christopher kremmer
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| All rights reserved. |
|
COMMENTARY |
THE NAKED TRUTH ABOUT RELIGIOUS ART by Christopher Kremmer Sydney Morning Herald July 9,2008 Kevin Rudd is adamant. He is revolted by images of naked children. "Frankly, I can't stand this stuff," he says. What, then, does Rudd make of portraits of naked children created in the name of the Christian faith he espouses? If Rudd's revulsion is to be our guide, then the National Gallery of Australia better start preparing to dispose of religious art items in its collection including Madonna dell'Umilita (Madonna of Humility) a painted wood carving by an unknown Italian sculptor in the 15th-16th century. It depicts the Virgin Mary clasping the naked baby Jesus to her breast. How shocking! Didn't the artist realise that the sculpture could inspire a loathsome lust for children in some viewers? And what on earth was management at the publicly funded gallery thinking when it purchased the sculpture in 1983? But the scandals don't stop there. Take the High Renaissance artist Michelangelo Buonarroti, the painter of the Vatican's Sistine Chapel. The internet is rife with images of his full-frontal sketch Study Of The Christ Child And An Anatomical Drawing With Notes. The British Museum, clearly oblivious to the moral dangers, has the original in its collection. Perhaps Pope Benedict should also think twice about landing on Australian shores; NSW police might want to interview him about a certain painting in his possession back in Rome. The list of works by the great artists of Western civilisation, the morality of whom must now be suspect, is long. Leonardo - who presumably went to hell for his sins - didn't mind the odd nude bloke either. His sketch The Vitruvian Man, in which a well- endowed bloke stands naked inside a circle flagrantly exposing his undercarriage, would be at home in a certain type of men's magazine. The same artist is also credited with being among the first artists to draw a vagina. What would Rudd make of that? Da Vinci thought his nudes honoured the god of Christ, creator of the human form. So obsessed did he become with his pioneering anatomical studies that he dissected 30 cadavers. Alongside one sketch of a human heart he noted: "Marvellous instrument invented by the Supreme Master." Weird, huh? Well maybe, or maybe not. Not all committed Christians are as appalled as Rudd when it comes to the issue of naked children in art. In his 2004 article "A Christian Perspective on Nudity in Art", published in the United States in Classis, Matthew Clark explains that by showing Jesus naked, artists were making a theological point. "His genitals were shown so that the artist might emphasise the very real human nature of the Christ. The artists wished to refute various Christological heresies (Nestorianism, Monophysitism, various forms of Gnosticism, etc) by showing that Jesus was both God and man." Clark draws a clear distinction between such religious art and pornography, the latter being created for sexual arousal. He also points to the difference between modesty and prudishness. "It seems that children should be exposed to nudity in art from an early age with the understanding that it is proper in some contexts and improper in others … if this approach is taken, children will gain an understanding of modesty and prudishness and know the difference." In his 1983 book The Sexuality Of Christ In Renaissance Art And In Modern Oblivion, Leo Steinberg observes that in the Christian tradition, the shame associated with nakedness goes back to Adam and Eve's fall from grace. He says by painting Jesus naked in Risen Christ, Michelangelo shows the resurrection as the redemption of man's sin. "We may say that Michelangelo's naked Christ … [is] like the naked Christ Child, not shameful, but literally and profoundly shameless." In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, images of the human form, even clothed, were banned. It's a fine line between that and the present wowser push on nudity in art. Fulminating outrage says more about the psychology and paranoia of the moralisers than the artists. Have they no pictures of naked babies in their family photo albums? Where do we draw the line? Who is above suspicion? Clearly, some Christians and others are able to discern the difference between pornography and nudity in religious art. Surely, it would be arrogant, intolerant and ignorant to impugn the character of modern artists, whether religious or secular, for sincerely following in the footsteps of the masters. Christopher Kremmer is an author and research scholar with the Writing and Society Research Group at the University of Western Sydney. |
Click to read more commentary.....
Time for a Change in Australia
| COMING SOON IN HARPER PERENNIAL |
