Why Are All These Women Naked?”

 Author: Brian Hawkeswood.

The Female Nude in Five Periods of Art

Walk into any major art museum in Europe or North America, and you are likely to find galleries filled with paintings and sculptures of naked women. They recline on couches, bathe in rivers, pose in studios, or emerge from seashells. They are goddesses, saints, nymphs, prostitutes, and allegories. For some, these images are sublime; for others, troubling. And many viewers, particularly those encountering this history for the first time, ask a deceptively simple question: “Why are all these women naked?”

To answer this question is to walk through the cultural, philosophical, and gendered history of Western art. It is not merely about nakedness, but about nudity—a concept shaped by aesthetics, morality, and power. Nudity in art is not the same as being undressed. It is a symbolic, stylized, often idealized state that reflects a society’s values and anxieties. And when we see so many women depicted this way—more than men, and so often in passive, eroticized forms—we are confronted not just with bodies, but with the long shadow of the male gaze in art.

This essay explores the female nude through five distinct periods: Classical Antiquity,  the Renaissance, the Baroque, the 19th-century Academic tradition, and Modernism. Each offers different answers to the question, “Why are all these women naked?”—answers shaped by evolving ideas about beauty, gender, sexuality, religion, and the very purpose of art.

I. Classical Antiquity: The Birth of the Ideal

In early Greek art, the male nude dominated. Sculptures like the Kouros figures (c. 600 BCE) celebrated the youthful male body as a symbol of strength, virtue, and rational order. Women, by contrast, were usually shown clothed, reflecting their limited public role in Greek society.

This began to shift with Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos (c. 350 BCE)

often regarded as the first full-scale female nude in Greek sculpture. The goddess is shown nude at her bath, one hand modestly covering her pubis. It was revolutionary: a female form shown naked not in shame or disgrace, but in poised beauty. Roman copies proliferated, and Aphrodite (or Venus, in Latin) became the prototype for countless later depictions.

Yet even here, the nude was not about real women. It was about idealization—of divine beauty, erotic power, and harmony. The nudity of goddesses like Aphrodite or nymphs in Hellenistic art was not transgressive but elevated. It was seen as a metaphor for spiritual or cosmic order, as in Plato’s philosophy, which linked beauty to moral goodness.

The Roman world inherited these ideas but made them more sensual. Wall paintings from Pompeii, for example, show women in erotic scenes with little concern for modesty. Nudity became not only an ideal but a source of entertainment and pleasure for the elite male viewer. Thus, from its earliest forms, the female nude was already shaped by desire and display, existing as an object to be seen rather than a subject with agency.

II. The Renaissance: Harmony, Humanism, and Hidden Eroticism

The Renaissance revived classical ideals with new fervor, merging Greco-Roman aesthetics with Christian and humanist thought. Artists now had access to ancient texts and sculptures, and the nude returned as a symbol of human dignity and divine creation

In this period, female nudes were again cloaked in myth. Sandro Botticelli’s Birth of Venus (c. 1486)

shows the goddess emerging from the sea, her long hair modestly covering her nudity. She is beautiful, yes—but ethereal, untouchable, a symbol of divine love. Her body is elongated, her feet impossibly poised; she is not real, but ideal.

Later in the 16th century, the nude grew more sensual. Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1538) shows a reclining nude, naked not from accident or myth, but from intent. She looks directly at the viewer, her hand placed at her genitals not to cover but to highlight. Her nudity is luxurious, erotic, yet couched in the respectable frame of “Venus.”

These works reflect the humanist belief in the beauty and dignity of the body, but they also signal a shift: nudity had become a mode of pleasure for the viewer—specifically, the male viewer. While male nudes (like Michelangelo’s David) represented strength and moral virtue, female nudes increasingly served as visual delight.

Patronage played a role. Wealthy men commissioned these works for private viewing. Artists complied, using mythology to justify erotic content. The nude woman, often passive and gazing away, became a canvas for male fantasy and cultural ideals of beauty.

III. The Baroque: Drama, Flesh, and Allegory

The Baroque period (17th century) embraced sensuality and theatricality. Artists like Peter Paul Rubens depicted female nudes with generous, rounded forms—far from the lean goddesses of the Renaissance. In The Three Graces (1635),

three voluptuous women embrace in a landscape, their bodies gleaming with life and warmth.

Here, nudity symbolized abundance, fertility, and natural beauty. Rubens’ women are not ashamed of their flesh—they revel in it. But they are still presented for viewing, part of grand allegories or classical narratives that provided respectable covers for erotic content.

