“My honors are misunderstanding, persecution, and neglect, enhanced because unsought.” (Thomas Eakins, letter to Harrison Morris, 1894)
Thomas Eakins was arguably America’s premier artist/painter in the second half of the 19th century. Eakins possessed the gift! He could draw the figure, landscapes featuring Nature, urban scenes with their hustle and bustle, athletic events where athletes excelled in physical feats, and surgical theaters where learned doctors were pushing medicine forward. But Eakins lived not only in the United States during the fin de siecle, but Eakins also resided in Philadelphia! During this epoch of time, Philadelphia was known for being very conservative, closed-minded to the arts, especially having to do with the figure—draped or undraped! Portraiture was still dominant and, any artist who hoped to succeed in the United States needed to paint the face with the likeness, with the soul, and with moralistic prudence!
Eakins saw himself as needing more than being recognized as a face painter. Eakins had many levels of inquiry and demanded the right to explore that which appeared before his eyes. Eakins was not sympathetic to those who believed that the undraped figure was morally repugnant. Eakins approached the undraped figure, both female and male alike, as an opportunity to explore a different expression of Nature and, as such, exercise his artistic freedom to secure this moment of time to re-form the nude body according to his gaze!
Eakins was chastised, belittled, criticized, ridiculed, and demanded for his interest in the undraped female and male bodies and for his progressive academic principles of teaching the fine arts! Eakins actually “allowed” his female students at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts to have male nude models! Such studio opportunities were scandalous at the time and authorities attempted to sir this out with Eakins but to no avail! Today, Eakins’ life as a teacher is highly regarded as is his open-minded approach to the instructional studio for male and female artists together.
Eakins’ progressive teaching beliefs eventually cost this elite painter his teaching job at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. The trustees could no longer tolerate his unjust-Victorian beliefs and decided it was better than America’s finest painter and teacher be relieved.
What are your thoughts on Eakins who wanted to open the instructional art studio to both males and females where they can learn about the differences between Naked—‘the word implies some of the embarrassment which most of us feel in that condition’—and, the Nude—‘carries in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone’? Was it a worthwhile decision for Eakins even though he lost his job as an art teacher because of it, or should he have stayed within the Victorian center and separated the sexes?
Thomas Eakins, Male Nude Figure Study
I believe Eakins was very just in his thought processes of art and the nude figure. Everything in history that was once thought as taboo once accepted can help grow society as well as what we learn from it. The nude figure while in that time period was probably taboo outside of the individual’s home; it opened doors to science and art I think. Have artists who can draw the nude figure probably helped shape science and anatomy books as well as allowed artists to understand the body without drapes of clothing to cloud the appearance. I am a firm believer if you see something that inspires you and that you think needs to be explored you should explore it with all you have regardless of what society or individualistic ideals might think. If he hadn’t left and explored this new venture I think someone else might have and maybe not have represented it in the best light. Leaving when he did was the right thing for him to do as an individual artist but also was the right thing for his as an artist to do for the country and 19th century art as a whole.
Eakins’ decision to open up art education (especially in the realm of figure drawing) to both men and women was a great one. The definitions presented for “naked” and “nude” are ones I firmly agree with, having taken figure drawing classes before, and while it had (maybe unfortunate) consequences, the decision was both a sign of necessary progression and the right thing. It also spoke a lot about him and what he valued as an artist and person of his time. I think learning to draw and observe the figure are fun and important skills that any artist should pursue, at least once! Learning those definitions helps break barriers and outdated taboos, and it opens your eyes to appreciating figurative work – draped or undraped.
In modern times, we can appreciate Eakins’ desire to open the instructional art studio to both males and females because it’s not coming from a sense of lust, but rather one of understanding and education. I think it was worth him sacrificing his job to do so. An artist benefits from learning about the nude figure and then applying that understanding to their own work. It’s something that needs to be seen with an open mind, and not one of malintent.
