Degas liked naked women and portrayed them throughout his career of more than fifty years. Currently the MFA (Museum of Fine Arts) in Boston has a major show. We bought tickets ($65) ahead of time which included an audio tour and catalogue and importantly the privilege of cutting the line only to find there was no line. Caveat emptor. We now have two catalogues which I would not have bought but will have no trouble figuring out what to do with. The catalogue is extensive and scholarly and if your interested, quite readable.
Back to Degas and the show which is enormous. How well you like the show might have something to do with your comfort with nudes. Much is said about painting: influences,sites, subjects, techniques, time and the fact that many of these were not shown during his lifetime, his habit of not painting faces--this material was scandalous but we never discuss that. This is art, not sociology but surely social issues intrude. A nude prostitute whose face was clearly visible was marked for life and eternity, actually.
What struck me particularly was that many of these women were caught in movements which would last only a fraction of a second. I do not believe that cameras of the time could have caught it although they could now. A question photography produced was "Why, a painting? Why not a photograph?" This was an answer of the day. Too, there is the texture of the medium--many were monoprints, monoprints reworked, pencil, and so on. They are quite absorbing and quite lovely.
And not a ballet dancer in the lot.
Back to Degas and the show which is enormous. How well you like the show might have something to do with your comfort with nudes. Much is said about painting: influences,sites, subjects, techniques, time and the fact that many of these were not shown during his lifetime, his habit of not painting faces--this material was scandalous but we never discuss that. This is art, not sociology but surely social issues intrude. A nude prostitute whose face was clearly visible was marked for life and eternity, actually.
What struck me particularly was that many of these women were caught in movements which would last only a fraction of a second. I do not believe that cameras of the time could have caught it although they could now. A question photography produced was "Why, a painting? Why not a photograph?" This was an answer of the day. Too, there is the texture of the medium--many were monoprints, monoprints reworked, pencil, and so on. They are quite absorbing and quite lovely.
And not a ballet dancer in the lot.

