Project 6: Paul Manship's Butts

Project 6: Paul Manship's Butts

By Sasha Afanasyeva

Butts have very much evolved in the way they are presented in art. In Greco-Roman art, they were the centerpiece and represented the ideal human form. Moving down to the Renaissance, they started to represent the less civilized, as evidenced by the increasing use of nudes of Adam and Eve. Paul Manship's "Diana and Actaeon" wrestles with the Greco-Roman idolization of the butt and the more modern approach of shaming the butt, as evidenced by Actaeon’s butt being literally under attack. Going against the modern trend of shaming the butt and covering it up, Manship leaves the butt open and free in his works as an act of artistic rebellion.

Any part of the human body could be used for analysis in this way. The hand, eyes, how the face is drawn. However, the focus is butts for several reasons. The butt is the part of the human body that is covered up by clothing. When sitting, it even becomes invisible. Scholars seem uncomfortable when it comes talking about the butt, perhaps because of its association with defecation. To contrast, in a lot of classical and especially Renaissance art, women seem to struggle to keep their breasts covered, and in many situations, the clothing is painted in such a way that it looks like it’s perpetually falling off. Portrayal of gender and women’s bodies in art is discussed at great length by scholars. However, when it comes to butts, even when they are the centerpiece of a painting, the conversation turns to some other aspect of the painting.

Butts, despite being prominently featured in art, seem to be nearly taboo when it comes to scholarly discussion of art. Perhaps it’s because no art history scholar wants to write a paper about butts and have their name attached to it. When talking about breasts in art, scholars can take it from a gender-studies perspective. But when it comes to butts, they are the one taboo part of the body that both sexes have, making it far more difficult to talk a social issue like gender. Butts in art parallel trends in how people think about the human body in general. For Greeks and Romans, nudity and the body was celebrated and athletes often performed naked, which is why perhaps all their heroic statues are in the nude. Then going forward, nudity became shameful and started to become associated with being uncivilized. Adam and Eve became increasingly naked in art while heroic figures became increasingly clothed. And in modern times, important leaders and figures are never painted with butts visible unless the purpose is to humiliate the subject. Perhaps this modern association of butts with shame is what prevents them from being properly researched in art history.

For a backstory on Manship’s “Diana and Actaeon”, Diana was a Roman goddess of the hunt (essentially the Roman take on Artemis from Greek mythology) who was caught bathing by a hunter named Actaeon in the woods. Angered, Diana (the one with the bow) turned Actaeon (the one pursued) into a stag and set his hounds on him, killing him. Straying from the Roman origin of the characters, Manship did not turn Actaeon into a stag. Instead, he gave Actaeon small horn-like protrusions on the head. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of it the work is the difference in the butt on both the statues. At first glance, Actaeon's butt is very feminine due to how rounded and bubble-like it is. The bubble-like presentation of the butt is especially common in modern takes of the butt. Diana's butt has a far more toned, heroic look to it, much like you would expect on Roman heroic sculptures. This may very well represent the clash between the classical Roman take on the butt and the modern interpretation of it. Much of Manship's work used the Greco-Roman style in his sculptures. To better understand the way classical Roman art influenced Manship, it is best to look at the "Celestial God or Hero" from the first or second century.

Celestial God or Hero, Roman by Unknown from 1st or 2nd century

First note that the statue is nude. The shoulders are clothed but the chest and the buttocks and legs are exposed. The buttocks are perfectly in their shape (aside from the age-induced damage on the upper right cheek), and most importantly lacking any imperfection. The body and the butt of the statue are overall muscular and the sculpture is standing in a way that is nearly presenting the body. The Roman interpretation of the human body is heavily seen in Manship's Diana. Even the butt is similar despite Diana being the opposite sex. Contrast this to paintings of Jesus, who despite being a major religious figure, he is almost always clothed (unless as a baby), and has soft non-muscular features. 

However, several centuries later perspectives on nudity changed, especially in the Renaissance. Art history scholars noted that around the 15th century, depictions of nude Adam and Eve started to increase. And as Jill Burke, an art scholar put it in her scholarly article, Nakedness and Other Peoples: Rethinking the Italian Renaissance Nude, "a survey of Italian travel accounts ... invoke stereotypes of nakedness as a symbol for peoples understood to have no civic society, religion or social differentiation." Essentially, nudity went from being celebrated during the height of the Greek and Roman era to becoming shamed and looked down upon. To analyze this transition and how it influenced Manship's work, take a look at the "Last Judgement" by Crispijn van Den Broek from 1573.

“The Last Judgement”, 1573, by Crispijn van Den Broek, Oil on cradled panel, Netherlands

First note that there are three groups of people. The ones on the right are in what appear hell. They are all naked, indicating savagery and low moral character. The ones on the left are awaiting to be judged, whether to be uplifted to heaven presented above, or dragged down to hell on the right. Note how those awaiting judgement are a mix of clothed and nude. The heavenly above are all clothed and there is no visible nudity. This shows a clear association of nudity with savagery. Also note how those in hell, both the tortured and torturers are very muscular, as opposed to the fair and smooth appearance of the heavenly, butts included. Like “Diana and Actaeon” this painting shows a contrast between the butts of two different types of representations of people, in this case the sinners and the saints. And specifically, if you look at those in hell, the demonic tormentor has a clearly visible butt with an eagle beak, signifying that butts especially are associated with savagery.

It is likely that Manship saw this contrast between “good” and “evil” semi-nude representations of people and incorporated that into his own sculptures. However, most importantly, this picture shows the trend of using nudity, and especially butts, to show the uncivilized. The sinners, in this instance, are the uncivilized. Also note that every individual in heaven in that painting has covered butts, indicating the beginning of association of butts with shame. So why this shift from celebrating the human body, the butt, and to shaming it? The rise of Christianity is likely the reason. Adam and Even were the among the first religious figures to be derived. As Jill Burke put it, "nakedness signifies the potential to be clothed" or in other words, to be civilized. Unlike Roman or Greed gods and heroes, most Christian stories didn't celebrate strength or heroic deeds (although some did), but instead focused on other things like teachings of morality. This view on butts carried forward into the modern era. Greco-Roman style sculptures of Lady Liberty and Lady Justice are all clothed while having clear Greco-Roman features. However, Manship broke away from that mindset of covering up the butt and the body and depicted his "Diana and Actaeon" in the nude.

Manship's other works include similar Greco-Roman style sculptures. One of his more visible ones is the statue of Prometheus in the 30 Rockefeller Center in New York City. Although the groin area of that gilded statue is covered up, when looked at from behind, the butt again is visible. Manship's "Diana and Actaeon", and more broadly his other art, is an open rebellion against the shaming of the butt and the human body as a whole. Embracing the Greco-Roman roots in his art, Manship is openly saying with his work that the body is not to be shamed or to be associated with savagery, rather it is a part of us and should be revered.

___

On the net:
Vulture: http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/brief-history-of-butts-in-art.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

The MET: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/nuan/hd_nuan.html

Nakedness in Art http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/doi/10.1111/1467-8365.12029/abstract

Gender and nudity: http://www.jstor.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/stable/3594705?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Classical Statues: http://www.jstor.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/stable/41059790?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

NCMA: http://ncartmuseum.org/