For the first week or so of the semester, everyone wants to know how your break went. And this being Hillsdale, people aren’t usually satisfied with a bland answer. They want to know where you were, what you did.
When people asked me this year, I told them I came back to campus a week early to take a figure-drawing class. People are usually concerned when they learn that, in addition to a guest instructor, we had a professional model.
–– Clothed, right?
–– Well, no.
–– Oh. Awkward.
When it comes to nude art, opinions vary rather widely, especially in a place like Hillsdale. Some shy away from it. Some embrace it. Still others allow that there are practical benefits for artists, but still see the whole thing as, well, awkward at best.
But is it, really?
First thing you learn as an artist: the human form is tricky. Really tricky. If you draft something incorrectly, everyone knows. Even if they can’t articulate why it looks wrong, they know it’s wrong. To do our job well as artists, to be true to what we see, we have to know what the body is up to; how it works; what it looks like.
Of course, that raises the question of modesty, a question we at Hillsdale are pretty fond of. In this very paper, some time back, we’ve had heated discussions about whether leggings are acceptable as trouser substitutes. And if one considers that immodest, nude models . . . well.
At heart, modesty in dress is clothing oneself in a way that does not bring attention to features that are inappropriate in context. But at the same time, modesty’s particulars depend upon your culture and your purpose.
A woman in Mexico keeps her legs covered. In India, she shows her midriff. In America, most of us are okay with swimsuits at the beach but certainly not in the classroom. Within the right context, different manners of dress are appropriate, either because of the way clothing has evolved there because of the understandings in different situations of what is licentious and what is not. In the culture of the artist’s studio, a new understanding of modesty applies: the model is not there for any questionable reason. She is there as the subject of a composition. In order to have such an understanding, of course, a professional atmosphere is necessary, with all possible respect toward the model.
I use the word ‘professional’ intentionally. Though I do think there is a place for nude models, at a school as small as this one, for practical reasons, I’m certainly not in favor of students here taking nude modeling jobs. Also, a professional model has been trained to be as tasteful as possible in the way she poses and moves, further maintaining an appropriate atmosphere. The respect goes two ways.
Also, as another caveat, no blanket statement can be made about viewing artwork containing nudes. As an artist, I can appreciate a fellow artist’s handling of such a complicated form, but there are certainly others who may have trouble seeing the art in such terms. No shame in that. It comes down to individual conscience.
In my own experience, though, when I’m in front of my easel and drawing my model, I’m thinking about how the angle of her arm relates to the rest of the figure. I’m making sure her head is proportional. I’m creating a composition. I’m not thinking about her state of dress; that matters less.
At day’s end, it’s really only as awkward as you make it.
msmith4@hillsdale.edu