Religion offered another paradox. In Catholic art, the bodies of saints and martyrs—especially women—were often exposed in scenes of suffering. Guido Reni’s Saint Sebastian, for example, is semi-nude, his physical torment made beautiful. Female saints like Saint Agatha or Saint Mary Magdalene were sometimes shown in ecstatic states, their exposed flesh blurring the line between spiritual rapture and erotic spectacle.

Baroque art thus expanded the female nude into new emotional and symbolic realms, but it remained an object of spectacle. Even Artemisia Gentileschi, one of the few successful female painters of the time, was constrained by this convention. Her Susanna and the Elders (1610) does challenge the voyeurism of the male gaze—showing Susanna recoiling in distress from leering men—but it still operates within a system where female nudity is expected and commodified.

IV. The 19th Century: Academic Eroticism and Orientalist Fantasy

By the 19th century, the female nude had become standard practice in academic art. Art schools trained students by copying classical statues and drawing from live (usually female) models. Nude women were everywhere, but rarely as themselves. They were Venuses, nymphs, bathers, or exotic women.

Alexandre Cabanel’s Birth of Venus (1863)

epitomizes this style. The reclining nude floats on waves, her body stylized and polished, her eyes closed as if unaware of the viewer. It was hugely popular—Napoleon III bought it for his collection. The message was clear: nudity was acceptable if couched in myth or fantasy.

Another strain emerged in Orientalist art, which depicted imagined scenes from the “East”—harems, slave markets, bathhouses—filled with naked women.  -Léon Gérôme’s Slave Market, 

shows a young women naked and posed surrounded my clothed men, one inspecting his purchase. These works reflected colonialist attitudes: the “Orient” was seen as erotic, decadent, and feminine—a playground for Western male fantasies.

Meanwhile, the real lives of women remained largely absent.c They were models, not muses; often working-class, poorly paid, and sometimes also sex workers. Their identities were erased in favor of roles—Venus, odalisque, muse.

A critical turning point came with Édouard Manet’s Olympia (1863), which caused a scandal. His nude was no goddess. She was a prostitute, naked, upright, meeting the viewer’s gaze with frank awareness. At her feet, a black servant offers flowers. Critics were outraged—not by her nudity, but by her modernity and agency. Manet exposed the truth behind the myth: that the nude in art was not timeless, but rooted in class, gender, and commerce.

V.Modernism: Fragmentation, Reclamation, and Challenge

The 20th century brought ruptures and revolutions in art. Traditional beauty was questioned, realism abandoned, and the nude became a site of experimentation.

Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907) is a landmark. Five nude women, inspired by African masks and Iberian sculpture, stare out with angular, fractured faces. They are not passive; they confront. The scene is a brothel, but it is not erotic—it is raw, dissonant, challenging. Picasso shattered the form to expose the structure of looking itself.

Artists like Egon Schiele portrayed women’s bodies in awkward, intimate poses—knees drawn, torsos twisted. His nudes are full of vulnerability and interiority. They are not ideals, but individuals. Meanwhile, Gustav Klimt’s

decorative nudes—like in Danaë (1907)—blend eroticism with symbolism, using the body as a vessel of ecstasy and myth.

Women artists increasingly entered the scene and reclaimed the nude. Suzanne Valadon, once a model for Renoir, became a painter herself, portraying female nudes with frankness and strength. Later, feminist artists like Judy Chicago, Ana Mendieta, and Jenny Saville explored the female body through their own lenses—highlighting not perfection, but lived experience.

Saville’s vast canvases of fleshy, imperfect bodies—like Propped (1992)—defy the traditional gaze. These are not bodies to be consumed, but to be reckoned with. They force us to confront the human being within the flesh.

Who Gets to Be Naked?

So, why are all these women naked?

Because for much of art history, women were the subjects, not the creators. Their bodies were the raw material for expressing male desire, religious symbolism, philosophical ideals, and aesthetic pleasure. Nudity symbolized purity, truth, beauty—but also power, ownership, and control. To be nude in art was rarely a matter of choice for the subject.

But this history is not static. As more women create art, and as contemporary audiences critique the legacy of the gaze, new possibilities emerge. Nudity can now mean vulnerability, strength, defiance, or celebration. It can be political, personal, or poetic.

To ask “Why are all these women naked?” is not to dismiss the tradition, but to interrogate it. The answer lies not just in the bodies on the canvas, but in the eyes that created them—and the eyes that now view them.

                                                                                 ***********************************