I find it fascinating to read about the transition and controversy regarding the nude female form. In today’s world, nudity can be handled so distastefully and offensively – to say the least – but it is something that we as a society have become so familiar with and used to seeing. It is relatively enlightening to recognize how, on what scale and In what medium this transition into accepting the nude female imagery began.
Soy’s Major descend and Major vestige caused quite the controversy In the late 18th entry and early 1 9th century. Starting with the opinions of the correct, or male escort to a married woman; some saw It as an Innocent diversion while others classified It as outright adultery. The correct became the subject of satirical literature acknowledging that “they do whatever they please” (referring to the correct and his lady).
This observation wasn’t a surprise given that the upper and upper-middle classes’ sexual activities were rarely discussed. In 1762 King Carols Ill ordered that the royal collection be burned on account of “too much nudity. Luckily an alternative solution to simply relocate the paintings was suggested and but they were again ordered to be burned in 1792. The paintings were not burned yet again but instead moved to the Royal Academy where “they could be seen only by those with sufficient knowledge to appreciate their artistic merits”.
This restriction of viewers is much like a restriction of maturity levels we see today; the painting could only be viewed if the viewer was “mature” enough to view them in a purely sophisticated and appreciative manner. Near the end of the article, Tomlinson talks about how it was impossible for Soya to treat the female nude on a purely aesthetic level because of the confusion between imagery and reality. His solution is to “dress her in a manner that identifies her sexually with commodity and masquerade, divorcing it from the female form [and it] is emptied of the sexual.