The Human Body as Art

 Commentary on Ye and Bianca Censori's Grammys Stunt

Bianca Censori

The 67th Annual Grammys Awards took place only a few weeks ago, and while people have been screeching about the winners of the awards, Kanye "Ye" West's publicity stunt has been raking up even more clamor. Ye and his wife, Bianca Censori, appeared on the Red Carpet, and amid photographers and a CBS live stream, Censori made a shocking move in stripping out of her fur coat to reveal nothing but a completely sheer mini dress underneath. This was a move that provoked shock and controversy, and the couple left the event shortly after their red carpet-appearance. While there is still confusion about whether they were even invited and whether they were kicked out, one thing is clear: Censori stripped on the red carpet, and people are up in arms about it. 

The main accusation toward the couple is that this is abuse and that Ye is the perpetrator. This is not the first time Censori has appeared in public in almost nudity, but people say that she never dressed like that before marrying Ye. Ye also has a history of posting nude photos of his wife online. Also, there's a video circulating from just before she stripped down, in which she holds her fur coat closed and shakes her head in answer to something Ye is saying. This has suggested to people that she may not have wanted to perform the stunt but that she is being forced to against her will. People also point out that Censori holds a striking resemblance to Kim Kardashian, Ye's ex-wife. While this isn't an inherent sign of abuse, it is a detail that seems somewhat odd. People also point to the couple's age gap as an issue, as Censori is only 30 while Ye is 47. 

Some critics argue, however, that 30 is plenty old enough. There is a crowd of people fighting back against the abuse allegations, some of whom point out that Censori is not a minor. She is a grown woman, and they argue that if she is appearing in public nude, that is her own individual choice and not one that should be criticized. They argue that just because some people are uncomfortable with Censori's nudity doesn't mean that it's an abusive situation, and it is, in fact, insulting to Censori to suggest that she might be in a situation where she is helpless. While there are some circumstances such as this, where grown women may choose to present themselves as sex objects of their own volition, I would argue that there are also lots of situations where women, and even men, are helpless, even if they are of an adult age.

The other camp of those defending Ye and Censori argue that this is art. There is a large crowd that is pushing the narrative that it is wrong to critique this stunt because this stunt is art, and art is subjective. They push that this is a demonstration of the beauty of the human body and that it shows the way we should appreciate the body as something powerful and moving. They argue that just because it may not appeal to you doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong or bad and that art isn't something that everyone is going to understand. They further suggest that because it's art that you may not understand or enjoy, you cannot critique it because, apparently, art is on a pedestal that makes it illegal to analyze critically. 

Untitled, Jackson Pollock

I intend to analyze it critically anyway. I do agree that art is subjective. Over hundreds of years, we've never really been able to define what art is, and it has expanded to such a degree that it stretches over a wide range of mediums and subjects. Painting is art, drawing is art, film is art, music is art, dance is art, poetry is art, and some might argue that blog posts such as these are art, too. The point is, "art" is something we've tried really hard to define for years yet can't seem to put our finger on. Is art something that requires talent to produce? Maybe, but that could exclude the splatter paintings of Jackson Pollock, which some would argue a kindergartner could reproduce. Is art something with meaning? Perhaps, but meaning is subjective, as what has value to one person might be garbage to another. No matter how we personally define art, the fact that we have personal definitions only emphasizes its subjective nature. 

Comedian, Maruizio Cattelan

Does that mean anything can be art? I say no. My favorite example of defining art and my personal belief that not anything can be art is Maurizio Cattelan's Comedian, which consists of a banana duct taped to a wall and sold for over 6 million dollars. I think this is absurd. I think this is a perfect example of how not anything is art. The whole thing is literally a massive joke to prove that people are so afraid to criticize "art" that you can sell them anything. So, no, I do not believe anything is art. I do not believe that a banana duct taped to a wall is art. And I certainly don't believe that Censori's red carpet stunt is art. 

Here we come to an issue. I agree that art is subjective, yes, but I also believe that not everything is art. I do not have my parameters for what qualifies art completely nailed down (because it is subjective), and so  I can't provide a rubric that Censori's stunt does or does not fill. However, I can provide an example and a contrast. 

Sandro Botticelli's The Birth of Venus

People argue that Censori's nudity is art because it glorifies the human body and showcases its beauty and power. I disagree. I believe that Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is a showcase of the beauty of the human body. I believe that Michaelangelo's "Creation of Adam" on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel demonstrates the strength of the human body. Both of these are nude paintings, so why is this art and not Censori? Censori is a beautiful woman, without a doubt. However, what matters is not the physical beauty of the subject but the intent with which they are displayed. In The Birth of Venus, Venus is displayed nude. This is, in part, because she is one of the Roman goddesses. However, the Romans based their pantheons on themselves, just as the Egyptians and Greeks did. Their gods were flawed and held instincts of human selfishness and vanity. Because of this, it's not a far stretch to argue that while technically Botticelli's work displays a god, it is a showcase of the human body. But its intent is not to shock people or get more views, as Ye later admitted Censori's work was. Instead, it was to demonstrate beauty and elegance, to make people feel admiration for the female body. 

Michaelangelo's "Creation of Adam"
Fresco in the Sistine Chapel

Michaelangelo's work has a similar effect. Here, he portrays Adam, the epitome of mankind, in the nude. Not because he is a figure of godliness -- in fact, the image of God is displayed clothed -- but because he is demonstrating the most bare, raw form of humanity. Adam is a figure of emotion and depth, and his nudity does not shock or disgust his audience but evokes a reaction of only admiration for the artist's talent and a sense of relation to Adam's humanity. 

Do you see the pattern? If Censori's nudity was art, and its intent was to showcase beauty, strength, and glory, would not it be created in a way that provoked admiration instead of shock? Would it not display elegance and not sensuality? I think there are pieces of art that provoke shock and are meant to distress or disturb a viewer. Take, for example, Bruce Nauman's Clown Torture, in which an audience is subjected to multiple simultaneous videos of various clowns in a state of distress and breakdown. The combination of disturbing sounds and imagery, as well as the sensory overload that comes from having multiple videos playing at once, is created to make the viewer feel shaken and uncomfortable. It discusses the nature of man, but not in a way that glorifies his beauty. If the clowns were nude, and one were to argue that this was a piece that demonstrates the beauty of the body, that would be objectively false. One cannot simultaneously have the grotesque, shocking, or disturbing, and also the beautiful and admirable. 

Art that appreciates the body is a real thing. However, a publicity stunt that intends to shock people and get views does not demonstrate any kind of appreciation, and those who argue that it is degrade art. Those who argue that art can't be critiqued degrade art. Those who argue that anything is art degrade art. Art is subjective, we know. But subjectivity doesn't necessarily mean anything goes. We should have prudence, be wary, leave everything open to critique, and have a wise sense of what is degrading and what is glorifying.