The art historian T. J. Clark, who examines the status of the female nude in 1860s France, posits that by the 1860s the genre of the nude established centuries previously – the body as an abstract ideal, with the nude desexualising the human form – was “disintegrating” (Clark, 1999, p. 128). To illustrate his point, he contrasts Ingres’ Venus Rising From the Sea (Vénus Anadyomène) from 1848, where the body, in his words, “triumphs over its nakedness”, and where a distinction between “the body as particular and excessive fact” and “the body as a sign” is still able to operate with confidence, with Manet’s more disquieting Olympia from 1863. In Manet’s painting the distinction between “the body as particular and excessive fact” and “the body as a sign” is much more fraught, with the consequence that sex enters into the picture, and in this case, Manet’s picture, in a way that nudes in previous centuries did not (Clark, 1999, p. 126). As Clark writes in The Painting of Modern Life:

The genre [of the nude] existed to reconcile th[e] opposites [of propriety and sexual pleasure], and when the nude was working normally as a form of knowledge, both would be recognized in criticism and spelt out in paint. In the 1860s that did not happen: the nude, for the most part, was conceived to be the strict antithesis of sex; because sex had no part in the matter, it kept appearing directly in the flesh, unintended, as something which spoilt what was meant to be a pure formality. (Clark, 1999, p. 130)

To get a sense of how sex spoilt what was meant to be a pure formality for some, T.J. Clark cites the art critic Maxime Du Camp in 1863, who declared that art “should have no more sex than mathematics” and that to “clothe the nude in immodesty [impudeur]” by sexualising it was something “disreputable” (Du Camp, as cited in TJ Clark, 1999, p. 128). The nude from this point of view is not about sex, and to paint the nude otherwise is to “clothe the nude in immodesty”. The nude as an abstract ideal is therefore modest. Du Camp sees the paintings of Ingres in this regard as exemplary. In contrast, the immodest nude is the nude painted in the clothes of immodesty. Notice the logic at stake in Du Camp’s formulation: the sexualised nude is a clothed nude, a veiled nude, an untrue nude. Sexuality is viewed here not as something that belongs to the body, but something projected by the image-maker, a layer akin to clothing that should be discarded when dealing with the nude.

中文翻译：

---

阿芙罗狄蒂的脱衣：Le Mépris 中的碧姬芭铎

艺术史学家 TJ Clark 研究了 1860 年代法国女性裸体的地位，他认为，到 1860 年代，几个世纪前确立的裸体类型——身体作为一种抽象的理想，裸体使人的形体去性化——正在“瓦解”。 ”（克拉克，1999 年，第 128 页）。为了说明他的观点，他对比了安格尔1848 年的《从海中升起的维纳斯》（Vénus Anadyomène），用他的话说，身体“战胜了它的赤裸”，以及“作为特殊和过度事实的身体”之间的区别而“以身体为标志”仍然能够自信地运作，马奈的奥林匹亚更令人不安从 1863 年开始。在马奈的画作中，“作为特殊和过度事实的身体”和“作为标志的身体”之间的区别更加令人担忧，结果是性进入了画面，在这种情况下，马奈的画在一种前几个世纪的裸体没有的方式（克拉克，1999 年，第 126 页）。正如克拉克在《现代生活的绘画》中所写：

[裸体] 流派的存在是为了调和 [礼节和性快感] 的对立面，当裸体作为一种知识形式正常运作时，两者都会在批评中得到认可，并在绘画中得到阐明。在 1860 年代，这并没有发生：在大多数情况下，裸体被认为是性的严格对立面；因为性与这件事无关，它不断地直接出现在肉体中，不经意间，作为破坏了本应是纯粹形式的东西。（克拉克，1999 年，第 130 页）

为了了解性如何破坏了对某些人来说纯粹的形式，TJ Clark 在 1863 年引用了艺术评论家马克西姆·杜坎普（Maxime Du Camp）的话，他宣称艺术“不应该比数学更具有性”，并且要“给人们穿上衣服”。裸露不谦虚 [ impudeur ]”，将其性感化是“不光彩的”（Du Camp，引自 TJ Clark，1999 年，第 128 页）。从这个角度来看，裸体与性无关，否则画裸体就是“给裸体穿上不端庄的衣服”。因此，作为抽象理想的裸体是谦虚的。杜康认为安格尔在这方面的画作堪称典范。相比之下，不谦虚的裸体是穿着不谦虚的衣服画的裸体。请注意杜康提法中的逻辑：性感化的裸体是穿衣服的裸体，蒙面的裸体，不真实的裸体。性在这里被视为不是属于身体的东西，而是由图像制造者投射的东西，类似于在处理裸体时应该丢弃的衣服的一层。