> But many modern artists challenge these long traditions, creating statues of figures that are fully clothed. Consider Thomas J. Price’s “Grounded in the Stars”: a 12-foot, monumental sculpture of a woman standing in heroic counterpoise, wearing a T-shirt, leggings and comfortable shoes!
Looking at that modern statue, I can‘t help but be bored. It doesn‘t draw my attention. I think that’s because it depicts a normal, everyday clothed person. We see those everyday. It‘s something mundane.
A naked statue is more interesting to me. It‘s less a depiction of a person and more of mankind in general. It has an abstract but intimate quality, inviting to reflect (wow that sounds posh).
I do wonder if thousands of years ago it might simply have been more socially acceptable to be nude for day to day life?
Cloth was presumably expensive, and so perhaps you would only own a few items of clothing, and therefore might not wear clothes every day? Or maybe only clothes for some purposes like for fighting (armour)?
> But many modern artists challenge these long traditions, creating statues of figures that are fully clothed. Consider Thomas J. Price’s “Grounded in the Stars”: a 12-foot, monumental sculpture of a woman standing in heroic counterpoise, wearing a T-shirt, leggings and comfortable shoes!
Looking at that modern statue, I can‘t help but be bored. It doesn‘t draw my attention. I think that’s because it depicts a normal, everyday clothed person. We see those everyday. It‘s something mundane.
A naked statue is more interesting to me. It‘s less a depiction of a person and more of mankind in general. It has an abstract but intimate quality, inviting to reflect (wow that sounds posh).
I do wonder if thousands of years ago it might simply have been more socially acceptable to be nude for day to day life?
Cloth was presumably expensive, and so perhaps you would only own a few items of clothing, and therefore might not wear clothes every day? Or maybe only clothes for some purposes like for fighting (armour)?