Circumcision in Art

Representations of the act of the circumcision in modern art , and not of circumcised penises, are rare, however I recently saw a painting by Paula Rego in an exhibition in Basel. You can easily find it with Google.

I find interesting that she represents other women in a caricatural and cruel way, suggesting that women impose circumcision and not necessarily a religious or cultural tradition.

@woyzeck Wow. What society is supposed to be depicted in this picture? Victorian?

My two cents about this thing about women imposing circumcision.

On this forum a number of women openly support circumcision (nicer look, cleaner, less STDs…).

Several people have reported that in Indonesia, "operation Tuli" mass circumcisions have largely female staff, and that women relatives watch the proceedings smiling.

I've read several times that in Polynesia, an uncircumcised boy will be mocked and/or that there will be pressure to get circumcised if going out with a Polynesian girl.

So there may be something in there.

@woyzeck Wow. What society is supposed to be depicted in this picture? Victorian?

a painting by Paula Rego in an exhibition in Basel.

I found the drawing and am trying to decide if it depicts male or female circumcision. I have the feeling that the person being subjected to those mad and insane looking circumcisers is a fellow female. I seem to see that the person being held down has breasts. And the younger person also seems to be dressed as a girl.

In this case, women being so adamantly eager to circumcise another woman would be consistent with what seems to be the case with men and circumcision. Namely that since they were cut, they are going to impose it on all other males as well. Think of it as a sort of extreme hazing: I went through the misery of getting cut, so all others are going to suffer just like me.

Or else if you wish to be charitable: since I discovered the 'joys' of circumcision, everyone else has to discover them too, if they want to or not. Call it a conversion complex.

So I'm certain that in societies were women have been circumcised/undergone fgm, they are eager to impose on other women/girls as well. Misery loves company thinking and feelings.

Anyway, if anyone can give an answer to which gender is being held down in the drawing, a more definite answer could be possible.

And boy, do those ladies look mean and deranged. probably the artist demonstrating how forced circumcision/genital alternation as a cultural norm, brings out nasty tendencies in individuals.

On second thoughts. This painting from Paula Rego seems to depict a group of three white women holding a black female legs spread, and the white woman looking at the genitalia seems horrified. It could mean that they are discovering what "female circumcision" is.

In the background, an adult woman is having a child disrobe and looks at the genitals in a way that seems suitable only if the child is male.

The implication could be that Western women openly encourage male circumcision while at the same time affecting to be horrified by operations that "savages" perform on female genitalia.

Another painting by the same author, "Stitched and bound", seems to depict a female with a stitched vulva.

A second painting is also exposed which is clearly a female circumcision (« Stitched and bound » mentioned in the previous post). I hesitated to publish links, they could violate the rules of Zity. Always the same question: what is art and what is pornography?

I travel again to Basel this afternoon for another reason. If I have enough time, I will go again to the Kunstmuseum to look in the catalog of the exposition if any information is available.

This is not art. Circumcising s a religious and or prevention of disease or infection. This is unspeakable

This is not art. Circumcising s a religious and or prevention of disease or infection. This is unspeakable

Art can depict anything at all. There are no rules.

This is not art. Circumcising s a religious and or prevention of disease or infection. This is unspeakable

And since we are pretty much in agreement that the person being looked at is a female, there is none of that 'prevention of disease or infection' justification to bandy around with. FGM will more than likely cause an infection than anything else.

@toshe63 Medieval and classical art is full of scenes of murders and torture… I recall my youngest child feeling unwell when visiting a a museum!

Jesus' circumcision is a quite common theme in classical religious painting (and I think there are also circumcision scenes for other biblical characters);

@toshe63 Medieval and classical art is full of scenes of murders and torture… I recall my youngest child feeling unwell when visiting a a museum!

Jesus' circumcision is a quite common theme in classical religious painting (and I think there are also circumcision scenes for other biblical characters);

The cathedral in my city in Belgium used to have the purported foreskin of Jesus preserved in a side chapel (other churches also supposed had the Holy Foreskin). It disappeared in the mid 16th century during rioting and plundering, rape and murder by unpaid Habsburg soldiers. But the chapel and some recently uncovered and restored murals are still visible.

People in the Middle Ages and Renaissance were both immune and enamoured of violence in art and in public. Nothing like a good execution by fire or drawing and quartering for the population to turn out in droves.

@agracier This is really offtopic now, but I believe the fondness for public executions lasted into the 20th century. I recall reading that executions in France were moved indoors because of the unbecoming attitude of crowds flocking to see them.

I went back to the museum but I didn’t find a specfic information about these two paintings, only that Paula Rego denounced the female genital mutilation.

My question about art or pornography didn’t concern the circumcision itself but the representation of sexual contents. No trigger warnings were present for this exposition.

A painting by Balthus:

https://image.canalblog.com/K47ye26j4ztKCxhF_mOv-CQ_9jc=/filters:no_upscale()/image%2F1166475%2F20241221%2Fob_c2d560_c3da78b81c1155b47035d08d3292df709644a0.jpg

A copy is also available here:

https://en.zity.biz/gallery/image/287904

@Woyzeck I did not know Balthus (I had seen the name but did not know his work). When searching for his paintings, I saw that the same year he did the same scene but with a woman.. I also saw a painting called the "guitar lesson" that put me ill at ease (warning: incest).

Biographies of this painter say his mother was Jewish, and he was from eastern Germany / Poland. He's likely to have been circumcised for cultural/religious reasons; it would thus be natural for him to depict circumcised subjects.

@Jacana

Balthus was better known to paint women, sometimes very young and shameless, for example "Thérèse rêvant". For me it was surprising that he also painted nude men.

https://www.rts.ch/info/culture/9817279-therese-revant-luvre-ambigue-de-balthus-sexpose-a-bale.html

A painting by Balthus:

https://image.canalblog.com/K47ye26j4ztKCxhF_mOv-CQ_9jc=/filters:no_upscale()/image%2F1166475%2F20241221%2Fob_c2d560_c3da78b81c1155b47035d08d3292df709644a0.jpg

This is the first time I've seen this painting. I've a number of books with collected works of Balthus but this particular painting doesn't ring a bell. Maybe because it is pretty much different from his other subject matter.

I'm not at home with all my books now, so I can't check on circumcision status, but you might also wish to check out works by his brother Pierre Klossowski who drew countless male nudes, but in a different style than his brother Balthazar Klossowski (aka Balthus).

@woyzeck @agracier This is sus… The painting looks so much like the famous nude in front of the fireplace/mirror, with a female, same year. Now I think this is a Photoshop or AI job replacing the woman by a man.

https://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/WJF5VT/09-541843.jpg

@Jacana Yes, it is possible.

This painting or fake painting is only interesting if you think that a famous artist is the author. I have seen a lot of other works with circumcised penises, but I don’t post them in this topic because the artists are unknown and most of them are gay and have probably a preference for circumcised penises.

I made a comment in the original blog (https://artisus.canalblog.com) and I will inform you if I get an answer.

By the way, I happened to visit museums lately, and I noticed that in some modern era (16-18 centuries) religious paintings both young Jesus and young John the Baptist are depicted with a foreskin. Which does not make sense, does it?

@Jacana

In my opinion it makes sense because circumcision is not mandatory for Christians. Depicting circumcised penises could have disturbed the people for whom these paintings were intended and who probably didn’t have sufficient theological knowledge to understand the meaning of circumcision in the Old Testament. I don't think that circumcision was/is often discussed and explained in homilies, like other episodes of the Bible which no longer correspond to the message of Christ. A circumcised penis could also be considered too erotic.

By the way, I happened to visit museums lately, and I noticed that in some modern era (16-18 centuries) religious paintings both young Jesus and young John the Baptist are depicted with a foreskin. Which does not make sense, does it?

Depicting these two figures with a foreskin does make sense in that circumcision was prohibited for Christians by church dogma. Certainly voluntary circumcision. This was of course put into Christian doctrine in order to differentiate between Christians and Jews/Muslims.

So, artists were perhaps very much frowned upon, depicting two such important figures without foreskins. Contradictory strictly speaking of course, But religions often have a way of squaring such kind of circles.

@agracier @woyzeck Oh yes, this way it makes sense. Or they may simply have not thought about the issue and depicted the boys as they would depict boys found in their surroundings. After all, medieval painters would depict scenes from the Bible using medieval costume and weapons…

Going back to the painting by 'Balthus' of a nude male, I am quite certain the male figure was taken from another source and Photoshopped into a Balthus painting, after removing the original female painted by Balthus. Sigh sigh ... the need to pass off fakes as real is really becoming enervating.

That painting did make me think of Balthus's brother, Pierre Klowsosski who had a penchant for drawing (he preferred drawing apparently) naked men mainly. And those were, as far as I can make out, not circumcised ...

Here a link for those who'd like a try at determining if the figures depicted are or are not cut.

https://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-klossowski/

@agracier This one seems to be circumcised.

https://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00205lldaQ3JFgpeECiCfDrCWvaHBOcBvoG/pierre-klossowski-oh-temps,-suspends-ton-vol-ou-le-grand-maitre-implorant-le-jeune-ogier---1971-/-esquisse-pour-sade.jpg

https://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00205lldaQ3JFgpeECiCfDrCWvaHBOcBvoG/pierre-klossowski-oh-temps,-suspends-ton-vol-ou-le-grand-maitre-implorant-le-jeune-ogier---1971-/-esquisse-pour-sade.jpg

Looks more like an intact penis with a short foreskin, possibly in a state of semi-erection ...

Lately I visited a museum and was surprised to see in a painting a penis with a clearly drawn pinkish glans and "slit" of the meatus, even though the penis itself was a minor detail. If I remember well, the painter showed the shape of the glans with highlights for light reflection.

Was the painter attracted to men?…