Eakins efforts were definitely worthwhile, and it’s unfortunate that it led to job loss. I think about how now life drawing classes are available to all students, with no regards on the gender of the model. Life drawing is meant as education and study of the human form. To see something wrong in female artists observing the nude male body is limiting. Artists should be allowed to place their gaze on the human form for the betterment of art. As someone who has had the opportunity to take a life drawing class, the fact that we were in an educational, artistic environment, upon seeing a nude women or man, the “uncomfortableness” was non-existent as I was observing with an educational, artistic viewpoint. Eakins wanted to provide this same environment for his students, it’s unfortunate that his worthy efforts were seen as controversial.
I think Eakins was right in challenging the conservative notions of a place like Philadelphia at this time because what is art if not challenging the societal norms placed upon us? Had he stuck to what he knew people expected from an artist of his caliber, he would not have been true to himself as both a person and an artist and his work would not truly be his in the sense that they were created being dictated by others. Yes, the naked and nude forms were considered scandalous and immoral during his time, but in a way, he helped establish them as a normal visual in art, at least in the U.S. These forms do not always have to be portrayed lewdly, and Eakins demonstrated this as the case with his beautiful works of both the male and female figures.
Eakins decisions, although they cost him his job, were the type of decisions that lead to furthering of society. The introduction of both male and females in the class not only further education but also social expectations of each gender. It also allows for normalization of both male and female artists working together; bringing down barriers and stereotypes that can often come into the professional workforce. Eakins choices, while at the time may have been seen as taboo were a necessity, stepping stone, to move forward. It also encouraged education and learning from different perspectives with collaboration opportunities within the classroom.
There is something brave and admirable with Eakins’ decision. In pursuit of education, curiosity, and discovery, he essentially created a step in progress in the world of American art even if it cost him his job. This decision didn’t only affect him as an artist but also his students who were involved in these classes. The whole situation reminded me a lot about the movie Dead Poets Society in a way though here, the decisions were more driven by Eakins. I think this conversation goes beyond just teaching conventions but art as well, what is art but something that stirs up emotions, thoughts, and conversations?
I think Eakins’ idea was really good, it’s always nice to give people a chance to educate themselves on different topics or learn new skills. I think his decision was worthwhile because he would be cultivating a new generation of artists. This would not only change the art world but the world in general. this gives women more learning opportunities and allows for more people to express art in different ways. His decision also could have influenced other instructors to take risks and try new things instead of doing what is normal. Art is something that everyone can make and enjoy, so limiting that doesn’t really make any sense.
I think he had a good intention. Sometimes you have to do things that push the boundaries of right and wrong, but that is how humans evolve and learn and understand. Bringing the sexes together makes them learn new things together and helps everybody express themselves with new skills and knowledge. Artists in general need to push things in order to see how far they can go. Women and Men both deserve the same opportunities, but a certain type of person down isn’t helpful for education and understanding.
I believe there is something bold and outstanding with Eakins’ choice. To me, he was ahead of time and his brave choice makes him known as a revolutionary artist who affected the next painters/artists for generations. He definitely was effective to bring up other aspects of the art and discouraged his students and followers to act more open minded in case of nude figures. Today, we can value him as one of the first artists to break the rules/limits to make changes in artistic world.
Eakins made a bold move in his “radical” teaching methods that though unfortunately cost his teaching position, was necessary in order to create a new perspective in not only teaching and art, but also in the ways that people were viewing others at the time. His belief of providing his students with a logical context of the male and female anatomy and teaching them how to capture that essence seemed essential to creating more of a depth of understanding to portrait work. It’s one thing to paint figures and it another thing to be able to be able to capture thoughts, ideas, and expressions (the naked vs. nude), through the muscle and body contortions. His move to resign from PAFA shows how he challenged the delivery of teaching at the time – and that it could be done and PAFA had lost more than he did because of it.
Eakins made a striking choice to allow both males and females to study one another because that gave his students a great opportunity to developed new skills. By risking his job at the university I believe he did the right choice to break boundaries, but unfortunately, he got the bad end of the stick. However, from his point of view, I think what he was doing taught his students to the point and not just seeing the model as a body but as a unique art subject and showing the beauty between both. All in all, Eakins was able to show us to step out of our comfort zone in a powerful way and making history while doing so.
I think that Etkins has great attention to detail, as well as good light perception. I think that his sketches are very good. For example, many Art schools in Europe still have in their syllabuses- practice drawing nude sketches. Etkins was an innovator for his time. I think that drawing nude sketches is helpful for artists to have a better understanding of the human anatomy, therefore to be more realistic, their understanding of the anatomy is helpful in their artwork.
I think it’s a great idea to bring exposure for instructional art studio with nude models no matter the gender. Learning through art no matter the subject shouldn’t be limited to gender and is open for ANYONE in the end. It is very brave and inspiring for Eakins to go through and teach art with nude models and understanding anatomy vice versa when they are drawing the opposite sex. It could even be the same sex being drawn.
I definitely feel Eakins decision was worthwhile even though it was unfortunate to lose his job, but someone had to step up and provide that experience/studying for artists to learn. If it weren’t for Eakins, maybe we might not have had the idea to teach other artists of the nude body when learning anatomy which is an important skill to learn to able to draw figures and understand how it looks and make it all proportionate. We have already come far enough since I took a life drawing class last semester and we drew nude models of both sexes which didn’t bother me so that I can learn how to draw each body type and be able to make my own.
For an artist to paint nude portraits during Protestant times takes guts. When there was nudity beginning in Greek sculptures, the visuals weren’t welcomed much either. Eakins and these Greek artists knew the difference between nudity and sexual content. As controversial as it may be, nudity isn’t inherently sexual, it is the context or message behind it that determines it. An example is public bath houses and people bath in the nude! Obviously there are times when it is inappropriate (most of the time), but it is important for people to understand this. In Eakin’s and his student’s pieces, the nude subjects are treated as a subject of beauty. It is not objectification either. I believe that Eakin’s saw form with admiration. Heck, the guy seemed to have painted every other subject under the sun. He didn’t want the human body to be the limit either even though he knew that it would be seen as a sin by societal standards. I wish his vision was encouraged, but that was going to be impossible.
Eakins was doing what any artist and teacher would have done to expand his craft and knowledge in both roles. As a teacher he was trying to teach his students the human form and a way of thinking that would further artistic skill, practice, and mindset. At the same time he was doing this in order to better his own abilities. Despite losing his teaching job I think it would have been worth it because he likely started a change in thought about seeing the figure as nude instead of naked.
I believe Eakins did the right thing in enforcing a modern studio practice despite the Victorian morals that demonized him. The fact that it cost him his job at the time seems irrelevant now, because he is revered for the decision he made and art education has caught up to his forward-thinking methods. The personal sacrifice he made was for the betterment of his students, and that is quite noble.
Eakins was just in his attempt to ignore the Victorian values of propriety and modesty. These values were applied even to the classroom, stifling student’s learning and development in the artistic field. Learning about the differences between Naked and Nude is an education no one should have been denied. This is especially true when both genders having the ability to render the human form was a building block to great art. It was worthwhile for him to risk his job to teach aspiring new artists these skills. During that period religion and societal norms of modesty were ingrained in every aspect of one’s life, doing a disservice to many fields, including art.
From a very modern perspective, I find his teachings to both male and female students to be both progressive and important. People learn better by exploring ideas different to their own and by mixing sexes, Eakins was able to teach others better than anyone before. I also feel as if art should always be available to anyone regardless of identity. On the topic of the words naked versus nude, both words have slightly different connotations. I think that the word naked is more applicable because it involves emotion in it while nude is devoid of it. The human figure is more than just a body and there is purpose for clothing or the lack thereof.
