Last year, a friend of ours and her two children (ages 7 and 8, if I recall correctly) visited. They wanted to look in the studio and my wife let them in (after cautioning them not to touch anything). I had a couple of nudes hanging against the wall, which my wife immediately turned around to keep them from being seen.
I’ve been thinking about that lately. Why was that necessary? These paintings were not pornographic or even explicit. They were of a man and a woman posing in the nude.
I’m not criticizing my wife, of course. She responded appropriately, especially since their mother hadn’t been warned about the possibility of them seeing paintings of naked people. I think it kind of disturbs me that this was necessary, however. We didn’t discuss the issue with our friend—we just assumed that she would never allow her children to see that kind of art.
This is especially interesting when we compare modern attitudes to those of the Victorians. We think of Victorians as absurdly prudish, even to the point of considering it proper to do things like put books by male and female authors on different shelves and cover up the “limbs” of roast poultry with paper covers. We can laugh at that, yet I’ve read that Victorian children were routinely exposed to nude art. It was considered educational and uplifting. Obviously, not all people in the Victorian era had the same values, and I’m sure some found the idea of children looking at nudes to be inappropriate. Yet I’ve seen images of museums from the period, with throngs of both adults and school-age children looking at nude paintings and sculpture.
Are we more prudish about art than the Victorians, for all that advertising and other media are filled with sex? Is it inappropriate for children to see nude art?
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this topic, but I do know that if there were a nude in my living room, some uncomfortable situations would occur from time to time.
Comments?
I have had my grandchildren in my studio at various times and they have seen my life drawings and paintings.
There only comment was ‘Why do you always paint bottoms ?’
The list of things that strike me as peculiar about the society I live in is extensive, and this is one of them. I imagine other parts of the world can be even more strict. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to respect the rights of others, especially parents, and prepare them for anything that they might find objectionable for their kids. Chances are that children wouldn’t do more than giggle. If the work was more erotic in nature then I think the situation deserves more attention. Bear in mind I’m not a parent and children rarely visit my studio space. I once worked in a shared space where we had open studio visits, and we voluntarily placed a warning notice at the door about “adult content.” It never was an issue, but we thought it necessary just in case.
Back in ’96 when I first graduated from high school, I worked at a video store. One of the managers there was telling me about watching a movie with his (then) 3 year old son. When he mentioned the title I was shocked. “There are nude scenes in that,” I said. He replied, “But no explicit sex. I’m only concerned about my boy seeing violence in movies, really.”
It took me a few minutes to process that I had grown up the opposite. The only parts of “Conan the Barbarian” my family censored were the scenes with exposed breasts.
In a culture with so much violence in popular media, is it a strange thing to realize that we demonize nudity but have no problem with violent images?
I blame the religious right.
Titan,
I agree that there is certainly an influence from the religious right. I would point out, however, that the people I discussed are (1) not associated with anything like an evangelical church; and (2) committed leftists. I don’t think the religious right has enough influence to make these people behave as they did.
//I’m not criticizing my wife, of course. She responded appropriately, especially since their mother hadn’t been warned about the possibility of them seeing paintings of naked people.// well you answered your own questions, why be disturbed? There is some sense of “weirdness” or emotional trigger in nakedness, and not solely becasue young people are kept hostage by a conservative or prude culture, it just is that way. So you acted the correct way and there is a proper develoment of humans that we should be sheltered for a certain amount of time and gradually become in touch and aware of sexuality and its results and its consequences. Why the digging to justify?
Anthony,
Of course my wife’s reaction was culturally appropriate.
It’s easy, however, to confuse the customs of one’s tribe with natural law. The point I was trying to make in the blog post was that there have been many cultures, including Victorian England, in which it would be considered well within the proper development of humans to allow children to view nude art. I don’t necessarily think that our tribe has it entirely right.
I say pictures of nude sculptures in Encyclopedia Britannica when I was twelve-years old. I still have the entire 30+ years old set. Being born into an Oriental family didn’t help matters AT ALL. When the Internet came along, I was like,”Yahoo!”. Now, I am restricted, AGAIN. Life is a heartbreaker.