cliterature

The debate about whether nudes shown in art are erotic or not, is a bit about the debate about whether men and women can just be friends.  That is, it is stupid.  I don’t even understand what kind of life you would have to live to not have ever had an opposite sex friend you didn’t bonk.   Either very sheltered or very busy I guess.

Of course people can be depicted naked in a way that is not erotic.  The stacked bodies at death camps were not sexy.  Breast feeding mothers, nudist beaches, saunas.  Being naked is not just about sex.  Although many of us now do in fact lead lives where we see very little nudity other than our own or prior to sex.  That, I think, is rather sad.  Perhaps it does condition some people to get turned on even by a naked table leg.

But yes, there are non-erotic nudes. Spencer Turnick, for example, bypasses the libido with sheer numbers and inert, headless poses. My main reaction to his extensive and repetitive use of mass nude crowd scenes around the world is that is suggests a peculiar fixation, but not a fetish.

But I find it interesting that many artists promoting their creation or viewing of nude art as non-erotic focus on depicting one or a few conventionally attractive models or the opposite sex in their child-bearing years.  The insistence of a lack of erotic content arises generally from religious morality or a disdain for producing low genre ‘porn’–not from the depiction being intrinsically non-sexual.

In fact, the angst that comes up over and over is most often a debate about whether the work is art or erotica (a.k.a. porn).  This is also a stupid question.  A picture can cause a person to be aroused without ceasing to be art.  And human diversity being what it is almost any depiction of anything will arouse someone.  (a.k.a.it is a false dichotomy)

Now it seems we are trying to obliterate any picture anyone might be aroused by in a way we don’t approve of.  Most obviously in the case of children and teens, not matter what the artistic merit might otherwise be.  People variously argue that whether something is erotica depends on the artist’s intent, or the viewer’s reaction (which ones?), or simply something you know when you see it.

The real question is: why do we care so much?  What is the big deal with some people getting turned on by pictures, whether we approve of that response or not.  Anything they might subsequently do remains entirely their own responsibility.

Queen Elizabeth I once famously defended freedom of religion by saying she had ‘no desire to make windows into men’s souls’ (even though she believed their eternal souls to be at stake).  So why do we keep trying to draw the curtains on their libidos?