One of my most visited pages is the one about paintings of naked women, who are so far from being the ideals of beauty, that some call this kind of art “ugly“.
It has always puzzled me why horror flicks have such a huge following, but similarly horrific paintings normally make people flinch and turn their eyes away. Is static ugliness more repulsive than dynamic horror? Perhaps it is. Static ugliness makes viewers think about the continuation of the story of which a “moment in time” is frozen, and their minds start travelling the roads that can be more frightening than what is normally shown in a horror movie. A film is easy because you don’t have to imagine your own horror, you just watch how someone else’s hand is being sawn off.
The idea that art must have a shocking value to help the artist get recognised has been visibly in the air since the 15th century, when ugliness began appearing more and more often. I doubt Bosch was concerned with recognition though, when he painted his Last Judgement at the end of the 15th century, but this relay race continued through Lucas Chranach, Matsys, Goya’s Saturn and on to the Picasso’s ladies from Avignon.
But. Always a but.
A great artist painting an ugly picture does not seek to just shock the public.
Bosch’s idea was to frighten the viewer into believing that Hell was not worth it, whatever benefits a sin today could provide.
Cranach’s series of ugly men fondling young women, or, in this rare case, of an ugly old woman making advances towards a handsome young man was meant to criticise the use of financial power to meddle in the matters of the heart, the God’s domain (here’s a post about them, the mesalliance in life and art)
Quentin Matsys wanted to magnify the inappropriateness of youthful behaviour at the twilight of one’s life. Cosmetic surgery today made it possible to discount 30 years, of course, but this painting, dated back to 1513, still does send a relevant message!
Goya’s horror was painting on his own wall. Saturn eating his kids. A wild Roman story, still highly relevant today. Just look up the news: civil war in Syria, Islamists attacking citizens of their own countries… Goya’s work was exactly about that, and contemporary viewer – while being shocked – might think again of the horrible causes and consequences of today’s strife.
Let’s skip Edward Munch with his shriekingly expensive Scream. It has been getting too much attention anyway.
Let’s get down to Picasso. I’ve yet to meet someone who’s not an art critic and who’d love this painting.
A man can’t love these broken bodies: they are not sexy. Picasso himself might have hated them, painting this reflection of his teenage nightmares and an occasional abuse. A woman? No, the broken bodies (which are made pretty healthy, by the way) reflect a collection of spirits so much broken you can only feel sorry for them. People say a lot of love comes from being sorry, of course, but they just say it with a smirk when they see someone desperate.
Yes, it was, in fact, Picasso, who established a new trend in showing ugliness. He wanted to splash out own his anger, pain, and sorrow; and he did it spectacularly well. He did not want the decent folk to start thinking deeply on the fate of prostitutes. He was just sharing his pain.
I feel abused looking at his painting, even though I’ve never been used or abused. Never wanted to either. This painting does not make me any better, but it makes me feel his pain.
From then on, artist went the way of shocking people with their own phobias and paranoias.
Take Tracey Emin with her unmade bed or tent with all the names of her lovers.
Why should I get immersed in her dirty panties? I don’t care what message she says she wants to send across. I think that message is complete waste of my time!
Alas, most “shocking” art showing ugliness today is a collection of mad minds. Don’t let it go into yours.
For some years, I have been wandering galleries hoping to find ugliness in contemporary art that would not be just a good or bad representation of someone’s darkness, but would give a glimpse of hope to the viewer. A whisper that a malady can be cured. I failed to see a single example of it.
If you know about ugly art that is not just about ugliness, let me know. Drop me a link, give me a hope.
PS The painting at the top was done by Bernard Buffet, a very good artist who’d driven Picasso crazy with jealousy. The artist is undervalued, and can still be bought from small galleries across France. Isn’t it amazing?
Standing Ovation, Seated 
What an ugly ‘ugly art’! I even remembered your ‘help me to unsee it’. Thanks God this bed is just a picture cause I wouldn’t want to touch or smell it, brrr.
Tracey Emin became a member of the Royal Academy of Arts via this bed. She didn’t bed someone important. She just made the bed )
my congrats to her. but it doesn’t smell better now)
That bed is not my erotic dream either ) Nor do I want to get any closer to it than the safe distance of a photograph )
your posts are like a good book. Last time I didn’t want to see the bed, now I think much more about Saturn and broken souls. Especially after I had a chance to see them
Picasso’s ladies? That’s powerful magic, but not necessarily of the good sort..
I suppose I just don’t find much that is intriguing about the type of women who can relate to Tracey Emin’s bed. It brings back some memories of having to pretend to hurt my back in order to abort a seduction or be rude resist an advance. I suppose these women have as much right to see art that they identify with as I do. I just feel like a dirty Big Mac has been served up to me when I’ve gone out for a nice diner. A different restaurant needs to be sought I guess.
I like the restaurant metaphor ) Unfortunately, just like in the restaurant business, fast food counters are a-plenty and good places are few and you need to really learn about them from someone who shares the same view on food as you do )
Personally I find that something that is ugly tends to be more enduring that something that is beautiful, perhaps because to appreciate the art is needs to be considered on a deeper level. Alternatively, there is so much beauty in the world already and to be honest I don’t think art can replicate the beauty of nature. (I don’t get anything out of Emin’s bed, just a kind of annoyance about the business of art that allows one person to make a lot of money out of doing so mundane.)
First of all, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I both agree and disagree. A lot of women find Emin’s bed a statement they can closely relate to. It’s just me who finds it personally irrelevant. Ugly art may have a better potential to send a message across, for it involves people in an active but negative way. It is just difficult for something ugly to steer back into the road of positive associations afterwards, and I don’t like art that talks to the dark sides of human nature )