This Painting Isn't As Innocent As It Seems. Here's Why.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 бер 2023
- Check out my coloring book! amzn.to/3R65V4I (ad)
I handmade this book by digitally sketching my favorite Van Gogh pieces. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed creating it! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This 1700s painting is called the Nude Maja by Francisco Goya. It was a private commission that was never supposed to see the light of day. A painting that was hidden behind closed doors for over a decade. A painting that was confiscated by authorities and almost led to Goya’s arrest! A few years later, Goya created The Clothed Maja. Her pose and expression is almost identical to her counterpart. Although we aren’t sure of the identity of the person who commissioned this piece, all signs point to Manuel de Godoy, the first secretary of State of Spain, appointed by King Charles IV. While the model's identity remains a mystery, she’s believed to be either the Duchess of Alba, Goya’s rumored mistress or Pepita Tudó, Manuel de Godoy’s mistress. The paintings were confiscated from Godoy’s collection by Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces when the French occupied Spain during the Peninsular War. They were then confiscated by the Spanish Inquisition once Ferdinand VII returned to power. Francisco Goya was uniquely able to divulge the uncomfortable aspects of the human condition through his art and this piece is no exception! Thanks for watching!
#arthistory #art #classicart #fineart #franciscogoya
Credit:
Hypnosis and cloud effect vecteezy
We're laughing at 1700's Europe for thinking this painting is too raunchy, but UA-cam in 2023 decided this painting was too raunchy.
UA-cam does not appreciate great art!
So?
@@antoniocasias5545 so what? That's it?
@@laff__8821 yep
Woke gone to the extreme.
220+ years later, Goya is still making social commentary by showing us how stupid and infantile the censors at UA-cam are.
Ahead of the times, then and forever
How?? And it’s not chiIdish to censor nudity. What universe are you living on?
@@antoniocasias5545 Yes, actually, it _is_ childish to censor nudity, especially when it's a fricking painting. And I live in (or "on") a universe where no harm whatsoever will ever come to anyone by them being exposed to a depiction of a nude body. Trust me; I've checked. *NO ONE* will ever be harmed in any way, manner or form by said exposure.
@@antoniocasias5545 We already know you like your comments, genius.
@@antoniocasias5545 Whatever universe you live in, I don't want to live there.
You got flagged? UA-cam is stupid. This is art history.
first time here?
Onlyfans' art, not this.🧢
Lol, yes. Yes they are stupid.
It reminded me of 1 of the high schools I went to. The girls werent allowed to wear sleeveless shirts cuz our armpits were sexy I guess. Anyway, damn UA-cam and its weird hang ups 🤨
Haven't you heard? UA-cam is like Victorian England.
Go ahead and lie, sell all the snakeoil and do a few racisms, but Female Body Existing?
Arrest this man he has painted a Bweb!
Gotta love how Goya was told to paint a clothed version of the nude, said sure thing, then painted her vacuum-sealed into a chemise
And the folds of the chemise at the objectionable “junction” suggest what they’re supposed to be concealing.
@@llamasugar5478 and the tummy hair. And the sash really exaggerates her curves
If anything this screams almost the same type of artistic nature as NSFW artists nowadays
@@callmefox630 Goya is basically a NSFW art commissioner, dear god
He’s a “don’t tell me what to do” kinda guy
Just noting the irony that Goya wanted to show the world as it really is while UA-cam is so uncomfortable with the world as it really is that even today they censor an artistic genius.
You've put more thought into your comment than UA-cam, in its censoring. The algorithm probably saw boobies and went 'boobies forbidden = flag video'
It’s not irony. KiIIing was illegal then does that mean it’s outdated now?
Meanwhile, Facebook Technology automatically flagged a clearly labeled UA-cam video of a nailgun shooting at a ballistics gel hand as nudity or other sexual content, resulting in a month of Facebook jail.
In response, I deactivated my account.
I can’t believe UA-cam had an issue with your original video. Similar works of art are viewed daily all over the world in art galleries by people of all ages, even young children on school field trips. I’m glad to have seen the 1st video.
The lefties are against anything that is fun and everything that is funny and entertaining.
And yet they let the videos made by the anorexic woman in the last stages be posted for viewing...
I guess it proves that the world really hasn't changed.
@@Foodloverxxprobably the censorship of the cat and the dots
People that can't see nudity without thinking about sex can't handle it.
wait youtube literally said that nudity is allowed on youtube, (in a UA-cam Community Guidelines video they said: "We actually allow nudity when the primary purpose is educational, documentary, scientific *or artistic* "), so why did she have to repost this video and blur out the privates of the woman on the painting?
Because the world hates a hairy kitty.
@@karenholmes6565 --- Likely you have revealed a bizzare -and ridiculous- human foible.
Because youtube fears "The Cat."
Because UA-cam is allergic to cat hair.
Because you tube is allergic to basic intelligence
UA-cam said nudity in art was ok, but 200 years later Goya is still too much for the faint of heart. Surely a sign of true greatness!
It just goes to show the scope of Goya's creativeness and talent to have a range of work that includes this beauty along with Saturn literally biting his son in half.
Another example in that vein, The Disasters of War.
YT has litteraly thrown shorts that are just porn into my feed but flags artwork smh
I once stumbled upon an “instructional” video of a brazillian wax job that was not censored in any way but you know a 200 year old painting is too graphic lol.
@@sonialinsey8083stumbled, should be in quotation marks as well
I'm glad I saw this yesterday before UA-cam stupidly pulled it down and demanded it be censored. That's beyond ridiculous. Your videos are insightful, educational, and super enjoyable. Keep up the great work, in spite of UA-cam's unjustified prudishness.
I was halfway through it when it went private xD Super dumb of YT, it's frikin art!!
Dang, i am late😫
I wish I see the original video
and that is what Nebula is for
The painting looks like it's got layers to it. The magnificence behind it is far too incomprehensible even at just a single glance.
Yeah, the painting wasn't much to analyze. It's the people's reactions to it.
Sure, her eyes and pose are suggestive. But watching men scrambling, having a moral panic at the sight of a woman's flesh is far more interesting, especially the guy with a whole room of women nude paintings was the one requesting censorship.
I think it's very similar to Olympia. Both women looked straight at the people lusting after their flesh. Surprisingly, they can't return the favour. They couldn't stand looking at their own reflection in those women's eyes. They knew that they were the perverts and they hated that realization.
That's something that can't be perfectly captured on a canvas, merely evoked by one.
Irony that we think we've moved on but youtube thinks this painting is still to risqué.
The way UA-cam wants to restrict access to art like this is pathetic and sad.
The dog painting (of his dark paintings after going deaf) was absolutely heartbreaking.
It's crazy how people in that time took issue to her having hair on her 😺 the painting is provocative but how are they gonna take issue to seeing hair on a human body? I feel like at that time it was the norm for people to have hair on their arms, legs and bodies but I could be wrong.
I may be wrong about this, but it may be because visible body hair on a woman was seen as immodest. When woman were expected to cover their legs, they weren't expected to shave them. They practice of shaving them coincided with raising hemlines. Shorter skirts and exposed legs were already controversial, so shorter skirts with exposed hair(because usually you would only see legs on little boys and girls, even men didn't wear shorts often) was so unruly it was considered to cross minimum norms of decency.
So the hair on her may've been the norm for a decent woman with her husband, but is scandalous because it was too gratuitous for the time, like having legs spread open.
And yet UA-cam felt the need for that very part to be censored....
@@MissMiserizebut if it’s a nude painting wouldn’t it be more modest for her to have it since it means she’s a “proper modest” woman and doesn’t remove it for others. Like wouldn’t the paintings being hairless be seen as more immodest because they’re expecting to be seen nude? Not really asking you just pointing out some confusing parts of history lol
@@bluegirl278 No. That hair was considered sexually provocative. Shaving was for purposes of modesty. Nude paintings and art isn't inherently pornographic- the culture decides when it crosses that line.
I get what your saying, but because the subject of a nude painting is being purposefully displayed nude (it's not candid) they wouldn't see it that way.
@@MissMiserize I’m just confused then. So basically hair was seen as attractive so they’d keep it for their partner but if they were depicted or posing nude it would be gone so they’d be seen as less sexual or attractive? I know art wasn’t inherently viewed as sexual, I’m just confused how not removing hair would be seen as more sexual if normal women weren’t expected to remove it. Is it because of the fact that normal women would have it so it seems more private or “real” to see it in a painting, like it’s a nude of a normal woman so it’s sexual rather than mythical and purely artistic?
Classical artwork should NEVER be blurred out! Why can you see these paintings in a museum, but when it is on the internet, it is all of the sudden ? UA-cam censors need some education in displaying artwork.
It's simply because of American advertising companies and U.S law. No other reason.
Growing up I never understood why some nudes were acceptable, while others were deemed scandalous. I've come to realise men at the time simply couldn't stand paintings of naked women who stared back at them. They wanted to know them weak, dreamy and docile. A direct stare freaked them out as a display of strength.
Yeah. That’s totally it. Men were so weak from a stare.
It’s many things. Always has been. Still is to this day.
@@TeensierPython i mean the men wanted women to be weak, docile and subdued. Some social codes demanded that women kept their eyes down and avoided a direct stare (out of modesty).
The only women who stared were the prostitutes. They blatantly displayed themselves and challenged potential customers.
Men of high social status often visited those girls, but they didn't want people to know (they wanted to preserve an air of respectability). When they looked at a painting, they wanted allegory, symbolism, myth, etc NOT the picture of a prostitute they probably knew, staring back at them with cold businesslike eyes. (one of the best examples is Olympia.)
it is far simpler than that ;)
Also the hairy poontang, another display of dominance.
My theory is simpler: paintings with naked women looking directly produce the sensation of desire towards the viewer, while those with the model looking in another direction do not imply sexual desire or intent. And in a more puritanical society it is something that is not easily accepted. It's not because we're afraid of a woman looking directly at us.
Sorry I missed yesterday’s version. I love your videos. They are always a chance to learn something about art and also have a chuckle. Thank you!
I have seen this painting in person (I’m from Spain) and it’s way bigger and prettier than I thought 😍
It's amazing that modern day youtube is as prudish as early 19th century Spain, and it is the exact same kitty issue. That makes me chuckle
I don't know about "chuckle"... I think "that makes me PUKE" is more accurate imo
Nobody could paint textiles like Goya. Fantastic Master. But man, did he make King Charles have some derpy eyes 😂
Well, troll gotta troll, bruv.
De Goya would chuckle at Maja getting flagged by UA-cam.
probably "gag" rather than "chuckle"...
If there is something I really enjoy about your videos is your editing and sounds you add to your videos. I wish my art appreciation class was as entertaining as these videos.
Ridiculous you had to censor this.
Your analysis of Goya's work is beyond superb, thank you! I've spent happy hours in the Prado being overwhelmed by his genius. Your videos are a blessing
It was dismaying to see this taken down yesterday. Has youtube ever looked at its ads? Anyway, glad to have the Duchess back. (And having read the comments, sorry you had to make changes).
I was so excited when I saw the thumbnail yesterday but then it was gone which made me sad. Now its back and I'm happy again. :)
I watched this yesterday. This video was 'previously deemed acceptable by the Inquisition' as well.
I much preferred the uncensored version but could not comment as did not view it on my PC - text input on my TV is tedious!
Oh well, nothing much can be done about it or is there a way to protest UA-cam censorship?
Would that do more harm than good to your channel?
So many questions, so little time.
Of course it's still a good video! 😊
Wikipedia reveals all
These videos are the best. please never stop making them
Thank you Jon for your comment and becoming a channel member! 🙌
I went to spain on a school trip and learned a lot about goya and fell in love I was so excited to learn more about his art and life through this video!! thank you!
I literately just saw all these paintings in person in the Prado the other day - what great timing this video is!
Hysterical! Violence good, sex bad. Hypocrisy? Nope....
Very interesting! I love your videos, they are not only informative but very entertaining. Thank you for sharing!
Thanks for watching!
love that youtube decided that a woman's nude body -- not deceased, not covered in blood, not mutilated or tortured or otherwise offensive, but just a plain natural human body -- DEPICTED IN PAINT was just too much for this website. now this video and the painting it's honoring can't be fully appreciated. this is literally an educational video for god's sake wtf
I would adore if at some point you compared UA-cam's mammary sensitivities to historical sensitivities.
I think it was the kitty that got youtube's goat, This channel has shown lots of beautifully done boobies in the past. T is okay, A is okay, kitty not okay. Cracks me up.
@@karenholmes6565 On International Women's Day no less.
Free the kitty!
Those sensitivites stop short of their ads, e.g. for “rare historical photos” which, by some odd quirk of history, always show a large-breasted woman.
I was shocked when i saw UA-cam had problems with the first one you uploaded... Like why? Just why...
I love the way you explain and edit everything.❤️
The irony that the painting was controversial for its time period and once again its controversial for UA-cam- the censorship of boobs is crazy.
And it's so weird. I'm a lesbian, so I see lots of boobs, have handled lots of boobs, have my own boobs, illustrate lots of boobs, and work professionally with lots of boobs that are attached to non-human animals; boobs are so common that the absence of boobs is more uncomfortable than the presence of boobs.
I am in a position that I feel very differently about penises of the human sort, however, and since these censorship laws and rules are probably made by men who don't get much access to boobs, they probably think they're something to be hidden away and kept secret from everyone else, as well.
I cannot believe that UA-cam is making channels blur art. UA-cam and this world's thinking is gone too far. RIDICULOUS!!!
Thanks! These videos have been both entertaining and educational. Please keep making them!😍
Thank you for supporting the channel!!
I love paintings like this, not because I find them sexually appealing, but because I find them empowering (for how overused that word is now.) There are many paintings of nude women that were demonized simply because of the woman not also being powertrayed as a powerless, subservient sex object, much as The Luncheon in the Grass, where a nude woman stares brazenly at the viewer whilst the two clothed men she sits with seem to pay no mind - sexually or judgementally - to her body. Still today the fetishization of childishness and helplessness is rampant, and it's only getting worse with this sudden fear of aging that seems to be effecting younger and younger people.
One of the anecdotes I heard in art classes was that in the painting of the Spanish royal family, it looked like a painting of a fishmonger's family that had won the lottery, a clear illustration of the rampant inbreeding of European royalty in those days. Now don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on what I heard.
I mailed a postcard from Madrid of La Maja desnuda painting to my father. He put it up in the center of a huge white painted wall in the old farmhouse. You could barely see it unless you walk to the center of the wall. It's funny that this painting shocks people throughout history.
How do you make a naked painting less provocative than the clothed one!?
That's curiosity. What could be inside!
@Mirror_B4U but the nude one was first. That's like reverse stripping. Which is just putting on clothes.
@@SarahAbramova The painter was proving the point I mentioned. Even after we've seen the naked body, we still fall for the clothed girl because like...just look at the curves 😋 that's it.
@@99SIN fair point
I remember a movie shown on TV that my mother wouldn't let me watch, called "The Naked Maja". It was shown in the early 1960s. It was originally released in 1958 and featured Ava Gardner and Anthony Franciosa.
‘The Naked Maja’ Is available to view on UA-cam.
@@artbitesgregory Thank you.
@@artbitesgregoryWHERE
Wow. As a freshman in college I read Emilia Pardo Bazan's "El premio gordo". All I remember was the opening sentence: "Fue el tiempo de Godoy" (It was the time of Godoy). I never looked up Godoy, but now I know. Thank you!
I was so confused when I saw this upload it’s so stupid that the old one got flagged
When Byron says you should slow down you've got a problem.
😯😆
You crack me up. That was so informative. Never lose your sense of humor.
UA-cam has a ridiculous policy regarding nudity. You can look at totally NUDE Yoga but can't see this historic art without blurring. SMH !!!
Goya is one of the most fascinating artists in Spanish history. He was smart and perceptive of the true nature of his subjects in each painting. Great to see the collection of his works in the Prado Museum in Madrid. All the fuss over naked paintings...that never seems to quiet down over the years, does it?
I'm very interested to know how hair was portrayed *negatively* in other paintings?? Would be super interested to learn more.
If it wasn’t grown on the top of the head, it just wasn’t there. As if people aren’t hairy all over!
In the past, hairless nether regions were a sign of paid women. No hair meant that they remained free of crabs. A hairy woman with the temerity to look directly at the viewer was 1, clearly in charge of the situation and 2, not a woman of ill repute. Women in possession of themselves and their own power has been seen as a threat to society for most of the past two thousand years, probably longer. The past century with its focus on Human Rights gas been an aberration in that sense.
I think this is starting to become my favorite art history channel. Very informative stuff and keeps things interesting and entertaining.
Also the irony that this video got censored just hurts. Wait until they start making people have to blur out the blood in certain paintings... ah, I jest. No one cares for blood and gore. But god forbid a pair of breasts show up!
it's interesting how similar of a pose that James Cameron drew the character of Rose in in the movie "Titanic" sure it's not a hard pose to come up with but still the similarities in the layout makes me think that it was an artists nod of inspiration. mirrored yes, but maybe there was something else to that too..
"While Cameron sketching the drawing was the best choice for the film, it did create a problem when it came to filming the actual scene. James Cameron is left-handed and so the footage of the sketch being drawn had to be flipped in order to match the footage as Jack is portrayed as right-handed. According to the behind-the-scenes, Cameron did two drawings. One was where Rose was lying down the opposite way so that when the footage was flipped Rose would be facing the correct way and the second drawing was done correctly and was used as the finished drawing in the film."
Goya was a fighter - love that you show so many of his statement works.
I was going to comment wondering why it said uploaded 50 minutes ago when I know I saw the video in my feed yesterday. Man UA-cam is stupid.
This channel is fantastic. I could watch these artwork deep dives for hours. And I know nothing about art. Still, so interesting and well presented. Also - your voice sounds so relatable and simultaneously so soothing! Thanks for all the hard work.
I've just found your channel two days ago and have literally been bing watching your videos while me and the little one are sick, I gotta say Thank you for your well narrated content, i've actually laughed out loud a lot throughout and happy to say your videos have given me a light through the gloom! Thank you, you're a true artist in every aspect :)
what in the world...its gone mad. The video was great yesterday and still is today. I look forward to your videos. Thank you.
Re-upload? UA-cam gods must have been angered.🙄 Sorry you had to re do it. I really enjoyed it.👍🏻😀
When I went to open the video yesterday, it said it was private.
Okay, this is a bit creepy, we just talked about this painting in my art class😂
Edit: now that I watched the video, we talked about almost all of them, this is hilarious😂
But your video is so much more entertaining and informative
Nobody expects the UA-cam Inquisition!
I seriously absolutely love your channel! I wish you had been my art history prof so many years ago.
This painting kinda reminds me of the controversy that surrounded Manet’s Olympia.
Great video
I just want to say that I love your channel. Every video you make is a must see. Art history has never been more lively and pertinent. Thanks!
I would love to hear your ideas on Hieronymus Bosch's artworks! With your sense of humor it should be great fun!
I love your editing so much
Thank youuu!
This video is fantastic! The way you worded everything and your commentary is chef’s 💋 5/5 ⭐️ ⭐️⭐️⭐️🌟
LOVE your videos. Always a great part of my day when you release one.
It wasn't offensive until UA-cam defaced it.
I went to a State University that was located directly across the street from a private Baptist-run university. The two schools had a policy of honoring credits from classes taken at the other. If a class you wanted was already full or wasn't offered at all, you could go across the street & take it there, so it was a good thing, until it wasn't.
Because students from the Baptist University were likely to enroll in art classes at the State University, we couldn't have nude models in our figure drawing classes. This really irked the Dean of our School of Fine Arts, who also happened to be the professor who taught all the advanced drawing & painting courses, as he felt the strings & straps of the bathing suits models were required to wear really disrupted the artists' compositions in a most jarring way. But what could he do? The Baptists from across the street made it clear: bathing suits on the models, or they would not honor Joe Blow's credit for the Spanish class he'd taken. He STRONGLY encouraged us to omit the offensive bits (i.e. the bathing suits) & fill in the blanks using our imagination, or set up a still life of flowing fabric to then incorporate into our figure studies in place of. He was a great teacher. RIP Dr John Linn ✌🏼
PS: Censorship of educational content sucks, UA-cam!
Your art teacher certainly sounds like a wonderful guy. I just don’t get the prudish nature of some people. Nudity was a part of art for millennia, with or without any sexual connotations. I feel like certain religions have really messed it up. If they want to argue why it’s inappropriate for art to have nudity I would just bring up the depictions of Jesus Christ naked save for a loin cloth and asked them if they think it’s sexual in nature. My paternal grandma (technically step grandma) didn’t bat an eye at nudity in art and she was Catholic. She just appreciated art for the sake of beauty. I even wrote a paper on Renaissance erotic art and let me tell you a large chunk of it is relatively tame (well save for a certain collection of prints which apparently were so risqué that their very nature led to them being destroyed and the copies of those prints destroyed until we are left with only copies of the copies).
Your commentary and video editing are a phenomenal work of art! Concise, engaging and very, very clever!!
I would enjoy it more probably if there was a male counterpart participating in the presentation. 😏
KEEP BRINGING THE ART HISTORY!! Your videos are Fantastic and Whimsical!! I cannot believe UA-cam, but You MUST KEEP GOING!! FOR THE LOVE OF HISTORY, PLEASE KEEP GOING!!! #paintmorenudes
You keep belting these out. I feel like you are the modern-day Giorgio Vasari. How on earth can you find and tell so much personal history of the artist and their paintings? I can't wait to see every new video you put out. Your voice and sense of humor enhance your spectacular presentations. Thank you! I am so wowed!
I know nothing about classical art, or anything academic about art,, but damn do I love how you break these things down and describe them. I can admire the artistic achievements of these artist while not knowing a single thing about art. I love your channel.
What? I can't believe the original was taken down. Geeeeeeeeeeeeez.
Good thing I watched the hidden version of this video yesterday 😁😁
Such a lilting tongue-in-cheek presentation. Thank you for such a pleasurable exposure to the underworld 😉😉
Nothing wrong with a hairy snatch.
Some people would call that quite a catch.
Such a fun painting to analyse! I remember writing a term paper on it in grad school.
I love your narration with this one! Lol. It's a beautiful painting. Thanks for your channel, I love the artwork and your great comments.
Goya is always fun - glad to see him getting attention.
I had both versions years back. I had them in in smaller versions, about 15" long. I had them set on a table with the nude offset slightly behind the clothed one. Iliked them. Unfortunately visitors did not.
This was awesome!!! They all are, but this one had me cracking up!!! I love art, and how you bring it across is the best!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!
Recently discovered these videos and enjoy them very much. Thank you for the work you do.
A brilliant analysis. Thank you for helping me appreciate paintings like this and others!
I'm so excited every time you post!! ❤️ 🎨 🖼
UA-cam's lost the plot. Stick with it, as I love your witty but informative approach!
Amazing art works shown throughout your videos. I really enjoy these videos. Very interesting.
No words can describe how much i love this channel!!!
I'm guessing UA-cam puritans are worse than the Spanish inquisition, anyway Goya is my favorite painter, glad to see his work being covered in this channel.
I wasn't expecting that
UA-cam puritans are definitely not worse but they are still extremely flawed and have a lot more issues which go beyond simple censorship. I find it ironic how little this platform does to support its own creators....
I loved your work. Explanation is amazing.
Pretty crazy that you can't show female body from a historical painting without censoring 😔
For another video idea could you look into the primavera? I’m 14 and so interested in the history behind all of these paintings and the primavera interests me so much! Your videos have really opened up a new interest that I didn’t even know I had, so I would love to see you go in depth with that painting 🤍🤍
I’m glad I got to see the uncensored version first.
Honestly, you are so fun, so fun to listen too.
Love your expertise.
Learning so much.
Thank you.
I saw them at the National Gallery of Art in Washington. They were put in a contraption that showed one while hiding the other.
Ok, the music/sound at 6:03 is perfect!
I have always hated hated art history until I found your channel. Thank you for opening my eyes.