The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-06
THE NUDE IN ART.
1t Is Vulgar Even Painted by
n Master.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
The verdict of a Jacksonville jury, rem
dered on the trial of the bookseller charged
with exhibiting an immoral and Opse9 hns
ing a reproduction of the famous painting
by Peter Paul Rubens, containing sevefai
amusement and indignation among people
of culture. For the jury found the DOCK
seller guilty and thus branded the great
Flemish master as a painter OF obscene
pictures and a painting that is universally
accepted as one of the worlds masterpieces
as an indecent representation INIT 10 De
Now. apart from any question of the
nude in art" we fail to see that TINS Jury
Of native Floridans has su61acted it of c1 70
tured persons by thus out-Comstocklng
Comstock. Decency in the matter or clotn.
ing is entirely an affair OF conVentlon ana
locality, ard If this painting by Peter Paul
Rubens seems to the natives or Jackson
vile indecent, it is indecent. IN Jacnsona
VILE, no matter what 1t might be elsewhere
in the world, and that Is the end OF the
matter. Jacksonville has a right to its own.
possibly ,t bSro az ms ,n Stdnai fhem. Oh ueee
Besides, the action Of the Jacksonville
jury is far more logical than the conduct
of people who hide their eyes and shrek
before a nude from the last salon and gaze
with unshrinking admiration on a nude by
an old master. If a modern picture or a
nude woman is Objectionable, per sc, an
old masters picture of a nude woman is
equally so. We have never been able to
see why nastiness is any less nasty because
1t is old, why the filth of Rabelais, of
Margaret of Navarro, OF Crebillon. should
be treated with more distinguished cOnsid-
Grafton than any other filth, why BalZac'S
"Contes Drolatiques' is a book prohibited
If The Decameron" is accepted as a
classic; why a decent woman should be
ashamed. for the sake of her reputation
for taste, to turn away in disgust from
Titian's Venus" an obscene picture.
painted with obscene intention, if ever
there YVES one; why the paintings of Peter
Paul Rtibers wh", by coarsaness of sub
ject and grossness of treatment. especially
where the nude figure is introduced. so
plainly indicated the sway of the senses over
himself and his age, must be accented as
pure and unsensual because of their other
splendid merits.
There is an immense deal of nonsense
talked by the opponents of the nude In art
talked by it's supporters. And the nonsense
Of neither side is altogether free from tbe
element of hypocrisy. We think a good deal
better of those Florida iurymen than we
would have thought of them, If. feeling in
their hearts that the famous picture was
coarse and indecent, they were afraid n
say so, because they knew Ii was a famous
picture and were awestricken by the name
of Rubens. If they had done that we would
have thought as badly of them as we dc
or the people who raise the cuckoo CRY OF
"indecency" over every artistic representa-.
ton OF the nude as a matter of formula
simply because of the nudity, without stop.
ping TO inquire further, not even TO cues.
ton themselves as TO. the effect actually
produced by the picture on their own minds