changed the way we view and represent the human body, the female body especially. Verisimilitude is now not only possible but instantaneous; ultimately photography will proliferate in the 20th century. The photograph, and eventually the Internet, will change the relationship between female body and the viewers' (still mostly male) gaze. While the photograph allowed for greater flexibility in the representation of the female body, as well as empowering women in viewing and disseminating their own images, it also has a darker side. This darker side will come into greater focus with the Internet, but this will be the topic of a subsequent blog. 

"Can Beauty Ever be Considered a Moral Trait?" Part One: From Venus to Eve



Introduction

 

In this series of blogs I will trace the evolution of the tastes and values surrounding the female nude, from the Venus of Willendorf to Barbie. The purpose of this series of blogs is to show the transformation of tastes and values, and ultimately the politics, that has followed the perception, appreciation, and treatment of the female form. The cultural and aesthetic treatment of the female body has changed over time, and is now a more contest site of meaning than ever before. This, we might call the democratisation of the female body.

 

At no time in history have woman had as much political and aesthetic control over their bodies, although by no means at a level of parity with men. In order to understand this democratisation we need to understand that the tastes and values surrounding the female form are not fixed, that there is a range of influences that contribute to the prevailing tastes and values of a given era that change over time. Unlike during any other era, women are subjective agents (as opposed to objects of discussion) who contribute to the tastes and values surrounding their own form.

 

 

"Can Beauty ever be Considered a Moral Trait?"

 

This was the question posed to my first-year class at university this year for a writing task. It's a decidedly big question, but it's also a very important question outside the abstract domain of the classroom. It is a question that resides at the crossroad of aesthetics and ethics, always a contentious intersection. Contentious because it overlaps with certain areas of interest with gender studies and sexual politics more broadly; in particular, the notion of beauty of a highly contested concept. A woman's beauty, more specifically, can be highly ideological terrain. Nevertheless, I do believe that beauty can be a moral trait, and I will seek to frame this answer to the question here. It is, however, more complicated than a yes/no answer.

 

To try to explain simply, beauty is a moral trait, not in an objective or subjective sense but in an intersubjective sense. Beauty is a moral trait of all the participants involved or complicit in the process whereby beauty is constructed or perceived. That is, beauty is a moral trait not only for those who are considered beautiful but also those who consider them beautiful, the perceiver as well as the perceived; importantly, both can be the same person. I will attempt to explain the nuance of this point.

 

To call beauty, particularly physical beauty, a moral trait raises questions of value and taste. By "taste" I mean the prevailing preferences of a society at any given time; in the context, this refers to the preferred shapes and variations of the female form. Value is construed more broadly: it refers to what is considered important to that society at any given time. I say "at any given time" because tastes and values do change; understanding the process of change is critical to understanding how beauty can be considered a moral trait.

 

What I will focus on here is how the representation of the female form has changed. In particular, I will focus on a few key representations of the female nude. The female nude has historically been laden with meaning, indicative of the values of the era. That is, the aesthetic tastes that surrounds the female nude at any given time are representative of a set of prevailing values of the era. Importantly, those values change from era to era, and are not always related to the same material facts. Let me foreshadow a little to explain: the Gothic nude, the nude of the middle ages, an era of extreme religiosity, depicts the female form in a decidedly non-sexual way, while the nude of Ancient Greece depicts an ideal, almost mathematical form. The pre-historic Venus of Willendorf embodies a different set of values, while modern images of the nude a different set of values again.

 

I will address the different representations as embodying a certain set of historical values; the importance of this point is that the tastes and values surrounding the female body have changed, and that there is no fixed value, as such. The value of the female body is historically situated and not absolute. What is, therefore, moral about beauty pertains to its relative state, meaning the social, economic, and political situation in which the female body exists.

 

 

Prehistory: The Venus of Willendorf

 

It can be argued that the changes in historical tastes and values of the female body constitute an evolution towards the democratisation of the female body, but this is not my goal at present. It is, nevertheless, importantly to keep in mind that the body is never just an image, even in its prehistoric form; it is always a site of political and social significance.

 

The Venus of Willendorf is one of the oldest representations of the human form.

 

 

 

 

 

What you first notice about the Venus are breasts and stomach. On closer inspection you notice that the figure has no discernible face and no arms. It is also noticeable that the Venus has a large posterior. Certain features of the Venus are exaggerated while other features are diminished. The question, of course, must be "why?" One theory, promoted by neuroscientists like V. S. Ramachandran, suggests that the exaggeration of certain features and not others relates to a biological predisposition toward those certain features and not others. This is an evolutionary argument.

 

The exaggeration of the breasts and the stomach, which are pertinent to child-raising, has some resonance. The Venus's physique is not an oddity, the same sorts of exaggerations and minimisations occur in other "Venuses" of the time period, 20,000-25,000 years ago. The traditional interpretation is that the Venus is a fertility symbol, which is a reasonable analysis. Other interpretations, which can be seen as sympathetic to the fertility interpretation, argue that there is a biological imperative that leads to the brain emphasising certain features and not others. This is a evolutionary and neurological interpretation.

 

A proper interpretation must take account of all the features, including the minimised ones; in the case of the Venus of Willendorf, the absence of arms and the minimisation of facial features, which again is common in other Venus figurines. If the brain is, for lack of a better word, programmed to focus on certain features and not others, then there is an argument to be made about the exaggerated features in the Venus. The values expressed in these earliest artistic expressions are neuro-biological, if not evolutionary.  

