America is still living with the
socioæsthetic consequences of the Victorian ideal, as my title suggests. This
is not a matter concerning only art historians, although they may be the best
equipped to sort out and verify some of the root causes that I have identified.
I think the biggest impact of this phenomenon is how we, as men and women (and
even children) view ourselves, indeed, feel
about ourselves, in a pluralistic America that often is portrayed as far
more liberal and open-minded than is really the case.
Probably the greatest shame is that
these ethnocentric aristo-bourgeois values still grip the mind and heart of
every girl in our society when she reaches a certain age. The so-called
liberation of women has done nothing to stop them from feeling one of their
main obsessions must be an undying effort to measure up to a very specific set
of images, which for some of them is literally impossible to live up to, and
for many more, still incredibly difficult and frankly unhealthy.
I wish to unequivocally state that
having light skin and hair can in no way ever make anyone more (or less)
beautiful. Too many “academic” and historical books still describe some
individual as being “beautiful”. I would think that by now, in a scientific
age, we should all know that there is absolutely no objective criterion for
“beauty”. Perhaps this very word should be abolished from our vocabulary.
Yet, beauty is very real, and is one of
those precious things that make life worth living. And it should be
understandable that, if we leave the judging up to an elite of pampered white
heterosexual men, many tall thin and blonde themselves, the arrived-at
consensus would be that tall, thin blonde women were, all else being equal, the
highest standard of beauty.
But all else is not equal, so why are
these standards, even in subtle variations, still regarded by anyone else as
valid? In Renaissance Italy, still widely regarded as the pinnacle of Western
visual art, the ideal, with exceptions of course, tended more towards a full figure,
still “white” if not always so pale, and more often incorporating hair that was
dark and/or curly. If we subtract the factor of skin color, these
characteristics may be closer to how a large proportion of adult women in the
world actually look, at least where food is plentiful.
Of course, to the aristocracy food is
always plentiful, and the Mediterranean has long been a region where
consumption of grain is abundant; we must consider these factors as Renaissance
art in the Mediterranean was of course patronized by the aristocracy, powerful
clergy and wealthy burghers. Part of the shift in outlook since the 19th
century reflects the growing influence of a self-conscious middle class.
I believe, however, that much of the
pendulum swing of power was also ethnic and regional, and started earlier, with
Gothic, Dutch and Flemish artists such as Cranach. Their angle tended more
towards realism, though, and we do not see much of the pseudoclassical
idealization that affected England, and still less the Ottoman-inspired
decadence that pervaded France, both in the 19th century. At least
the French for some time still favored curves, as the perverse decadence of
Fragonard, the sensuousness of Ingres and other masters, down to the bawdy
sensuousness of Renoir, can well attest. But as French painters became
increasingly reliant on working-class prostitutes as models (and, one assumes,
frequently as muses) they gradually came to reflect an underfed, underdeveloped
and perhaps underage anatomy that somehow became instilled as something
inherently sexy, a prejudice which still poisons our culture.
For Paris somehow achieved a symbolic
status as the center of art, culture and literature until being eclipsed by the
British Empire, and for some time after, as post-Elizabethan England, like its
model, Imperial Rome, has always been, dare I say it, lacking in true culture.
But while France, from the time of its
last few kings and even more so since the Revolution, has indulged every sort
of vile licentiousness known to civilization, and held them up to the world as
a matter of pride, England had for some time been psychically torn between
these excesses of liberty and a prudish, holier-than-thou-could-be moralism. In
a sense the Victorian age was almost an attempt at conciliation between these
two, not that history is really ever so Hegelian as that, or simple. Still,
there was a markéd effort to promote arts and culture, often aping classical
and French models, but always modifying, with diligent discretion, all
depictions of human anatomy and behavior.
Aside from the limited ways in which
female beauty was portrayed in this cultural environment, there is an even more
striking contrast between the Victorians and the artists of Classical Greece:
the reluctance to portray the beauty of the nude male body. The social
consequences of this in our own time are highly significant, although they have
been largely ignored.
In many parts of this country,
homosexual lifestyle and gender fluidity are increasingly tolerated, even to a
point where questioning this acceptance can lead to social blacklisting in
certain circles. Without question this is great progress towards respecting the
rights, safety, and privacy of all individuals. However, even as the
“enlightened liberals” learn to be less homophobic, it is clear that many of
them still have ingrained homo-erotiphobia.
I present this neologism not to
downplay the prejudice that still affects many people whose orientation falls
outside of what was once considered “mainstream”, but to show how, even as the
mainstream expands to include them, they, and particularly their desire, are
still fundamentally considered “other” in a crucial respect. I believe many
open-minded heterosexuals can celebrate queer individuals in our world, and yet
refuse to open themselves to an æsthetic, and even erotic, appreciation of the
beauty of their own gender.
In ancient Greece, this was not the
case, as it was taken for granted that most men would seek a wife, many would
have mistresses and affairs as well, but also a healthy number of these men,
whose basic “straightness” was never in doubt, would either have homoerotic
encounters, or at least attend athletic competitions for the spectacle of male
nudity. Even in the Renaissance, while openly gay liaison may have been taboo,
in many of the great works of art, the seductive potential of man’s body was
never far from the surface. Indeed, even the figures of women were often based
on male models, as it was (rightfully and wisely) considered scandalous for women,
in that, more civilized age, to pose for artists.
But that is a tale for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment