Gaudenzio Marconi (1841-1885)

Gaudenzio Marconi (1841-1885), Italian photographer. His photographs were intended to be used by art students. From the start photography’s status as an art form was a subject of debate and disagreement but there were major artists who used such photographic studies as supplements to the use of live models. Whether these photographic studies qualify as art works is perhaps also debatable but clearly they were very much in the style of fashionable painting of the era.

Are they art or erotica? It’s fair to say that they were intended as art, and function as well in that capacity as the paintings of the average second-tier painter. There is of course something about photography that makes nudity seem more graphic. Partly it’s because photographs showed things that painters tended to be coy about showing, such as female pubic hair. Which made nude photographs more shocking, especially to those who were uncomfortable with the idea that women had genitals. So photography did have a tendency to make nudity seem somehow less respectable.

And when you look at a painting of a nude you can perhaps convince yourself that you’re looking at an allegorical figure or the goddess Venus. Photographs make it a bit more obvious that one is looking at an actual nude woman. Naked goddesses are one thing, but a photograph of an actual naked woman is something else.

Photography forced people to ask themselves whether they really thought that the naked female body was obscene. For some people the answer was yes.

Gaudenzio Marconi, Female nude with pictorial backdrop 1870-1879

Gaudenzio Marconi, Nude Study

Gaudenzio Marconi, Nudo accademico femminile con violino

Gaudenzio Marconi, Nudo femminile, circa 1870

Gaudenzio Marconi, Nudes and cherubs (putti)

Gaudenzio Marconi, Nude Study

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.

Félicien Rops (1833-1898)

Félicien Rops (1833-1898), Belgian Symbolist painter, illustrator and print maker.

Félicien Rops, La Dame au pantin, 1885

Félicien Rops, title unknown

Félicien Rops, Appel Aux Masses!

Félicien Rops, Diaboli Virtus In Lumbis, 1888

Félicien Rops, La Pudeur de Sodome

Félicien Rops, In the Wings, 1878-1880

Félicien Rops, Le paravent

Félicien Rops, Parisian Masks, heliogravure

Félicien Rops, title unknown

Félicien Rops,

Félicien Rops, Prostitution and Madness Rule the World. ca.1887-1893, heliogravure

Félicien Rops, Cent légers croquis sans prétention pour réjouir les honnêtes gens, 1878-1881.

David Kunzle’s Fashion and Fetishism

David Kunzle’s Fashion and Fetishism is a fascinating look at the tight-lacing phenomenon which was such a controversial feature of the 19th century.

Tight-lacing wasn’t just the wearing of corsets. It was the use of corsets to produce spectacular reductions in women’s waistlines, with waists as small as 16 inches and even in a few celebrated cases as small as 14 inches. Some women even claimed 13-inch waists.

The conventional interpretation of tight-lacing is that it was an example of patriarchal oppression of women, with women forced by men into tight-lacing. This interpretation is still the orthodox feminist position. Kunzle explodes this interpretation in devastating fashion, and he backs his arguments with overwhelming evidence.

Kunzle demonstrates that the entire patriarchal power structure (and in particular the male medical establishment) conducted a vicious and hysterical campaign against tight-lacing. The whole phenomenon was driven almost entirely by women who, despite opposition from men, wanted to tight-lace. It was also mostly a lower class and lower middle class thing. The motives of the women were mixed but there was certainly an indirect erotic element. Or perhaps it would be better to say, a sensual element. It was a fetish, but not an overtly sexual one.

Surprisingly enough tight-lacing was also widely practised by men.

Kunzle also explores other clothing fetishes such as extreme high heels, which were also things that women stubbornly insisted on wearing in spite of male opposition, and they insisted on it because they actually enjoyed it.

Another popular misconception is that erotic fetishism is an almost exclusively male obsession, and this is another myth that Kunzle busts. It’s a myth based on an unwillingness to accept unsettling aspects of female sexuality.

The author gives us an historical overview and a glimpse into the hidden world of 20th century fetishism, as well as plenty of interesting details on the treatment of clothing fetishes in the popular press and in fiction.

Kunzle does have a tendency to overdo the political interpretations (sometimes a corset is just a corset), but in this respect he’s nowhere near as bad as most modern academics. One mistake that he does not make is to make assumptions about women’s choices based on political beliefs about what women should think. He’s prepared to accept their own testimony about the reasons for their choices.

It’s a rather loosely structured book but that turns out to be its greatest strength. He’s not trying to argue a case or win an argument. He’s simply acting as a fascinated but impartial observer.

Fashion and Fetishism is a must-read for anyone with an interest in 19th century social history or fashion history. Highly recommended.

Lawton S. Parker (1868-1954)

Lawton S. Parker (1868-1954), American impressionist painter.

Lawton S. Parker, La Paresse, 1916

Paul Peel (1860-1892)

Paul Peel (1860-1892), Canadian academic painter.

Paul Peel, The Discovery of Moses

Paul Peel, The Little Shepherdess, 1892

Paul Peel, Lady in the Garden

Thomas Millie Dow (1848-1919)

Thomas Millie Dow (1848-1919), Scottish painter.

Thomas Millie Dow (1848-1919), Scottish painter.

Thomas Millie Dow, The Kelpie, 1895