The Eye of the Naked Beholder (or The Eye of the Beholber of Nakedness)

Who would have thought that in a time when a simple trip to the mall exposed one to a smorgasbord of Abercrombie and Fitch-like images depicting male nudity, would an art exhibition in Vienna become the source of so much controversy? It is possible that most of the arising conflict stemmed more from the Leopold Museum's marketing strategy, which depicted three French footballers wearing nothing but their red, white and blue socks and football boots, than from the exhibition itself. Perhaps they asked for it - people should, after all, have some choice in when they are exposed to a phallus when commuting to work while digesting their breakfast. Or shouldn't they? How often have we been exposed to female nudity without it reaching the news?

Artistically, depictions of any nudity have traditionally sought to explore a beauty that all humanity is able to appreciate. Whether an emperor or slave took of their clothes, the result was the same. Being naked expresses a vulnerability that pulses through us all, no matter what our class, race, or culture. Some cultures, however, approach the subject more liberally. Scandinavia, The Netherlands and Germany, historically perhaps the least Catholic of the Europeans, have managed to remove taboo from the subject altogether, which has come to define their cultures to some extent.

As for the nations that once belonged to the British Empire, it is possible that their view on nudity carries a modicum of Victorian baggage. An era in which bearing witness to a sexual act, or even nudity for that matter, could result in being jailed was bound to leave an imprint on societies' view over the unmentionables. While I am not one to condemn conservatism at large, I do believe that when society shrouds nudity and sex in a dark cloud, personal sexual development, at least from a psychological perspective, is either inhibited or becomes the root of extreme sexual behaviour later on. On the other hand, of course, being brought up in a society where nothing regarding sexuality is taboo, some individuals may find it difficult to distinguish between when sex is appropriate to a conversation or situation or not.

What the Leopold Museum exhibition seems to have triggered, though, is more of a reaction to male nudity than nudity in general. The public seems quite aware of its discrimination on the matter and it is quite interesting to consider why. Traditionally, the female body is something to be beheld - the object of male affection. And since men are generally more interested in sex than women are, the thought of it said to occur to us once every seven minutes, less of a taste was probably developed for viewing the naked male form. From a reproductive standpoint, this makes absolute sense. The male's physical attraction to the female is what makes intercourse possible. It is possible that the status quo regarding nudity on display was born of this dynamic between the sexes. In time, feminism and queer theory came to challenge this point of view, but popular media and art remained predominantly centred around the traditional dynamic.

I could venture a guess as to why the naked male form still elicits so much dispute. Once again, viewed traditionally, it is what the male form represents that gets exhibitions such as the Viennese one in question so much attention. The female is prey to the male's predator, if I may. The human female succumbs to the male's advances, or else sex does not take place, unless usurped. How much the female succumbs is all part of the game. This dynamic may also represent one of offense and defense. Since the female is the recipient of sex, traditionally speaking, she takes on the defensive position, whereas the male is on the offense. Strictly from this point of view, the male then represents an attack of sorts, which might explain why the sight of a random naked male can cause such reaction, even in modern-day continental Europe.

Furthermore, and this is perhaps the only reason why an exhibition of male nudity generates the reaction that it does, we should perhaps not ignore the role genitalia plays in the matter. A man's genitals are nothing if not conspicuous compared to that of the fairer sex. There are, of course, publications that serve more as an anatomical lesson of a woman's naughty bits, but predominantly the female form is eroticised by suggestion rather than magnification. Once again, however, the penis and testicles leave far less to the imagination than a woman's nether regions do.

Perhaps it is that the phallus presents a threat - an image that causes alarm bells to go off in the minds of those who were either victim to its darker deeds, or those whose genetics echo something of its controversial history. Another theory may explore the link a woman's body has to the mother, the nurturer of life. However one looks at it, the female body is universally more palatable, as we all come from it. The male, despite his role in the creation of life, is often placed on the periphery for many reasons mentioned in an earlier post.

In the end, however, I feel as though the reaction to the Leopold Museum exhibition illustrates just how bound we are to our societal views on male versus female nudity. Male nudity is still taboo, even in Europe. What should also be considered is that many of the 1, 000 visitors a day consider the exhibition an eye-opener, or at the very least interesting. There is no lack of male nudity in art, but perhaps it has always been hidden behind some form of narrative such as myths, legends, abstractions and such.

Any opinion on the topic of nudity is bound to attract a counter argument, but something stayed with me as I rummaged through my possible opinions on the matter. To become naked is still to most a vulnerable act. None of us, not even porn stars, have absolutely no issue with disrobing, or else we would see a lot more naked people in public. The fact that most of us cover up before leaving the house is testament to the fact that we consider taking our clothes off a serious matter. I am therefore inclined to believe that to those who find an exhibition of male nudity distasteful, it needs to be considered that men leave themselves quite exposed too. A naked man is all that that man can be, at least on the surface. He opens himself up to scrutiny and risks considerable embarrassment. Is a man more vulnerable than a woman? No. But a man is also only human and he is never revealed to be more human than when he is on display.

This is not a case for male nudity, but rather a case for open-mindedness. Perhaps some of the promulgations in this post may serve to set the minds of those who look at the Leopold Museum's exhibition as obscene at ease. It was probably the museum's intention to spark up a fuss and it worked. But more than that, art is meant to take us places we have not yet been. The job of any good artist is to offer us a point of view that we may not have considered before. It is so necessary to go beyond what we are comfortable with. An artist may not convince us otherwise, but at least we will have listened. There is so much to know and much more to know beyond the world of facts. People's inner worlds are infinite. We are each unique yet we feel such a rush when we realise what we have in common. Except when pain and hurt is involved, there really is no finite distinction between right and wrong and it is on that blurry line that life becomes just that little bit more exciting.

Hanfred Rauch