The Moral Puritans March Again - Artistic Nudity Under Attack
Author's Note: I have chosen not to mark this as NSFW. It only contains images of classical works of art which are considered famous and cherished for their beauty and artistic talent, historical significance, or striking setup. If Minds chooses to strike this as being NSFW, then it will unfortunately only prove my point further.
"Vienna's museums turn to OnlyFans to promote lewd art." That was the title of an article published by NBC a few days ago, detailing how several museums in Vienna, Austria, have had to start promoting their exhibitions on the personals social media website OnlyFans. The reasons for them doing this revolve around an ever greater amount of censorship on traditional mainstream social media services. It has gotten so bad that one museum lost their TikTok account, while another has faced repeated censorship issues on Instagram, despite reassurances that artistic nudity would be protected on the platform. Even without explicit bans or attempts to censor content, the social media algorithms utilized on most platforms automatically reduce exposure of such content, meaning a museum that relies on getting the message out about their exhibits suffers due to this effective shadow-banning.
A question must be asked though... why? Why now? Sure, prudish groups have always existed since the fall of Rome, coming and going in popularity like the tides of the moon. But, since the Renaissance, few groups have been willing to be as up front and direct in their attacks on artistic nudity as we see currently happening today. It also seems to be something targeted more so at females than males, though likely stories of censored male artistic nudity do not hit the media quite as much. It also seems these moves are being made against nudity in general, despite recent progressive moves to normalize some previous forms of nudity, such as women exposing their breasts, aka Free The Nipple. Why are mainstream social networks now targeting this type of content for removal?
No firm answers are given, either in the NBC article, or most other articles that ever get published on the subject. Excuses are made for algorithms, corporate policy, or something else akin to that, but no underlying cause is ever examined. Failing to understand this root cause or causes will only serve to enable the continued censorship of artistic nudity, and with it a good chunk of humanity's artistic history.
Image of the 25k year old statue Venus of Willendorf, one such art piece located at a Vienna museum that has faced censorship online.
Corporate Sterility: No Creativity Allowed
I suspect one reason, and perhaps one of the primary driving motivators behind this drive to purge all forms of nudity from social media networks, is the increasing nature of corporate sterility. Corporate Sterility represents the increasing lack of difference, lack of choice, being made within a company or business. All employees are expected to talk in a preset expected manner, act within predetermined ways, and only voice criticism or dissent in a predefined manner. This stifles many things, and creativity is one of them. However, it has much farther reaching effects than just employees in the company, it also drives policies that affect users of their services.
The driving forces behind the increase in corporate sterility comes from two main areas: Human Resources and Legal. Both have always been crucial parts of any well functioning corporation, however in recent times both departments have gained power and prominence due to both internal and external factors. HR departments tend to feign a focus on creativity and diversity in thought, while in practice enforcing an ever more rigid worldview on the rest of the company. Legal is even worse in this matter when they become involved. This is driven by C-Suite policy, but also lies in factors that have been growing for some time in society as a whole, with a chilling effect following in its wake.
In this world of corporate sterility, no allowances for creativity are made. Anything that seems to flirt with corporate policy goes against corporate policy. Not Safe For Work (NSFW) takes on a very literal meaning. In the case of Nudity, none is allowed, ever, no exceptions. This includes artistic works depicting nudity as well, even from works made 500 years ago. It also includes attempts by feminists to "Free The Nipple" as it goes against corporate policy, and therefore must be banned.
In the world of belligerent Legal and overreaching HR departments, there can be no nuance between simple, artistic nudity and pornography. Nudity is not the same as pornography, never has been and never will be. That is a distinction that only the morally prudish and shortsighted fail to see. However, it is a distinction which is being lost in the attempts to wipe nuance from corporate policy. These changes are not developing in a vacuum though, and have their roots in a wider, deeper issue developing in Western society currently.
Peter Paul Rubens famous work, The Four Rivers of Paradise. Rubens is one such artist who's works have been censored online, causing issues for museums mentioned in the article linked at the top.
Moral Puritanism: Prudishness For The Masses
A larger driving force behind the censorship of nudity lies with an increasing amount of moralizing puritanism that has developed within certain sections of society. Different forms of moral puritanism have always existed in society, coming and going in waves that usually match the times in which they develop. However, in recent times, such moralizing has taken on a more fierce tone. Over the 20th century alone, rapid cycles from extreme moralizing to a generally more open attitude occurred, with each cycle bringing a more intense and fervorous nature to the attempts to censor undesired material from the masses.
The Victorian era that proceeded the 20th century was well known for it's incessant prudishness, a counter to the earlier Romantic Era of the early 19th century, which was well known for it's more open-minded attitudes. The 1910's, 1920's, and perhaps early 1930's saw a move back towards a more open-minded attitude towards such things as nudity in art and literature, partially accompanied by the Modernist movement in these fields. The 1940's and 1950's saw a move back towards moral prudishness. The 1960's and 1970's once again saw a move towards a more open-minded attitude with regards to nudity, a by-product of the counter-culture movement that developed during this time. The 1980's and 1990's again saw the resurgence of moral prudishness, and not just with regards to nudity.
