NYTimes.com: HOW do you react to the look of a naked body onstage? Thirty-four years ago, as part of a friend’s bachelor party, I went to a London strip club with a group of seven other men. We were all in our early 20s; most of them were distinctly upper-crust; some qualified as what the English call chinless wonders and Hooray Henrys.
11 comments:
Nudity on stage can be incredibly powerful. It also can really detract from the show. It is all about the context, message, and how the body is displayed visually. At this point, it may be overused or at least often nudity is used poorly. It is tricky because nudity does evoke a strong reaction and it is crucial to make sure that the reaction that a show is getting is the appropriate and desired one.
The author notes that there is not, in fact, a line dividing art and pornography, but rather a large overlap. While I agree, to an extent, I do think that the two can be mostly separated based on the message behind the image/scene.
I agree with Abby, nudity is a very big statement to make in any show, and when used properly, makes the right kind of statement. If not, that element could get distracting. As an observation of the muscles and flesh in motion, I'd think nudity seems more than appropriate. But once you get into images or scenes that delve into that gray area between art and pornography, that leaves the audience to question how that particular part in the show is to be perceived or what it means in context with the rest of the show.
Okay so it is evident that putting a naked actor or dancer on stage is going to make your show much more memorable. I think that a lot of the examples that are cited in this article, though, belong to the category of just shock value, maybe the basest form of pornography. If you need to be standing on one leg holding a dildo in yourself in order for your show to be memorable, then I really think you've failed yourself creatively. There are other more interesting and more potent ways to communicate a message. That being said, I think that the nude body is incredibly beautiful, and if not being used as a shock tactic, can add a lot to a dance. Most people are not used to watching nude people in a non sexual way, and I think that can be a really eye opening/interesting experience- to be totally cold while watching two naked men dance together and to get to just watch how the body works.
I watch a lot of dance shows, including So You Think You Can Dance and Dancing With the Stars. Over the years of watching these I have noticed many bold costume decisions regarding nudity. It might have been as small as a back cut out or full nudity or a painted body. Choices such as these are meant to make a statement. I remember back to being on the Mad Forest crew last year and we had to have a talk regarding the nudity that was going to be present in the show. Judy came in to talk with the whole cast and crew during rehearsal and made sure that we all understood how to handle the situation. She said that we are all adults here and should never make it uncomfortable for the actor that was going to be nude. I think that it was a good thing she came in to talk with everyone because it is a mature situation to be involved in. Although I don't want to think that my peers would have acted poorly it was a very good possibility that someone would have.
With the fact that nudity is becoming more and more common today in performance we need to learn to accept it. It is a strong and gutsy decision, wether it be made by the artist, director, or performer them self, but as an audience we should learn to respect and admire the art form or message trying to be told.
I believe that this author is trying to raise the question of why certain audiences are appalled by a lack of clothing in some circumstances, and nearly welcoming it in others. I have never found issue with nudity in pieces, as I believe that tempered, appropriate skin-bearing can completely enhance a scene just because of the depletion of the physical barrier around the actor(s). In making someone nude, they are vulnerable, and the audience is entranced by their nudity.
The distinction between this and nakedness, however, is a strong one, and should be marked as something very different as the author notes. Being naked is often seen as distasteful and quirky; downright inappropriate at times.
We seem to run into this problem a lot in theatre, is defining the line between when a scene requires a level of intimacy that can be achieved in no other way than for a character to be unclothed. Nudity is something that directors use to enhance our emotional pull in a scene/piece/etc., as far as I see it. Nakedness is shock value.
I read each of the five comments that were logged before mine and I felt that my colleagues commented on this issue in a mature and sophisticated fashion. I however will make a few smart comments and then digress into juvenile behavior before hopefully making one descent point. As nudity becomes more and more prevalent it becomes less and less taboo and less and less powerful. Paige said that using nudity “is a strong and gutsy decision". Perhaps in the 50's. Now if your conservatory does not have at least one nude bit per season then you are not considered legitimate. (Counterpoint, I would love to hear someone who is more connected than I talk about the choice NOT to do the nude “Hair” scene or the nude “Mad Forest” scene last season at CMU.) My final thought is this. While watching the Olympic athlete’s uniforms recede over the last 20 years, I was wondering. When are they just going to give in and do these games nude like the Greeks did it? Then I thought, “not having a uniform at all would leave some things unrestricted or chaffed and end the end this may compromise the quality of their ability to perform.” (Ballet too) Reality TV, pop stars, university black boxes; keep pushing the limits and eventually, it will hurt the art.