Antiquity: The Aphrodite of Knidos

The Venus of Willendorf signifies the emergence of art and human culture - the shift from prehistory to history. The female body has not changed in 30,000-odd years; what has changed is the art and culture of the human race. The influence of art and culture on the tastes and values of society, at least in terms of Western art and culture, surrounding the female nude is best illustrated by the Classical - Greco-Roman - treatment of the naked female form. The Greeks were fascinated by mathematics, and mathematical proportions would come to influence even their appreciation of the human body.

 

Importantly, the male nude was held equal to, if not greater than, the female nude in cultural and aesthetic esteem in Greek society. This is an interesting point of different to every other period of Western history, but my focus here is the female form. There is, arguably, an obsession with the male form now, but whether it is comparable to the Greeks' is another question for another time.

 

The female nude is represented through a very particular formula: the distance between the breasts, the distance from the breasts to the navel, and the distance from the navel to the partition of the legs. That is to say, the distance from the breasts to the partition is twice that of the distance between the breasts. This is a mathematical formula that, as Kenneth Clark says, is repeated throughout the classical period. The Aphrodite of Knidos (or Cnidos), attributed to Praxiteles, exemplifies this formula:

 

 

 

The Aphrodite differs markedly from the Venus; the craft of sculpting had obviously greatly improved in 20,000-odd years! That aside, what we notice is, at first glance, is an emphasis on verisimilitude, quite distinct from the exaggerations of the breasts, buttocks, and stomach in the Venus. I say "at first glance" because the proportions are, as I have mentioned, governed by a mathematical ideal, and this is not universally applicable; very few women actually meet the "Classical ideal."

 

The Greek obsession with mathematics goes beyond sculpture and the representation of the human form. There was a mysticism that was attached to mathematics, perhaps best exemplified in the cult of Pythagoras. Mathematics was a lens through which the world could be seen and understood; it must be remembered that Ancient Greece, Classical civilisation, is where many of our most enduring questions about humanity and the universe were first asked.

 

Mathematics represents order and causal structures of meaning. While women were considered second-class citizens (there is no real difference in their political status in Antiquity to the later Gothic, or medieval era), the "idealisation" of form is not misogynistic; both male and female forms had mathematical ideals. The set of value this particular taste represents revolves around proportion and structure. Greek society (I have Athenian society in mind here) was highly structured, socially and politically.

 

Perhaps a more enduring expression of the Greek ideals of structure and organisation than mathematical ideals and mysticism that emerges from Ancient Greece is the form of political organisation known as democracy, which flickered for a brief moment in the 4th century BC, and which would be seen again for millennia. Greek democracy was a complicated system with what Americans would call "checks and balances" programmed into its institutional structure. Although, women were not granted a vote, and, obviously, neither were slaves. Politically and culturally speaking, in ancient Greece there was certain prevailing attitudes towards women and certain minorities that still echo today.

 

 

Medieval Era: Adam and Eve

 

The Greeks revelled in mathematical proportions; they had stumbled upon the fact that everything in the universe could be represented mathematically, though they may have extended the metaphor too far with prescriptive measurements. In the medieval period, representations of the female body took on a different shape. The ideal form of the Greeks, perhaps an exaggeration of proportionality, gives way to a different kind of exaggeration in the Gothic or Medieval period.

 

There are two parts to the Gothic era, early and late. The female (as well as the male) body is noticeably different, although they share the same desexualised essence. The early Gothic body is remarkable in its unremarkable shape with no physiological emphasis of any sort; the "ideal proportion" of the early-Gothic is one of severe under-statement. The early-Gothic period, it must be remembered, is one dominated by the Christian mythology and a pervasive asceticism. The body, in this period, is something to be shunned, not glorified; it is almost always in a state of mortification. The Adam and Eve at Bamberg is a good example of the entirely desexualised nature of the early-Gothic nude.

 

 

 

Adam and Eve are almost caricatures. The body is something to be transcended in this time period. The natural shape of the female form (as well as the male form) is caricatured into near formlessness. Save for two small breasts, the difference between Adam and Eve is negligible.

 

The late-Gothic representation of the female body, on the other hand, is a little more stylised; as such, it is a little more interesting. The late-Gothic nude has two key features: an emphasising of the stomach, and a de-emphasising of the breasts. The exaggeration of the stomach and reduction of the breasts represent a de-sexualisation of the female form and an emphasis on the woman's role as life-giver. The distended stomach always resembles the swollen belly inextricably associated with pregnancy. The swollen breasts that are also often associated with pregnancy are not represented, however.

 

Hugo van der Goes' depiction of Adam and Eve is emblematic of the late-Gothic nude. Kenneth Clark refers to the female nude of this period as "bulb-like," while the men are root-like in form.

 

 

 

 

 The distended stomachs of the Gothic female nude are peculiar from a modern perspective, but it must be remembered that the predominant shape is indicative of the morality of the time. "Eve" is decidedly un-sexual; her body is purely functional. However, it should also be remembered what women represented for the 1500 since the emergence of Christianity: the Fall of Man, as represented in van der Goes' picture. Eve is plucking the apple from the Tree of Knowledge at the insistence of the anthropomorphic snake. It is, perhaps, ironic that the gender that is held responsible for the Fall of Man for her temptation is represented so un-temptingly.

 

*

 

In the next blog, I will focus on representations of the female body from the Renaissance to the 20th Century. In particular, I will look at the works of Giorgione, Titian, Rubens and Renoir, among others. Artists such as these over this period since the 15th century capture broader-ranging and more naturalistic images of the female nude, with an increasing sense of feminine subjectivity and diversity in the subject-matter. As this period progresses, depictions of the female nude are bound less and less by an over-arching moral structure or ideal; depictions of the female nude over this period become more subjective, both in relation to the artist and the female subject herself. This diversification and subjectivisation is an important precursor - empowering as well as problematic - to the realisation of beauty as a moral trait in the modern era.