Going into the 2000's we should have seen a swing back towards a more open-minded attitude towards nudity, and as a whole, but that's not entirely what has happened. While the 2000's does mark a period of being more open-minded about ideas with regards to nudity and society, these ideas became punctuated by a rather political tone to them. Throughout the 2010's and now into the 2020's, attitudes on nudity have become warped and misshapen, not by mistake either.
To be depicted in the nude means the subject must take a certain amount of pride in their body. And unless the artist is going for a vulgar or brutalesque style, they will almost assuredly capture that pride and serenity in their work. Subjects in these works that depict them as nude know they are as such, and do not care. They are comfortable with their own bodies, they do not care what you think. The artist knows this too. Some of these subjects may be depicted in rather stoic, fanciful, not always realistic ways, but the point still stands. The artist is capturing the beauty of the subject and as a whole, their nudity does not subtract from the piece, but it instead adds to it. The artists of old knew this well, from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance artists.
Pride, however, especially in one's own self, including one's own body, is antithetical to the authoritarian's ambitions. The authoritarian cannot rule someone who takes pride in themselves, they cannot control someone who cares not what others think about them. To the authoritarian, nudity has long represented something which they could not control. The church knew this and ensured it was made a vice. Ironic, given the paintings Michelangelo created on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Countless kings and rulers of Europe feared such attitudes among their fiefdoms and kingdoms and declared them hedonistic, while they would conduct far more hedonistic actions among their own ranks in their castles and palaces. It is a universal truth that an individual's pride scares the authoritarian, across all times and locations.
You may notice that, up until now, I have not mentioned true politics in this discussion. The reason for this is that up until the 20th century, such authoritarians generally fell into two camps, either religious or monarchic. However, going into 20th century, divergences began to happen with regards to this, and new groups arose that were no less authoritarian, just with different goals and intentions. It's easy to still hold attitudes from old and blame either conservatives or religious leaders for present negative attitudes towards nudity, but this is neglecting history. More than a few prominent left-wing authoritarian leaders presented with quite prudish attitudes. Joseph Stalin was notoriously prudish, even towards those closest to him. Nicolae Ceasescu, the president of Communist Romania, and his wife Elana were also quite prudish in their own actions as well.
In the United States of America, it was mostly right-wing, conservative sentiment that drove prudish ideas about nudity for most of the 20th century. However, towards the end of the century, some events began to take place that denoted a shift in thinking. One particular event came from the 1990's, when a movement began to remove music labels deemed "dangerous to the youth." This movement was led by a number of Senator's wives, most prominently the wife of then left-leaning Senator Al Gore, Tipper Gore. Conservatives happily went along with this movement, as they certainly had no love for rock and metal bands, but it marked a prominent shift in thinking for the American left.
Politics does not denote prudishness towards nudity, authoritarianism does. More specifically, authoritarianism denotes the enforced prudishness on others. Someone may feel prudish towards their own body and not wish to show themselves fully, but if they keep that opinion to themselves and do not attempt to enforce it on others, no harm is done. The issue is that most who feel that way about themselves wish to enforce it on others. They cannot stand the idea that someone else feels better about themselves than they do. This is a classic hallmark of a puritan. To quote H. L. Mencken, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
One of Amedeo Modigliani's most famous paintings, Nu Couché au coussin Bleu (Reclining Nude on Blue Cushion). Modigliani's works caused issues for a Viennese museum, as it was unable to promote his works across multiple different platforms due to censorship issues.
The Left: The New Moral Puritans
Going into the 2010's, we have entered into a period when the Left, a broad term for progressives, socialists, social justice warriors, feminists, and other left-wing groups, have begun to adopt authoritarian stances towards many facets of society. Moral puritanism took on a new face and a new role, enforcing compliance with the Left's ideals. This has manifested itself in many ways, but the underlying reasons are still the same. The idea that someone takes pride in themselves is repulsive to them, and with the matter of nudity it is no different. The feminists feign support for "Freeing the Nipple" but when it comes down to it they really do not care.
With regards to artistic nudity from the past, the left would easily dismiss it as "misogynistic" and "racist" given most of the famous painters and sculptors from Europe were white males. They care little for beauty if it does not fall within their predefined boundaries for what can be accepted, and most of what does fall within those boundaries would easily fall into the category of vulgar and brutalesque. If it does involve nudity, it's usually in the name of vulgarity, not beauty or self-pride. And with the growing authoritarian attitudes, tolerance towards others who demonstrate that which they dislike is declining.
If our artistic past is to be preserved, if liberal-minded values about nudity are to be saved and expanded upon, the Left must be stopped in its endeavor to censor and destroy everything it disagrees with. This is not just for halting the Left today, but to stop the Right from coming back and doing the same tomorrow. If the 20th century is any telling, control comes in cycles, and having two authoritarian camps vying for control does no good to anyone.
Nudity is normal, nudity is not pornography, nudity in art (when pulled off correctly and in the name of either beauty or realism) is to be cherished. Social media companies, and just corporations as a whole, should learn this, learn the nuances of this, understand why it is important. On a more fundamental level, nudity in society should not be looked upon with disgust, but instead rationally valued as a symbol of freedom, free expression, and just natural living. Those who feel comfortable being nude care little what you think about it.
Will you choose to be rational and let them be and live as they desire? Or will you try to enforce your own standards upon them? Think carefully about this, for it will determine whether you hold an authoritarian nature or whether you cherish the liberal values of freedom and free expression that built the Western world we know today.