New feature: Sexuality and sainthood
By Jess McCabe | 9 May 2008, 10:36
Cranach painted Venus to titillate Luther’s contemporaries and chaste virgins aimed at keeping women in check, argues Itala Atteih
As soon as I had heard that a poster of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s ‘Venus’ was initially banned from display in the London Underground, I knew I had to go see the exhibition that is causing such a stir.
My original perception of Cranach was of a German artist working in the Northern Renaissance period. More crucially, I knew of him as the close companion of Martin Luther and a participant in the religious Reformation taking place at the time, and so to hear of a risqué portrayal of Venus by the artist surprised me.
Many have speculated over the reasons for the ban, suggesting it may be because the figure resembles a young girl rather than a woman, or that certain religious groups have asked for it to be banned, or it may just be because the painting is a depiction of an overtly sexualised, full-frontal female nude. Whatever the reasons, I was intrigued and so I visited the exhibition with many expectations and burning questions.
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
JENNIFER DREW said:
Excellent article because it demonstrates how male-defined views of women and women's sexualities continue to be defined and controlled by men for men. Also, of course, before pornography became available in print, artists were often commissioned to paint pornographic paintings for men's private collection. Whereas paintings depicting religious scenes were for private viewing in churches or similar religious institutions.
The misogynistic belief that female sexuality is dangerous, bad and must be kept severly under male control has as Itala Attieh says, been dominant for centuries. One only has to remember of the 'slag versus stud phrase which is still widely believed. Of course nude male images were never depicted in an eroticised form because that would be contrary to beliefs at that time. When Cranach was painting female sexuality not male sexuality was believed to be uncontrollable once aroused and therefore women were blamed for causing men to rape and sexually abuse them. Now of course, male sexuality is believed to be uncontrollable once aroused but it is still women who are blamed for men's sexual violence against them. Patriarchy does change but its essence remains the same which is the control and oppression of women's sexuality for the benefit of men not women.
Posted on 09 May 2008 at 10:40 PM