Navigating the Female Nude: As a Male Artist

Notes on dilemmas on working with the female nude (bordering on torrid self-questioning)

With all transitions I think we may need to prepare for future doubts to arise…

An artist can THINK themselves into a position of fear: the world won’t like my work, it will be mocked, they will say it is exploitative, the market will despise it, the gallery I want will reject it, I won’t be taken seriously as an artist, women will hate me for my work, I’m repeating trite images, etc etc. So that’s me.

But this ‘problem’, these fears, currently exists nowhere else other than in the ‘THOUGHTS’ I they have.

I have painted a ‘beautiful’ woman for my second portal. She is by no means ‘perfect’ in the eyes of mass media, for these Barbie times, in fact we would say she is ‘overweight’! But of course not overweight at all, just beautiful.

My first portal was of Dina who was in her 40s and had a figure, again, that was not what we would call typically perfect.

My second portal: Her pose is classical, and not one of strength, but neither is it one of availability. But certainly passive.

She does serve my purpose, that is to say she meets the criteria of what I find beautiful. Is there anything wrong with this?

Part of being an artists is staying strong and standing firm when it ‘feels’ we are under attack. If we create work that is of any value, their will certain be times when we are under attack. How to stay firm in one’s beliefs when the world says no!?

My motive is not to exploit the female image. My motive is to capture the beauty as I see it. This may change over time.

But the shadowy self-critical monster says:

The history of painting the female nude has been dominated by men, and as a result from the tens of thousands of European paintings you essentially end up with a portrayal of the woman as idealised and fantasised by the male artist.

You tend not to see a real woman, but a beautiful, idealised perfection of a woman in a very considered, often passive or available pose.

My second portal fits very well into the schema. Another male depicting a fantasy woman of his own creation which meets and satisfies his own desires!

There she sits, a perfect little porcelain doll, elegant and without a bone of personal power in her body.

She is  ‘trapped’ in this peeping hole I refer to as a ‘portal’.

Where the work does tend to make more sense is where there is an ambiguity, where the typical classical and formalised pose of female perfection through the eyes of a male, breaks down, and what you then have is a consideration of the a) the real body of a real woman, and the psychological beginnings of a real thinking human, as opposed to a vacuous object placed on a pedestal for the artists gratification.

Remove the glass and you have little new being offered here in the depiction of the female nude.

Should I reconsider my portrayal of the female nude, forget about making a career out of semi-sexualised images of women, which as we know is a subtle form of exploitation.

Am I thinking too much? Being too hard on myself. Swallowing feminist polemic which would say no man is allowed to paint a woman as it is exploitation for his own needs.

Should I rather consider her as a powerful human being, consider the sinew and muscle which raises a family, the intelligent mind which generates love and compassion, the woman who works hard and equally in a stressful world.

Should I rather consider the women i know, and who they actually are, rather than repeating the old, submissive pretty images of periods long past?

Should I refer to lucian Freud, to Jenny Saville, rather than historical European representations of the female nude as object which satisfies and gratifies the artist? Should I let me models be beautiful in their immense power?

But these are two of many paintings to come. It is part of my evolution.

What I don’t want is frilly fluffy nudes. Or do I? Perhaps I want something with more balls (!), with a power and strength, something which provokes a little awe even.

Chiaroscuro can bring a darker realism beyond the flashlight lighting of models found in glamour magazines. Lighting can make a model appear ‘glamour’ like, or as a great work of caravaggio-esque art.

Never create artwork for a gallery. Create the artwork, and then find a gallery that will take the work. Gallery firs artwork, never artwork to fit gallery.  Artwork to fit gallery distorts your authentic visions.

Painting the female nude is more complex than painting a pomegranate!

Currently my painting of the nude woman is not the problem, rather it is MY POOR THINKING about my paintings of a nude woman that is the problem.

No problem actually exists. Preempting a problem is wise. But the problem may not exist anywhere other than in my own thoughts.

Stand firm in the face of critical response. But  also don’t generate a critical response where none in fact exists.

Be open. Be inquisitive. Question. Move on.

For anyone who got this far: you now  get to see that there is something just as important as an artist bulldozing his way through the artworld, and that is an artist saying to the world, I don’t know what I’m doing, I’m struggling, things don’t make so much sense any more.

Being vulnerable is something you don’t often see, or hear about with artists. But know that it is as real. And know that there can be value in releasing it into the universe.

Id imagine even a female artist can mishandle and misrepresent the female form, and become susceptible to similar (though different) accusations.

When in a position like this, there is a strong desire to seek out permission for the work you do. This is of course futile. An artist alone must give him or herself permission.

No new art in the history of art would have been created if artists had sought out permission first. They wouldn’t have got it.

On this subject of nude portrayals, there will be a gradation of thought on what is acceptable when portraying the female nude.

From extreme feminist polemic which says no man may paint a nude woman because he will be exploiting her.

To, any subjugation of the female form in art is unacceptable.

To, any representation of the female form which promotes negative stereotypical imagery is unacceptable.

To, as long as she is portrayed respectfully and artistically it’s acceptable.

And the list goes on and on.

And there are no doubt any number of variations within these positions.

There is no escaping a simple fact of human nature: men and women find each other appealing.

When painting a nude, I would want to paint her in an appealing way, not an unappealing way. This would be counter intuitive, not natural or authentic for me.

I can’t paint like Freud or saville because there is no appeal for me there, when a woman becomes a carcass. But freuds pallid carcasses seem acceptable because he has removed all sensual appeal. But sensual appeal is part of my reson d’être.

How does artist Allen Jones, I wonder, reason his intentions with the lingering image of sexual objectification of the female form in his work.

There must be extreme vitriol aimed at his work from certain feminine quarters. Yes, he does not seek permission or acceptance. Yet the art establishment gives him acceptance! The history books give him acceptance, which is of course permission.