Why in the period of paintings like Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne", those paintings were not scandalous?

0 votes
Why in the period of paintings like Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne", "Baccanale degli Andrii" or Bellini's "The Feast of the Gods" those paintings were not considered scandalous despite their nudity? In more recent times modesty and chastity were very highly regarded values amongst many people.
asked Jul 10, 2013 in Artists

2 Answers

0 votes
Those paintings were heavily influenced by classical art, in which nudity was standard. The classical nature of the subjects, and the classicizing idealism of of the forms and style, added a certain intellectual and aesthetic decorum to the works that seemed to remove them from mere prurience.

However, you must remember that these works were made for wealthy, educated patrons, usually for their private enjoyment and that of their like-minded friends. They weren't being displayed publicly, before audiences who were less educated, less sophisticated, and less likely to appreciate them. Nudity or partial nudity in religious paintings usually had some religious/historical justification (everyone understood that Christ wasn't crucified fully clothed), so complaints in that area were unlikely, though they sometimes did occur. Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" considered scandalous, and another artist was brought in to add draperies to some of the nude figures.

In other words, if a work was shown publicly, issues of modesty and chastity could arise.
answered Jul 10, 2013
0 votes
They were considered highly fashionable when they were painted. The Puritans and later the Victorians might have been scandalized, but nobody was forcing them to go to museums and have a look. During the 16th century Italian Renaissance, nudity in art was considered de rigeur if it followed the subject matter.
answered Jul 10, 2013