Primal Painting

Primal Painting

(a look at Primitivism) 

First off to answer the demand of why this nude is so different from the western art norm of the female nude is quite simple. Depicted above is a short haired, strong lined, and curvaceous woman lying in some sort of hole outside surrounded by foliage of different origin. Classically accepted as the norm in western culture, female nudes were usually inside, and surrounded by finery. They were painted with colors as contrast, and never used outlines for their figures. the women were also normally turned to not completely face the viewer, but usually had a 1/3 view of their breasts and abdomen. I believe that the only thing this nude has in common with the western nude is the fact that she isn't looking straight at the viewer. 

The fact that she is outlined with such ferocity and uses a lot of different colors on the skin is enough alone to consider this painting to be considered Avant-garde. However since this painting is done in a non-western style of a 'Savage' woman outside in the wilderness it is considered to be a primitivism styled painting. In the late 1800s this would have been seen as going back to the pureness of painting and art, because there wasn't modernistic views of buildings or trains in the background interrupting the ability for the work to be purely art. The woman in this painting is boldly painted, and doesn't really have much detail in her face or limbs, her feet seem too big and idealized for her body and don't get me started on her lumpy buttocks. 

This work has definatly been influenced greatly by primitivist paintings and teachings of Gauguin's opinions about primitivistic standards and painting 'savage' subjects in their natural surroundings, Which of course meant in the wilderness when it was referred to by Gauguin. The brush strokes are freer and reflect more feeling than the plain and boring realistic or impressionistic nonsense brushstrokes that didn't leave the viewer picking up on any emotion in the painting at all. This painting is easily comparable to Gauguin's work on the islands, since the color choices are similar as is the subject matter, the brushstrokes,and on top of all that there is an equal attention to blues and exotic color combinations surrounding the figure. 

The figure herself can also be purely primitivist on her own, just by the main fact that she is lying in such a way that doesn't leave much for the imagination, her hair is cropped short and her feet are largely disproportional to her body. This painting also has a very post-impressionistic feel to it that really captures the viewer and gives interest where if compared to her western nude counterparts, isn't necessarily always there. Her face is poorly detailed as well which I feel gives her a very anonymous feel, almost as if the artist is willing the viewer to not think of her as entirely human. but instead as a savage or primal woman resting in the wilderness. 

Her features are also very feminine in her face, however the rest of her body shows odd lumps and muscles that probably wouldnt be as defined in classically risen western young ladies. If this painting had come out in the 1800's like Gauguin's paintings, I assume it may have come as a blatent shock to the art world, to see a young lady reclining in such a way, completely nude, out in the wilderness. I can image mothers at the time covering their young daughters eyes at such a painting now, or perhaps speculating at the painting since it isnt entirely realistic, so it could the woman could be argued as not being real at all. 

As far as any of us know however, is the background of the young lady reclining. For all we know, she could be a professional model for painters and the artist chose to put her in such a setting, and perhaps wasnt raised in the environment depicted at all. But at this point, its purely speculation.