- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 12,268
- Reaction score
- 7,223
In ancient times, King Candaules figured that his wife was the HOTTEST OF THE HOT. He felt this so strongly that he wanted to share her beauty with someone. (Just to look of course.) Well, not all kings are like Arthur with a crew of buddies. This king’s only real friend was his bodyguard, Gyges. Cutting to the chase the King compelled Gyges to hide in the royal bedroom and to peep at the Queen as she undressed for bed, but not to get caught, obviously.
Well, Gyges did, albeit reluctantly, gaze upon the Queen in all her glory.
However, the Queen saw that he saw….
The rest of the story is pretty good, but I’ll leave it to you to find out what happens. I also recommend checking of the slightly related Ring of Gyges legend; it's as much fun.
This post is about whether art can go too far with respect to “common decency”. It’s directly inspired by the story described above. In 1830 established artist William Etty first exhibited the painting at the Royal Academy. Right out of the gate, “CANDAULES was condemned by the press as a cynical combination of a pornographic picture and a violent and unpleasant narrative, and there was near-unanimous consensus that the picture was inappropriate for public exhibition.”
At the time The Literary Gazette condemned the work as "against decency and good taste", adding that “as an academic study, the central figure of this group might be admissible; but, in connexion with the disgraceful story, it deserves to be warmly reprehended". La Belle Assemblée, one of Britain's most influential women's magazines, praised Etty's other exhibits, but refused to review Candaules altogether, saying that "to us the subject is so offensive that we pass it over". Even Samuel Carter Hall, editor of the prestigious Art Journal, declined to distribute reproductions of Candaules, despite his willingness to publish reproductions of other provocative Etty nudes such as “Female Bathers Surprised by a Swan”.
Looking back, a present day commentator impugned Etty's motives. In 2011 Sarah Burnage of the University of York wrote "it is perhaps hard to see the painting as anything but a deliberate attempt by the artist to shock and scandalise".
My favorite judgment though is this one from the 1882 Vanity Fair,
"I know only too well how the rough and his female companion behave in front of pictures such as Etty's bather. I have seen the gangs of workmen strolling round, and I know that their artistic interest in studies of the nude is emphatically embarrassing."
So, naturally, the point of this is to get your opinion about this painting.
1. Is it (disguised) porn?
2. Is it possibly not porn per se, but still not conducive to the public good to bring attention to it?
3. Taking a different tack one might suggest that IF ONLY it were still offensive. A society that DOES find such depictions offensive is a better one than ours.
4. Or going the opposite direction, “Screw those hoity-toity stuffed shirts! Their wealth doesn’t make them the arbiters of values or decency for everybody else.”
Oh, before I forget, the painting:
Well, Gyges did, albeit reluctantly, gaze upon the Queen in all her glory.
However, the Queen saw that he saw….
The rest of the story is pretty good, but I’ll leave it to you to find out what happens. I also recommend checking of the slightly related Ring of Gyges legend; it's as much fun.
This post is about whether art can go too far with respect to “common decency”. It’s directly inspired by the story described above. In 1830 established artist William Etty first exhibited the painting at the Royal Academy. Right out of the gate, “CANDAULES was condemned by the press as a cynical combination of a pornographic picture and a violent and unpleasant narrative, and there was near-unanimous consensus that the picture was inappropriate for public exhibition.”
At the time The Literary Gazette condemned the work as "against decency and good taste", adding that “as an academic study, the central figure of this group might be admissible; but, in connexion with the disgraceful story, it deserves to be warmly reprehended". La Belle Assemblée, one of Britain's most influential women's magazines, praised Etty's other exhibits, but refused to review Candaules altogether, saying that "to us the subject is so offensive that we pass it over". Even Samuel Carter Hall, editor of the prestigious Art Journal, declined to distribute reproductions of Candaules, despite his willingness to publish reproductions of other provocative Etty nudes such as “Female Bathers Surprised by a Swan”.
Looking back, a present day commentator impugned Etty's motives. In 2011 Sarah Burnage of the University of York wrote "it is perhaps hard to see the painting as anything but a deliberate attempt by the artist to shock and scandalise".
My favorite judgment though is this one from the 1882 Vanity Fair,
"I know only too well how the rough and his female companion behave in front of pictures such as Etty's bather. I have seen the gangs of workmen strolling round, and I know that their artistic interest in studies of the nude is emphatically embarrassing."
So, naturally, the point of this is to get your opinion about this painting.
1. Is it (disguised) porn?
2. Is it possibly not porn per se, but still not conducive to the public good to bring attention to it?
3. Taking a different tack one might suggest that IF ONLY it were still offensive. A society that DOES find such depictions offensive is a better one than ours.
4. Or going the opposite direction, “Screw those hoity-toity stuffed shirts! Their wealth doesn’t make them the arbiters of values or decency for everybody else.”
Oh, before I forget, the painting:
