After ending a brief survey of medieval erotica, I’ve come upon Renaissance erotica, where I must tell you of Venus and Nini.
Sleeping Venus (c. 1510) Giorgione
Venus of Urbino (1538) by Titian
Venus and Nini are two terms of art to denote the female nude, the first is divine, the second is a mere mortal. They are illustrated here by the Venus (Giorgione) vs. Venus of Urbino (1538) by Titian.
My most astonishing find was the 16th century Testa di cazzi, which reminded me of the 18th century anonymous caricature of the Cardinal Armand de Rohan-Soubise[1].
Testa di cazzi by Francisco Urbini
The works shown are icons of erotic art #49, #50, #51 and #52.
Venus or Nini, they both seem to be masturbating. See this snippet regarding a former professor of mine:
This is just one of the many services Goffen has performed for Titian scholarship over the years — and it shows one of her principal strengths, her skill as a social historian reconstructing the conditions of patronage, gift-giving and market pricing that affected Renaissance Venice. Now, after a series of learned articles on Titian, Goffen has published a book on one of the most studied aspects of Titian’s art — his treatment of women and goddesses. The book is full of new and startling things — like her careful argument that the famed Venus of Urbino is masturbating. Goffen relies on Renaissance medical scholarship, which told men their women must achieve orgasm in order to conceive, so they may need some starting-up time. Masturbation here is a wifely art, since this, too, is a marriage picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/reviews/980301.01willst.html
I’ve been following your posts for the past few days and I’m really impressed with the research you’re doing.
I’m curious, in your opinion is every depiction of the nude female form by definition erotic?
Personally I’d say that as long as said body is enticing and alluring then probably…
: )
That’s how I’ve classified my own erotic art – http://www.digitalartprintgallery.com/0/girls-girls-girls-.more-than-just-erotic-pop-art.html
Cheers,
Mike
I tweet @pop_art
I’m curious, in your opinion is every depiction of the nude female form by definition erotic?
Not at all Mike, I’ve even argued that most erotic art isn’t even erotic, in the sense that it teases but does not deliver. Stroke books deliver, porn films deliver, true eroticism does not bare a public space, it needs privacy. This I call the big paradox of erotic art which cannot be used for masturbatory purposes as long as pornography is at hand. If pornography is not at hand, clothing catalogs or travel brochures with women in bikinis suffice.
Thanks for introducing me to Goffen. Although it would seem that they are masturbating, I find it hard to believe that someone would pay a painter for sex education. I do like the Goffen approach, the role of patronage is often underestimated.
…I find it hard to believe that someone would pay a painter for sex education.
You’re kidding, right?
No, are you? Did I misunderstand?
No, are you? Did I misunderstand?
Not sure. Oh, for a face-to-face conversation!
I wasn’t kidding. With the clear risk of being a pedant, I will explain.
I am not too familiar with Goffen’s thought, but I think I know the gist of it. The paintings are not intended to be pedagogical. Illustrations of proper sex-behavior, if that’s what you were suggesting…humorously?
But in those days, the mechanism of conception was not understood at all. The role of sperm was not clear – except that it was required. Female ovums? No clue. The female orgasm was thought to produce emissions that mixed with sperm to cause conception. If the woman didn’t have an orgasm during sex with hubby, it was a good idea to go manual, if the most important wifely duty, bearing children, was to be performed.
It’s not about what the images teach the owner, but about what they say to those who know he owns it. He isn’t a vulgar, lecherous, pagan who meditates on sex with Venus: He’s a good man, a Christian, cultured in the humanities, who’s ideal woman is beautiful, alluring, and a mother!
Something like that.
It’s not about what the images teach the owner, but about what they say to those who know he owns it. He isn’t a vulgar, lecherous, pagan who meditates on sex with Venus: He’s a good man, a Christian, cultured in the humanities, who’s ideal woman is beautiful, alluring, and a mother!
Beautifully said, excuse my ignorance, I reacted too quickly perhaps and lumped Goffen with other goofy American art critics.
No, no – Goffen was no goof!! She was a real scholar!
As a college freshman, I was interested in art, but had little exposure to this period. I took her introductory class on the Italian Renaissance, and it instilled in me a love of the period to this day. She was a very good lecturer and teacher in small groups. Naturally, she was too creative and inquisitive, not to mention being female, for my stuffy venerable heap of a school, so she went on to have a long career at a nearby state university.
A couple of years ago, I thought of some things she said in class about Leonardo, whom I love, and, wonders of the Internet, I wrote her a note to thank her for her wonderful class. She replied with a marvelous heartfelt note. I’m glad I wrote – a year or two later, she died of cancer, only a few years older than I am.
quality, thats what good sites about, love it. adult erotic can be seedy, your site is great.
Regarding “Testa di cazzi”, I wonder if there is line connecting it with this “feminist” work:
http://www.shirleyklinghoffer.com/works27.htm
Hi Jason,
I just stumbled on your post about erotica in the renaissance ^_^ I’m glad you recognises the erotic elements in these classic nudes.
If you are looking for more of that ilk I am attempting to build the most comprehensive collection of historic erotic art online. So far I have 18 artists from the 1400s to present day and over 250 images. You may be surprised who else has worked in the genre like Rembrandt and Auguste Rodin.
Enjoy ^_^