By Theresa Rézeau

Why does the nude still make us uncomfortable?

Why does a painting of a naked woman still have the power to make us uncomfortable when sexualised bodies surround us almost everywhere else?

They appear on billboards, television screens, social media feeds and in music videos. Bodies are enlarged, edited, filtered and arranged to hold our attention, usually long enough to sell us something. We have become remarkably accustomed to seeing them.

And yet place a nude body on a gallery wall and something changes. The looking becomes different.

Amedeo Modigliani's Reclining Nude of 1917 makes that difference difficult to ignore. The Italian artist, born in Livorno in 1884, places the woman so close to us that her body almost overwhelms the canvas. She reclines against a dark bed, her warm skin extending across the composition. Her arms disappear beyond the frame. So do her lower legs. There is no landscape, elaborate costume, mythological attribute or narrative to explain why she is naked.

Most importantly, she looks back.

This is where the painting becomes more complicated than an image of a nude woman. We are looking at her, but Modigliani does not allow us to forget that we are looking.

The nude is among the oldest subjects in art. Across different cultures and periods, the unclothed body has represented fertility, divinity, heroism, beauty, vulnerability, sexuality, suffering and death. Ancient Greek and Roman artists idealised the body through gods and athletes. Renaissance artists returned to classical traditions and used the nude to explore both human beauty and sacred narratives.

But these traditions often gave nakedness an explanation. The figure could be Venus, Adam or Eve, a saint, a hero or an allegory. The story provided a kind of permission to look.

Modigliani removes much of that distance.

Reclining Nude continues the long tradition of the reclining Venus, but the mythological framework has disappeared. There is no goddess here, no allegorical identity that elevates the naked body into something supposedly more acceptable. The woman before us does not need to become Venus in order to occupy the canvas. She is simply there, and in 1917 that simplicity was considered dangerous.

In December of that year, Modigliani held what would become the only solo exhibition of his lifetime at Berthe Weill's gallery in Paris. The exhibition included a group of his nudes, commissioned by his dealer and patron Léopold Zborowski. Paintings displayed in the gallery window attracted attention from the street, and police intervened. Weill was ordered to remove the offending works from view. The episode has endured because it captures something larger than a disagreement about public decency. These were paintings capable of making the naked female body feel startlingly immediate in a city hardly unfamiliar with either nudity or erotic imagery.

Modigliani had arrived in Paris more than a decade earlier, in 1906, entering an artistic world already undergoing enormous change. He lived among the artists, writers and outsiders of Montmartre and later Montparnasse. His visual influences crossed centuries and cultures. The elongated faces and bodies for which he became famous have been associated with Italian Renaissance and Mannerist painting, African sculpture, ancient art and the work of contemporaries such as Constantin Brancusi, with whom he became acquainted. For several years Modigliani concentrated seriously on sculpture before returning predominantly to painting. By the time he produced the great nudes of 1916 and 1917, his visual language had become immediately recognisable: elongated bodies, simplified contours, tilted heads, almond-shaped eyes and a peculiar combination of distance and intimacy.

His life has often threatened to overwhelm discussion of his work. Modigliani suffered from tuberculosis, lived precariously, drank heavily and used drugs. He died in Paris in January 1920 at only thirty-five. His partner, the young artist Jeanne Hébuterne, who was pregnant with their second child, died by suicide the following day. The tragedy helped create the mythology that subsequently surrounded him: the impoverished, self-destructive artist whose recognition came too late.

But reducing Modigliani to that legend risks doing to him what we so often do to the nude body itself. We turn a complicated human being into an easily consumed image. Behind the mythology is a body of work shaped by traditions of representation but increasingly stripped of the narrative protection art history had often placed around the nude.

His nudes are sensual, certainly, and were produced within a commercial relationship involving artist, dealer, model and potential buyer. They should not be romanticised as somehow existing outside the economics or gender politics of their time. Yet neither are they simply erotic commodities.

Reclining Nude makes that distinction difficult to ignore. The woman's body is completely available to our sight, yet her presence complicates the viewer's presumed authority. She is exposed, but she is not absent. Her eyes remain open. Her gaze travels out of the painting towards the space occupied by whoever has chosen to look at her.

More than a century later, the 1917 scandal can seem almost quaint. We live, after all, in a culture saturated with exposed bodies. But have we really become more comfortable with nudity, or have we simply become comfortable with certain kinds of it?

There is a significant difference between the body presented for consumption and the body presented for contemplation.

Advertising understands the first extremely well. The body can be sexualised as long as its purpose is legible. It can sell perfume, clothes, fitness, beauty, music, entertainment or an imagined lifestyle. Even apparent imperfection can be carefully manufactured. The image moves quickly. We look, absorb its message and continue scrolling.

Reclining Nude operates differently. Modigliani gives us no perfume bottle, garment or lifestyle to desire alongside her. The woman's body fills the canvas, but nothing tells us what to do with what we see. Her gaze makes passive consumption difficult.

A painting also asks something slower of us: stand before Reclining Nude and there is no product to purchase, no button to press and no next image arriving automatically beneath it. The transaction we have become accustomed to has disappeared. There is only a woman, a painting and the person looking at it, and that can be surprisingly uncomfortable.

Part of our unease around the nude undoubtedly comes from cultural traditions surrounding modesty, privacy and sexuality. Religious teachings have also shaped attitudes towards the unclothed body in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. Christianity, for example, inherited traditions of modesty while simultaneously producing centuries of art in which the exposed body carried profound spiritual meaning, from Adam and Eve to the crucified Christ.

The history of the nude has never been a simple contest between liberation and repression, just as nudity is not the same thing as sexuality. A naked body can be erotic, but it can also be vulnerable, ordinary, maternal, ageing, wounded, powerful or simply human. Yet contemporary visual culture has trained us so thoroughly to associate exposed flesh with sexual availability that it can become difficult to encounter nudity without immediately placing it inside that framework.

Return to Modigliani's woman and that distinction becomes visible. She is certainly sensual. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. But sensuality does not exhaust what the painting contains. Her expression alters the relationship between body and viewer. She looks outward with extraordinary composure.

She does not appear embarrassed by her nakedness. The embarrassment, if there is any, belongs elsewhere.

To us.

That is one reason the artistic nude retains its power. It does not only reveal a body. It can reveal the assumptions of the person standing before it.

Why am I comfortable looking at one body and uncomfortable looking at another? Why does an advertisement showing considerable flesh barely register, while a century-old painting can still feel confronting? When does admiration become desire? When does looking become objectification? And who has been given the right to decide which bodies may be seen?

There is another contradiction here. We often describe contemporary culture as liberated because more of the body is visible than in previous generations. But visibility is not necessarily freedom. A culture can display bodies constantly while imposing extraordinarily narrow conditions on which bodies deserve to be displayed. Youth is preferred to age. Smoothness to texture. Thinness, muscularity or carefully proportioned curves to bodies that refuse the prevailing ideal. Even movements intended to broaden definitions of beauty operate within an environment in which appearance is continuously assessed. We may see more flesh than previous generations did while becoming more anxious about the flesh we actually inhabit.

Technology has intensified that anxiety. We smooth skin, remove wrinkles, alter proportions and apply filters. We sculpt bodies in gyms and clinics and photograph ourselves repeatedly until the image resembles the version of ourselves we are willing to release into the world. Increasingly, even the human face and body can be generated artificially, perfected without ever having existed.

Return again to Reclining Nude and the contrast becomes sharper. Her skin has not been painted into photographic perfection. Modigliani's contours are emphatic, the proportions elongated, the flesh rendered through warm and changing tones. Her body is no documentary record of anatomical reality. It belongs unmistakably to an artist's constructed visual language, yet it also resists the particular kind of perfection contemporary culture repeatedly asks us to manufacture.

The contemporary body is constantly being managed. Against that culture of correction and control, the artistic nude can offer a different encounter with the human form.

That does not mean every artistic nude is somehow pure or liberated. Art has its own history of objectification, unequal power and idealised bodies, and museums have inherited many of those conventions. For centuries, many celebrated female nudes were made by male artists for predominantly male patrons and collectors. The museum cannot pretend that history does not matter. Who paints, who poses, who pays, who owns and who is permitted to look have always been part of the story of the nude.

That history sits inside Reclining Nude whether we acknowledge it or not. A male artist painted a female model; a male dealer commissioned the series; collectors would eventually possess the works. Yet the painting itself complicates the hierarchy. The woman may be the observed subject, but her open gaze prevents the viewer from remaining comfortably invisible.

To treat every nude as automatically empowering would simply replace one comfortable story with another. Some nudes invite desire. Some idealise. Some objectify. Some expose vulnerability. Some deliberately exploit discomfort. Others allow the represented person a presence powerful enough to destabilise the viewer's assumed control. Some of the most compelling nudes make looking difficult, and Reclining Nude does exactly that.

The painting is stylised rather than naturalistic. Her body is elongated and outlined; her proportions belong unmistakably to Modigliani's visual language. Yet the encounter itself feels unusually direct. The figure fills the painting so completely that there is little room in which the viewer can retreat, and still she looks at us.

That gaze matters because looking is never entirely neutral. To look at another human being is to enter, however briefly, into a relationship between observer and observed. Commercial imagery often disguises that relationship by making the body available to us. We are encouraged to inspect it, desire it, compare ourselves with it and move on.

A gallery changes the rhythm. There is no algorithm demanding the next image. Nothing disappears unless we choose to walk away. The painting remains where it is, allowing our first reaction to become a second thought and then, if we stay long enough, a question. That slowness is one of art's increasingly rare powers. It can transform seeing from reflex into examination.

And Reclining Nude is still there at the end of that examination. The same woman we encountered at the beginning has not changed. Her body remains stretched across the dark bed. Her head is turned towards us. What may have changed is the person standing before her.

That may explain why the nude still has the capacity to disturb us. The problem is not simply that too much has been revealed. It may be that the wrong thing has been revealed.

Not the woman's body. Our gaze.

More than a century after Modigliani painted Reclining Nude, we inhabit a world containing more images of bodies than he could ever have imagined. We carry them in our pockets. We scroll past hundreds without remembering most of them. We have become experts at seeing without really looking.

And yet this woman remains.

She does not advertise anything. She does not apologise. She does not disappear when we move our thumb across a screen.

She simply occupies her body and returns our gaze.