Antisense: Does art have to be nude?

When talking about female celebrities who have also been blackmailed by sneak shots, we pulled back to those similar clues in our daily life. I said that I had also been photographed, and the other party was a photographer. I could imagine the horror at that time, but no matter how angry I was Failed to resist. Later, I was determined to get those photos back and delete them, but the other party begged me not to do that, even if I kept them by myself. The girlfriend sneered, not knowing what to do if she stayed. And what I know about the level of narcissism in men concludes that he may be happy with those photos and feel that I should treasure them for myself. The subtext is that I will never have photos like that again in my life. Those are irrelevant. The girlfriend then asked, art must be nude, so noble. Then I joked to myself, we have to be noble in learning music, we both laughed.

At that time, I didn't answer her two questions. I didn't have an answer, and I didn't seem to need an answer. But then I couldn't help thinking back to what she said, does art have to be nude. We don’t need to talk about those great art history, how to be avant-garde, how to rebel...at least ask a question, does art have to be female nudity?

You might recall the 1989 poster by "Guerrilla Girls" that read: "Do women have to be nude to enter the Met?" In modern art, less than 5 percent of artists are women, but there are 85% of the nudes are women." As of 2012, this set of figures was updated: less than 4% of the artists were women, but 76% of the nudes were women. The good news is that there are fewer female nudes, but the bad news is that there are fewer female artists.

As for my girlfriend's teasing about "the nobility of music", I thought with a wicked taste that at least music does not allow women to take off their clothes. From this point of view, it is indeed nobler. But its evil lies elsewhere. For example, Venita Sareka, the musician appointed by the Berlin Philharmonic some time ago, was the first time in the 140-year history of that orchestra to appoint a female chief. These data sound equally unbelievable. It's not some feminine moment, it's just the filth and crumbling of the old world.

Any field will decorate itself as a magnificent palace and keep women out of the door, but those endless scrutiny, almost evil stares, some people even complete their paintings by exploiting women and children, make me feel that The temple wasn't that sacred either, and when they took it for themselves, all they did was jerk off inside it.

But why does it have to be the nudity of women, which can be written off if they make up a little bit of their characters in literature? When I was a child in art class and heard the story of Napoleon crowning his wife Josephine after he ascended the throne, there was only one thought in my mind: what a narcissistic man. Thinking of male writers writing novels, gradually no longer take themselves as the protagonist, can no longer directly portray a hero, but popularly praise a woman who is close to God, isn't it the same reason. He was crowning her to show the supremacy of his power.

If the female body "used" in art is just a one-time copy of a real person, and after completion, a living woman can escape like a cicada, then the film and the lens can be said to be a more cruel cage. I once described feeling the narcissism of the creator shown in the movie, as if accidentally seeing someone else's body in adolescence. But I thought about why the person behind the camera, the person with supreme power over the film, should show his narcissism through other people's bodies, especially women's bodies. Is it more sinister to actually dominate and manipulate a real female body than to simply imagine it?

And those excuses or lies about presenting "beauty" and "self" are also defeated when women really show themselves. If they didn't want to deprive and possess, how could they be so afraid of women controlling their bodies. Those female stars who set off a sexual revolution in history, such as Madonna, were flattered by art but did not recognize them. Therefore, most of their reputations came from public opinion, authority and the so-called orthodox class who never tire of attacking them.

Why is the world full of female nudity, but in reality, when a woman takes the initiative to show it, she is reprimanded as indecent and shameless? Is it because this world still belongs to men.

I did not have the opportunity to personally experience the era when Madonna mustered up the courage to rebel against the world, but I also know that her birth must be related to the fierce feminist movement before that, and perhaps directly gave birth to her courage and ability to rebel. Has the world become more complicated today, or is it going backwards like never before. Iranian women are still fighting for the freedom to take off their headscarves. Korean actress Sulli was humiliated by a large number of sluts for wearing it. When she appeared naked in a movie, the public opinion was pushed to a climax, and she ended in suicide. life.

Why should a woman be so oppressed and "punished" for freely displaying her body, isn't it her own body. On the other hand, men can achieve the highest artistic achievement because of the use of women's nudes. Everything in the world is just material at their disposal, is it just some kind of artistic effect? But I didn't want to be outraged, that seemed too close to how obscene they were bashing women for being immodest.

I started listening to (G)I-DLE this year because of their new song "Nxde". Lyrics are repetitive and keep asking "how do I look", but the woman standing in the glass display case is cynical and aggressive, as if she may break everything at any time and devour anyone who stares at her . "Yes, I was born naked", "Now I'm going to paint a lavish nude" - and then wring it up and destroy it in full view.

I feel that rather than calling for a reduction in female nudity in art, the old ones should be smashed and the world taken back. But I also know how difficult it is. This can be seen from the situation where the César Awards defends and rewards Polanski in the name of "protecting artistic freedom" and exposing the right to perform to the world.

Adèle Haenel should not be forgotten, who bravely took the mic and spoke publicly about her experience as a sexually abused subject, then publicly expressed her sexual preference for women, and through Portrait of a Woman on Burning expresses lesbian eroticism and becomes a statement of rebellion against the gaze that has been placed upon women in the past. Nor should it be forgotten how Adela was independent, chained to a judgment stake, and burned at the stake like a witch in the face of an entire film industry that sexually exploited women—if not literally, at least in Symbolically, it was also reduced to ashes. From the ashes, the old authority represented by Polanski has been shamefully reborn from the ashes.

At the end of April 2022, Adele Haenel announced to the media that she would stop acting in the film industry "limitedly" on the grounds that: " The current film industry is hopeless. We can learn from the way we treat women." See, they are using examples to hide an oppressive system. "

Adele left angrily, and then turned her back on the entire film industry. Someone should have yelled, "Adela, we stand with you, and when you stand up, we stand up and walk out of that hall with you... If the film industry is now run by bosses and rapists, then Its future belongs to the rebels who leave the hall."

But unfortunately, one year has passed, and Adele has disappeared since then, and the film industry still enjoys every fresh female body with impunity. Art is hopelessly irremediable if it becomes merely a paralanguage of society.

Let's go back to the story at the beginning, about the confrontation of an ordinary woman in daily life, the man who used the camera to spy on me violently despite dissuasion, I remembered that there was another thing he had begged me for, he didn't I hope I write about him, whether it is at that moment or in the distant future. Is he afraid of something, so he knows it's a weapon, does he realize that what he does will not be appreciated, but judged instead.

For a long time, I took this commitment as a respect to my ex. If I did what he wanted, I never wrote about him once. I don't want to use those things as material. But only this time, a past that had to be recalled, about how a man fulfilled his shameful desire against my will. I also finally realized that this was wrong, that it had nothing to do with love, that it could have extended to evil in many ways, and that it should be told, not just kept as a private matter. And what frightened him was that the woman who used to be unable to resist even such "little things" might rely on writing to control the power of narrative in the future, and the fragile eyes in the camera would one day stare back at him, He was bitten and bruised.

But I intend to be different from the usual men's style. I hope to only state the facts themselves, and not rely on direct display and fabrication of details to achieve any effect, and I don't need such vulgar effects. Still like (G)I-DLE sang in the lyrics, "If you expect sexually explicit works, then sorry, there is no such content".

That dirty old world will be overthrown sooner or later, those women who have resisted have not failed, if art is still love, if it is still the best thing that human beings can have, then it will be better than ever ground, wide open the door to resistance and critics. Until then, we don't have to be ashamed to examine our privacy, and the truth in it may be why men go to such lengths to silence us.