203
edits
Maja Desnuda, Maja Vestida (Naked Maja, Clothed Maja): Difference between revisions
Maja Desnuda, Maja Vestida (Naked Maja, Clothed Maja) (view source)
Revision as of 16:22, 11 July 2023
, 11 July 2023no edit summary
NCACintern (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
NCACintern (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
'''Location:''' Spain | '''Location:''' Spain | ||
[[File:Goya1.jpg|left]] | [[File:Goya1.jpg|left]] | ||
'''Description of Artwork:''' Two of Goya's pieces which are known to have aroused the anger of the censors of the Inquisition are ''Maja Desnuda'' (1800, Naked Maja) and ''Maja Vestida'' (1808, Clothed Maja). These were unusual pieces for Goya which presented a woman lying on a bed, and, in the case of ''Maja Desnuda'', a naked woman lying on a bed. | '''Description of Artwork:''' Two of Goya's pieces which are known to have aroused the anger of the censors of the Inquisition are ''Maja Desnuda'' (1800, Naked Maja) and ''Maja Vestida'' (1808, Clothed Maja). These were unusual pieces for Goya which presented a woman lying on a bed, and, in the case of ''Maja Desnuda'', a naked woman lying on a bed. The works were realist paintings, and especially scandalizing to the Inquisitors was the naked Maja's visible pubic hair. Anther piece which may have been censored and angered the royal court was ''Los Caprichos'' (1799, The Caprices), which was a satirical, unflattering portrait of the family of Charles IV. <P> | ||
In 1800, Spain’s prime minister, Manuel Godoy, commissioned Francisco de Goya’s “Maja desnuda” to adorn the walls of his gabinete interior, or inner cabinet. In Godoy's collection, paintings by Goya, Velázquez, and Titian lay beyond reproach in this private room. Siloed away from the public, the repressive climate produced by the Spanish Inquisition effectively made some of the finest art in the country inaccessible to all but the most trusted visitors — even when the art’s owner was the most powerful man in Spanish civil society. <P> | In 1800, Spain’s prime minister, Manuel Godoy, commissioned Francisco de Goya’s “Maja desnuda” to adorn the walls of his gabinete interior, or inner cabinet. In Godoy's collection, paintings by Goya, Velázquez, and Titian lay beyond reproach in this private room. Siloed away from the public, the repressive climate produced by the Spanish Inquisition effectively made some of the finest art in the country inaccessible to all but the most trusted visitors — even when the art’s owner was the most powerful man in Spanish civil society. <P> | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
'''Location:''' Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA | '''Location:''' Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA | ||
'''Description of Artwork:''' | '''Description of Artwork:''' Goya’s 'Maja desnuda' lies in front of a solid, hazy background that refuses to let the eye linger on extraneous detail, and which forces the viewer to gaze upon her nude figure. As a realist painting, it is frank and unapologetic about its subject's nudity, with no excuse or mythological framing to explain it. <P> | ||
'''The Incident:''' On November 7, 1991, a memo circulated at Pennsylvania State University Commonwealth Campus announcing the affirmative action office had been notified “that one of the art reproductions . . . hanging in [Room] C-203 could contribute to a chilly climate in that classroom, and, thus, be in violation of the law concerning sexual harassment.” As the memo claimed, “The reason given is that the reproduction in question, although a recognized art work [sic], is being displayed in a classroom rather than in a gallery or museum setting . . . Therefore, because we have no defined gallery space for art displays, all reproductions will be removed from C-203 and placed in storage.” <P> | '''The Incident:''' On November 7, 1991, a memo circulated at Pennsylvania State University Commonwealth Campus announcing the affirmative action office had been notified “that one of the art reproductions . . . hanging in [Room] C-203 could contribute to a chilly climate in that classroom, and, thus, be in violation of the law concerning sexual harassment.” As the memo claimed, “The reason given is that the reproduction in question, although a recognized art work [sic], is being displayed in a classroom rather than in a gallery or museum setting . . . Therefore, because we have no defined gallery space for art displays, all reproductions will be removed from C-203 and placed in storage.” <P> | ||