Question: Is nudity as an art harmful or harmless for a stable society❓
Answer:
Throughout history, there seems to be a significant struggle with the topic of the role of art. Philosophers such as Plato and Immanuel Kant have discussed, and disagreed on, the role and effect of art in society. Whereas Plato warns us about the dangers of art for the moral education of children, Kant argues that art is autonomous and therefore has no significant role in society. However, art definitely has the power to cause controversy amongst its observers, especially if it contains nudity. In the late 1800’s, Manet shocked audiences by depicting a nude woman staring directly into the observer's eyes. Nowadays, nudity in art is still a controversial topic. Even though artistic freedom and freedom of speech are important democratic values, Instagram and Facebook do not allow nude pictures, even if these are artistic ones. Are they right in doing so? Should artistic representations of nudity be allowed in society, or will they only destabilize it?
Let's get back to Manet’s Olympia, since this is an major artwork of which its critics argued that it should not be allowed to be shown. In 1865 Edouard Manet’s Olympia scandalized Paris, where the painting was exhibited at the city’s annual salon. The piece portrays a female nude, lying upon a chaise longue in a pose which had previously been seen in Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1538), Giorgione’s Sleeping Venus (c. 1510), and Francisco de Goya’s La maja desnuda (circa 1797).
The shocked audience described the work as “immoral” and “vulgar”. In this case, it was not the nudity of the model that caused the controversy, since people had seen that before. Some details in the artwork namely identify Olympia as a prostitute, such as her black necklace and the orchid in her hair. Also, it was one of the first artworks of its kind to have to model gazing directly into the observers’ eyes. By doing this, it can be said that Manet directly challenged his audience to discuss his artwork.
Writer Émile Zola praised Manet for his honesty, stating: “When our artists give us Venuses, they correct nature, they lie. Édouard Manet asked himself: Why lie? Why not tell the truth? He introduced us to Olympia, this fille of our time, whom you meet on the sidewalks.”
On the one hand, Manet was criticized for the immorality of his artwork, whilst on the other hand he was praised for his honesty.
This example of a controversial artwork can be linked to both Platonic and Kantian philosophy. In his Republic, Plato argues for the censorship of art. According to Plato, art can have a negative influence on the moral education of children if it contains anything outside of the truth. Plato considered art to be a sloppy imitation of the truth and according to Platonic reasoning, lies are change and change is unstable. In the Republic, Plato argues for an ideal society ruled by philosopher kings who would ascertain a stable society by banning all artworks that work against the truth. Plato argued that art should not deceive, that it should tell the truth. This is what Manet did in his painting, by depicting an everyday woman, whom you meet on the sidewalks, realistically. However, the picture does not depict the real Olympia, as Victorine Meurant modelled for Manet, so therefore it can be argued the painting is not really that honest, after all. It can be said that Manet’s painting destabilized society, in a way, due to the controversy it caused. Olympia challenged the status quo of art at the time. Prostitutes ought not to have been depicted, or let alone be shown at a salon. Since then, the piece has acquired a significant place in art history, especially for the controversial effect the artwork had within the art community.
Immanuel Kant would probably say about this, that Olympia did not have a true effect on society. In his Critique of Judgement, Kant did not consider art to have an actual function in society. He stated that art does not add to, or take from to moral education. What we say about beauty does not change the conditions of the world. Someone's opinion, or whether they perceive something as pleasurable or displeasurable, says more about the person, rather that the object they are judging. In this case, it can be said that the critique towards Manet tells us more about moral and cultural values of the observer, rather than the evil nature of image, as Plato would argue. Moreover, being an Enlightenment philosopher, Kant wanted people to have freedom of thought. In order to establish this, people should have artistic freedom. Censorship would limit peoples’ freedom of thought and would be inherently anti-democratic.
Looking back at the time it was first presented in a Parisian salon, Manet’s Olympia caused an upheave within, which could be seen as destabilizing. Though, I do not think this painting is so much harmful as it was uncomfortable for people to look at. It makes people challenge the status quo and the role and limits of art in society. This possibility of change so