I believe that Eakins’ teaching of the nude figure was especially important for the time. Nudity is often regarded as something sexual and private, when at its core it is simply another way to view the human form. I think that the definitions supplied for “naked” and “nude” are quite accurate at least in an educational sense, since the word “naked” can come off more scandalous than “nude.” Overall, I think it was great that Eakins was so determined to teach nude studies despite it costing his job because it brought a whole new perspective to artists.
Eakins was undoubtedly ahead of his time; it is a sad statement that we feel uncomfortable around naked bodies. As a former athlete, I don’t feel the same squeamishness that some of my friends feel. We had to take showers and change in front of one another. So the idea of a naked form is fine. I think most of the appall comes from the social norms that structured our society. America has a lot of puritan ancestries. They burned the “witches.” and then wrote our history. I think it was worth it for Eakins not only to be open-minded but open other’s minds as well. Although it may have cost him his job, society does not progress without someone stepping up and stating this doesn’t seem right, or this is ridiculous. That is what Eakins did; he opened a program that pointed out that just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it is not art. The human form is art, and just because someone is a female, they should hold the same rights to view, paint, draw, and appreciate the same pieces of art as a male.
I think it was a worthy cause because artists should be able differentiate between the two. I especially think this true regarding the different implications of uncomfortable versus comfortable. Artists should be able to intentionally create the human body in a way that accurate and proportional. But they should also be able to create the raw conditions and essence of humans. I think it’s a good needed balance when the intention of the artist is create humans within their art in a non-surreal way. I personally feel that sex education is needed on many levels and I don’t think that Eakins’ intentions were any different or wrong. I think that his thoughts are very forward and important.
I do understand how using both naked and nude male and female models can be considered sexually offensive, especially based on different cultures and beliefs in the 19th century. However, I believed it was a great idea for Eakins to open the instructional art studio to teach the difference between “naked” and “nude” to both males and females artists. By providing them both male and female models, artist would be given opportunities to learn how to draw realistic figure drawings with both accurate textures, scale, and proportions. Also, it would allow both artists and models to feel comfortable with the concept of both nude and naked artworks. Finally, it would give both male and female artists and models to understand each other better, both physically and socially. Also, I believe it is worth while for Eakins to lose his job. This is because, it gave him the opportunity to teach both naked and nude art concepts to both male and female artists and models. If he had stayed at Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, he would have never gotten the opportunity to both learn and explore different art concepts based on cultural restrictions. Also, he would never have taught his students on how to apply these concepts to grow as artists. It was difficult for Eakins to be accepted as an artist based on his choices. However, his decisions allowed both him and art students to both learn and grow as better artists.
Even though Eakins lost his job, I still think it was a worthwhile decision to introduce his students to a new concept to explore. Although some people disagreed with him and criticized him, I’m sure he was able to enlighten some of his students. I took a life drawing class before with nude models of both sexes and it’s very educational to learn how to draw both females and males. Eakins took a risk for the greater good of his students so that they could benefit from a new experience that helped further their art education. If he would have separated the sexes, his students wouldn’t have had the opportunity to learn how to draw the opposite sex accurately. Unfortunately, he was ahead of his time, but I think he was brave to challenge their conservative views. In the end, I think it was definitely worth it to open their eyes to the idea of being comfortable with nudity of both sexes and teaching them the difference between naked and nude. It was the academy’s loss when they fired him and it gave Eakins the opportunity to go teach and spread his talents and knowledge elsewhere.
