art, photography and the erotic in the 19th century

François Boucher, Portrait of Marie-Louise O'Murphy c. 1752

Photography has always had an uneasy relationship with art. From the time photography became a practical proposition in the mid 19th century it attracted the interest of artists, for various reasons. Some painters liked the idea of being able to work from photographs rather than live models, live models having a tendency to complain bitterly about having to keep still.

Artists were also interested in the potential of photography as an art form in itself. Whether photography really does (or can) qualify as art was a subject of controversy and to this day not everyone is convinced that photography is “real” art.

A major difficulty arose when the famous “box brownie” arrived on the scene. Suddenly anyone could take photographs. A means had to be found to distinguish between the snapshots taken by ordinary people and art photographs taken by “proper” artists. To be honest no-one has ever been to do that other than by saying that photographs taken by real artists are art and photographs taken by non-artists are not art. Of course there is a difference between a photograph that is art and a mere snapshot but the difference is essentially subjective. We may not be able to define art but we know it when we see it. Except that no two people see it the same way.

Félix-Jacques Antoine Moulin, Recumbent female nude, Amélie, 1852–1853

The blurry line between photos as art and photos as non-art becomes particularly problematic when we’re dealing with erotic subject matter. Erotic art is a pretty fraught subject even when we’re dealing with painting. Everyone knows that Boucher’s Portrait of Marie-Louis O’Murphy is art and a pinup painting isn’t, even though the subject matter of Boucher’s painting is just a painting of a pretty girl lounging naked on a sofa.

Maybe it’s something to do with the intention of the artist or the photographer? Surely when great painters painted naked ladies they had allegorical or symbolic intentions? Undoubtedly that’s true in many cases, but it’s not that easy to see profound meanings in Boucher’s painting. Of course it’s possible that when M. Boucher asked Mademoiselle O’Murphy to disrobe and take up her pose he was immediately overcome by the desire to create great art that would offer profound spiritual insights into the meaning of life. Or maybe he was just overcome by awe at the young lady’s beauty. Perhaps he exclaimed, “Sacre bleu, what a magnificent opportunity for allegory.” Or perhaps he just exclaimed, “Sacre bleu, what a delicious derriere.”

Sometimes a beautiful nude girl is just a beautiful nude girl, even when painted by an artist.

When it comes to erotic photography things get tricky. Obviously a painting of a pretty girl lounging naked on a sofa is art but what about a photograph of more or less the same subject? Is it art if the photographer went to art school? Is it more OK if it’s a really old photograph? Is Félix-Jacques Moulin’s daguerrotype of a naked young lady acceptable in a way that a 1960s centrefold is not? People at the time didn’t think do, since Moulin went to prison for taking such photographs. François Boucher did not go to prison for painting Mlle O’Murphy without her clothes on.

Maybe it’s the technical or aesthetic quality of the image. As paintings of naked females go Boucher’s is unquestionably very very good. He was a very technically accomplished painter. But many of the photographers who took photos for girlie magazines in the 1950s and 1960s were very technically accomplished photographers. Boucher’s painting is well composed and aesthetically pleasing. But it’s difficult to deny that the centrefold shown here is also well composed and aesthetically pleasing. In both cases the object was to emphasis the attractiveness of the young lady’s posterior and I think both Boucher and the 1960s photographer managed to do that.

Is the desire to celebrate female beauty an insufficient justification for art? Clearly art can do many other things besides celebrate feminine beauty, but does that mean that paintings or photographs that are primarily or solely concerned with the celebration of female beauty cannot be art?

For the past century or so we have become accustomed to the idea that important art should be ugly and unpleasant and have a political purpose. Is it possible that it’s OK for art to celebrate beauty?

What all this rambling is leading up to is that I’m intending to do a lot more posts on the subject of 19th century and early 20th century photography. Since in my opinion the most interesting photographs of that era were photographs of women and those photographs are very often somewhat erotic (or even very erotic). Some of the images will undoubtedly occupy that uncomfortable “is it erotic art or is it just erotica” region.