Dale makes a great point about the over-use of nudity leading to its decreased significance. I am glad that the use of nudity has not reached that extreme yet, though. While we are used to seeing dancers, athletes, swimsuit models, etc. without much clothing on, we would all be shocked if we turned on Dancing with the Stars tonight and saw someone completely naked. As I was reading the author's questions about how I would feel if I watched some of the scenes he was describing, I realized that I honestly would feel pretty uncomfortable watching some of them. What would make me get over that uncomfortable feeling and enjoy and appreciate one of those pieces or not, though, would be the way the nudity was handled, and also the reason it was happening in the first place. Nudity for nudity's sake is not interesting. As the author points out in his conclusion though, nudity with a point can be powerful. Even in the case of a piece in which nudity is presented tactfully and with purpose, though, there are going to be audience members that will not be able to see past the nudity and see the point.
I never thought about the difference that a ballerina wearing (or not wearing) tights could make. I would like to see a ballet presented with fully dressed dancers and then repeated with more scantily-clad dancers- I'm sure there would be a visceral difference between the two, but how powerful would its effect be on what I got out of the piece? Or on what the person sitting next to me got out of the piece? In the end I am basically realizing that while nudity onstage can be beautiful and meaningful, it can simultaneously make a multitude of audience members feel uncomfortable or upset. As with many subjects in the theatre, there's a fine line to be tread there.
As everyone has basically stated, nudity can be appropriate at times when it adds creatively to a piece or increases the impact of the story line. However many pieces unfortunately fall into the category of blatant shock value nudity as mentioned by Reilly. I do not think that there is anything artistically creative about placing a dildo into yourself in any position onstage. That is pornography, full stop.
Paige also mentioned the nudity aspect of the dog in Mad Forest. Interestingly enough the actor chose not to perform the role completely naked but to wear a dance belt only. In my opinion this added to the actors performance and the experience of the audience rather than distracted them. Imagine if he played the role nude while jumping up and down like a dog, spinning around and panting all over the place. Most audience members would be distracted from his initial performance by his free flowing genital area. I mentioned the dog in Mad Forest to show that sometimes suggestive nudity is much more appealing and generates more impact that nudity.
I have been pondering this article for a few days. What is the line between art and pornography? The line has become increasingly more blurred. Dale is right - In the 50's a nipple slip was a bold choice -- Is Pâquerette not a bold choice with the use of dildos, I am sure that shocked a few people. Invisible dog studio is a very small space. Is the difference between art and porn - The audience, or the intent of the audience?
I always ask myself the questions "Why?" and "How does it help tell the story?" I can't stand boobs just for the sake of showing boobs.
While I'm all for pushing boundaries, I think we all understand that there's something sinsiter in gratuity. I don't mean tipping your bartender (tip your bartender people!), but that ugly convention of tacking something onto a production for the sake of the thing, not the production. It reminds me of the "flying" scene I was recently forced to endure during the stage version of "Billy Eliot." No need for it at all, no narrative content or effect, nothing but a kid getting hoisted up by his shorts and spun around for a bit. I hope he had fun. While it's not really comparable to nudity, as a technician it offended my senses just as much as some of the scenes described in this article might have. The currency of theatre is time, and wasting any of it, not only in the event itself but more importantly, for me, in pre-production, on something that essentially amounts to, "well everyone else is doing it," is larceny. I think therefore for me the dividing line between art and pornography is always gratuity. If it's gratuitous, it's always porn.
I guess nudity on stage can be split into two different groups. 1) a representation of love and passion. 2) a representation of vulgarity with the intention of an emotional reaction. "Fort Blossom revisited" seems like a representation of passion, where the bodies themselves become a form of dance almost. "Crotch" sounds pretty dumb, though. It sounded as if it were en erotic talent show: "Hey look at what I can do." From what I read, it doesn't sound like a work of art. If I'm going to see an erotic nude performance, I would be expecting something similar to Andres Serrano's photography; something that would evoke a powerful response from the audience and force the viewer to review how his/her mind reacted to such material.
Post a Comment