Nude depictions of the human form inevitably cause moral consternation in societies. The rules for how much nudity is acceptable evolve per political, economic, and social pressures, and often accurately reflect the role of women and sexuality in society. Back in Greek times, for example, sculptures featuring fully naked male and female goddesses were considered acceptable public works of art. However, following the demise of centralized authoritarian Western civilization in the fourth century A.D., censorship prevailed on the large-scale. The Church, for one, implemented strict rules about what artists and philosophers could and could not print. The closest many artists of the day could do to represent nudity was to incorporate elements of ribald humor in gargoyles or fantastical medieval sculptures. During the Renaissance Era, as the rationalist tradition began to awaken in Europe from its deep slumber, nude art once again came back en vogue. Michelangelo's "David" was iconic of this awakening. In 19th century England, the conservative forces associated with the Victorian Era once again banned artistic nudity. The Victorian kibosh on artistic nudity was doomed to fail. With the collapse of authoritarian moral control in the wake of World War I and World War II, artists once again were liberated to paint pretty much whatever they wanted without fear of moral repudiation. Indeed, some artists have really pushed the envelope to shock and generate moral outrage for its own sake. Consider the evocative nude photography of the late American artist, Robert Mapplethorpe, whose works were famously condemned by Southern senator, Jesse Helms. |
