“This is absolutely ridiculous!” seethed yet another. “This is not fine art. I may reconsider membership.”
To be fair, not everyone who saw the photos on social media of Xandra Ibarra strolling through the MFA objected. Indeed, many enjoyed them and found it amusing that art lovers who can appreciate the bodacious nudes of Botticelli could be so offended by the sight of an actual human female in the museum.
“If your response to a woman’s body is disgust, you’re immature & have some growing to do,” replied one woman on Instagram.
“Bostonians, clutching their pearls per usual,” said another.
Ibarra is among 12 contemporary artists whose work is featured in the new MFA exhibition, “Take Back the Nude: Subvert, Repair, Reclaim,” a collection of multimedia works that contemplate issues of objectification, exploitation, and erasure in relation to female nudity in Western art history.
Ibarra performed her work, titled “Nude Laughing,” at the MFA last week. In the piece, the Oakland-based artist walked — did we mention she was partially nude? — from the MFA’s Contemporary Art galleries to the Art of Europe galleries, laughing exuberantly the entire time and also dragging pantyhose stuffed with totems of white femininity (pearls, blonde wig, pointe shoes) as she paused occasionally in front of major works of art, some featuring nude women. Ibarra ended the piece by putting herself inside the nylon hose and seemingly giving birth to the symbolic items.
The performance, which took place April 16 between 8-8:30 p.m., had been promoted on the MFA’s website, with the caveat that the “performance contains nudity and may not be suitable for all audiences.” Still, many of the people who happened to be wandering around the museum at the time didn’t know about the piece and were . . . surprised.
“Right after it ended, instantly people were debating what it was,” said Carmen Hermo, the museum’s Lorraine and Alan Bressler Curator of Contemporary Art. “There were so many questions, so many fascinating conversations in the galleries. People just turned to each other and sort of said, ‘What did I just see?’”
Hermo noted that many of the paintings in the MFA’s Impressionism gallery, among other collections at the museum, had been deemed vulgar or inappropriate in their day. “So that’s built into (Ibarra’s) positionality as a woman of color, striding naked, deciding ‘I’m not going to do a performance of pain, I’m going to laugh.’”
While “Nude Laughing” has been performed elsewhere, including at The Broad in Los Angeles and outdoors in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Ibarra’s piece clearly has upset more priggish patrons of the MFA, who view the piece as needlessly provocative.
“Why is the MFA showing this garbage?” wrote one Instagram commenter. “Disgusting.”
“So many Puritans in these comments it’s feeling like the 1600s again,” countered another.
“Ah-mazing!” a delighted commenter said. “Someone please make an extended art piece incorporating the comment section.”
MFA staff anticipated that the social media post about Ibarra’s performance would generate discussion, and they’re pleased that it has. Hermo, who previously was a curator in the Center for Feminist Art at the Brooklyn Museum, said it’s been her experience that feminist art “can bring up some tough realities,” which often leads to spirited debate.
More surprising, maybe, is that the images haven’t been removed or censored by Instagram — yet, that is. In 2017, three images that the MFA posted to promote its photography exhibition, “Imogen Cunningham: In Focus,” were yanked. (The pictures included a pair of black-and-white nudes by Cunningham, and Judy Dater’s image of Cunningham alongside a youthful nude model.) At the time, Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, said the images violated its community standards, which prohibit nudity, including “some photos of female nipples.”
Mark Shanahan can be reached at mark.shanahan@globe.com.
