[Milton-L] Nude or Naked?

Watt, James jwatt at butler.edu
Sun Jul 24 15:57:33 EDT 2011


 Jeffrey:

nude means aesthetic, not erotic
naked means erotic, not aesthetic
just as making love means something coextensive
and fucking means something lonely, but intensive.

Even as most of this discussion of Milton's eroticism
has been about as pertinent as [Henry] Miller's aestheticism...

...but scholars are human, too and, like their great archetype, are always looking up
and then fleeing, murmuring; and with them flee the shades of night. (4:1013ff) I
wanted to add 'scattering footnotes,' but better sense prevailed.

jim watt
________________________________
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of Horace Jeffery Hodges [jefferyhodges at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:37 PM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: [Milton-L] Nude or Naked?


Given our discussion of late, I found this interesting:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/arts/lucian-freud-adept-portraiture-artist-dies-at-88.html



"Lucian Freud, Figurative Painter Who Redefined Portraiture, Is Dead at 88"



William Grimes, New York Times (July 11, 2011)



This observation is particularly apt:



"His female subjects in particular seemed not just nude but obtrusively naked."



Is this a meaningless distinction? Should Grimes have written:



"His female subjects in particular seemed not just nude but obtrusively nude."



Or:



"His female subjects in particular seemed not just naked but obtrusively naked."



Or do we need a terminological distinction here to express more starkly what is meant?



Jeffery Hodges



More information about the Milton-L mailing list