Despite it costing him his job, I feel that Eakins made the right choice in teaching his students in the art of the nude figure. It was a new concept at the time, and therefore it allowed for progress and innovation in the world as a whole. Not only in art, but this would also lead to further understanding of the human body as a whole, allowing for advancement in related fields such as medicine. We cannot change and grow as a society if it were not for those willing to take actions that would most likely be seen as controversial. This is precisely what Eakins did in teaching his students about the nude form. The idea of nudity carries sexual connotations, however, it is simply a new way to look at the human form. In addition, the fact that Eakins chose to stick to his beliefs despite potential consequences shows that he was truly passionate about the matter. I believe that if one is truly passionate about something that will ultimately help others (in Eakins’s case, this was to teach his students in a new way to look at art), they should be able to pursue it without letting negativity bring them down. As a result of Eakins’ conviction, he was able to create art that truly satisfied him and was able to teach his students how to do the same.
I think Eakins was just and fair in this pursuit of showing off the male and female body for artists. Of course, times were extremely different back then and the concept of nudity and sex was very taboo and closed off, but artists do need to have a strong grasp of human anatomy to portray it on paper. Eakins allowing men and women to study opposite anatomies was controversial, but those artists might not have any other chance to see the human body up close. There should be no penalty or disturbance for wanting to learn. Eakins is now known as the risk taker and for wanting to put his job on the line for proper education, which I think is great to have in memorial for his name.
We can see just how expertly Eakins mastered the human form, and I see from his actions that he wished to share this expertise with his students no matter the cost. To me this is what makes an exemplary teacher, one who would risk his job in order to give his students what he felt was an essential education. Right now I feel in our society we are incredibly accepting of nudity and nakedness even, but this is the only time in history where I feel the acceptance is this high. Since Mr. Eakins had an affinity for depicting nude subjects, in the same way society was diminishing his artistic ability. It is also this breaking of societal norms that could have been the push that was needed to encourage the way that nude art is perceived thereafter, widening the opportunities for his students as well as a large segment of many others.
I believe Eakins was in the right and definitely ahead of his time when it came to learning about the difference between Naked and the Nude. I agree that there is a difference between the two and most people, at least in the U.S., tend to have a negative view on the topic, which can lead to limitations and restrictions. Artists drawing from nude figures helps to build skills in figure drawing and anatomy, something important to artists who are in that field of expertise. Most people who have a more progressive view tend to be criticized and chastised by the people of their time, but I believe that it was a worthwhile decision for Eakins, as shown by praise of his open-mindedness today which acts as a testament to him being ahead of his time. Without people like Eakins attempting to push for a more open-minded view, the artistic world would stagnate through self-made barriers or norms that only become harder to break down over time.
Having never head of Eakins before, as students of art we have benefited through his struggle against societal norms. I think artists like Eakins have continued to push art to where it is today. If we look at modern art it seems to be where it is at because of the efforts of many artist trying to break down structures that prohibited us ultimate freedom within our artwork and practices. Haven taken life drawing classes before, the difference between naked and nude is very apparent. At times people can’t get over the fact someone naked is in front of them, but when you begin to see the complexities of the figure it opens your eyes to what an amazing feat of nature the human body is. Both the female and male figure have different things to teach an artist, and it’s very important to have both.
Eakins paved the way for American artists to accurately study the human form and embrace nudity rather than shame it. Losing his job was worth it. For all the amazing methods of studying the human form he came to understand it. This must of improved the art community in the US at the time. Him also allowing women to study the nude male human form was a huge stride for equal rights. When it comes to the shame that’s associated with the nude human form, that may always remain due to the input we receive from outside sources. But the beautiful thing about art (drawing, painting, sculpture, etc.) is that it allows us to see something through a different perspective. A clear example of a subject that has done that time and time again is the nude human form. It’s constantly ridiculed and shamed yet countless artist present it to us in a way that says, “I think this is beautiful, and you should too.” Eakins represents that idea. Sometimes when people are making progressive steps forwards, a lot of people are not ready.
Human anatomy is an important element to art and should not be an embarrassing factor. I think it still should be an option because it does make people so uncomfortable. People can abuse this art form, but it’s essential to normalize the beauty of all genders. It is only weird because society has defined it as weird. In the history of art, naked models were common because of the beauty, but it became more taboo over time.