Appreciating the Female Nude...

While I've always admired and appreciated art, not until very recently did I start understanding it and learning to read a painting and see what the artist is trying to say. Obviously in my less informed days, I expected all art to be beautiful in a gentle, pleasing manner and anything that was raw, asymetrical or unconventional failed to inspire me. So it is hardly surprising that my favourite artists were all Impressionists. I did however admire a few other artists, Edgar Degas being one of them. Very often recognised as an Impressionist, Degas infact worked more often in the studio than in the natural light and his subjects and techniques differed slightly from those of his contemporary Impressionists. I've always appreciated Edgar Degas' series of women at their toilette, finding the voyeur's perspective fascinating and sensual at the same time. That was perhaps my first step towards appreciating nudes in art.

As I slowly discovered other works with the female nude as their subject, I began to analyse them further. For instance, none of Degas' women meet their viewer's eye, unlike Velazquez's Venus (1644-48) who coyly looks at her viewer through the mirror held up for her toilette by an angel.

The sensuality of Ingres' Odalisque (1840) who looks over her shoulder and meets the viewer's eyes with an open frankness and not the slightest hint of coyness stole my breath, even if the proportion of the back in comparison to the rest of the body was a little skewed. Or maybe it was that sensual curve of her back that added to her appeal?

Odalisque with a Slave, in stark contrast presented a frontal view of Odalisque stretched out sensually while a slave played music for her pleasure and another one stood at guard. Obviously influenced by Ingres' study of Oriental culture, it is an incredibly sensual work of art, but I personally prefered Georgione's Venus Asleep (1510). The casual indolence with which Venus is stretched, demurely covering her sex with her hand is far more sensual than the obvious sensuality of the Ingres' Odalisque.

But if Georgione's Venus hand covering her sex is a demure gesture, when one sees Titian's Venus of Urbino (1538-39)covering her sex, it seems almost like an after-thought as she stares straight into the eyes of the viewer. The dog curled at her feet and the familiar household scene in the background seem to add to the erotic nature of the painting. However, she still seems demure, despite the openness of her look.

On the other hand, Manet's Olympia (1865), reposing on her bed while similarly covering her sex is anything but demure. The bold look invites the (male) viewer to enter her private chambers and sample what's very obviously on offer. The blatant sexuality of this work scandalised the public in the 19th century. While the nudity itself no longer shocks, the intent of the painting when considered in its contemporary social setting does indeed shock me as well. But I must profess to hugely admiring this particular work of art and all that it suggests, whether subtly or obviously.

Whatever be the intent and the style, none of these have truly bared the female sex to the viewer as do the modern works of art. Call me prudish or conventional, but I prefer this sensual representation of the female nude in comparison to the deconstructed nude which holds little as sacred (and the female sex is definitely not sacred for the modern artist). If I had to have a print of any one of these works of art in my house, I'd reach out for Olympia without batting an eyelid.