[See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7342071.stm]
The BBC today reported that a "nude photograph of France's first lady, Carla Bruni, has been auctioned for $91,000 (L46,098)--more than 20 times the expected price." If one reads beyond the headline and the first paragraphs, we learn that "Christie's said money from the sale of the photograph will go to Swiss charity Sodis, which provides clean drinking water to developing countries."
It is all too easy to miss the message of this apparent bit of fluff, the universal message. There is so much to obscure our vision to see the meaningful.
Take the nudity of a well-recognized person now made public by an auction and an international news medium. Sex sells news and other things. Is this the message? that the BBC gains readership by reporting this news? It titillates us and tempts us to enter the world of who is doing what with whom and how many times? Too mundane.
Ms. Bruni participated in the occasion of taking the picture. She posed, perhaps was paid, consented implicitly or explicitly to the publication. All pretty straightforward. Are the model and her career and the industry of which she was a part the beneficiaries? and the lessons? Perhaps, but this is hardly noteworthy in the larger scheme of things. There are other models and other nudes in pictures and paint. Significance of who and what again do not seem to be the point.
Money. The root of all that is good and evil. The fact that a photo has sold for such a sum is a commentary on the values and affluence in our societies. Or is it? Surely photographs and photographers and subjects have commanded this and higher sums for fashion or art. And prices are always going up. We can't be surprised if a photo or a gallon or liter costs us more today that it did yesterday. For what purpose--money--does not seem to point to that which is meaningful.
The argument may be that we need gas/petrol more--we use it to get around. We don't use a photo in the normal course of things. Okay, let us make the comparison with a coffee-table book. High-end books to look at in plain view of self and guests are almost like the oeuvre of Carla au natural. Case closed? No lasting smack between the eyes about the meaning of life or some such thing in a book or its use.
Christie's. Do we live better or more meaningful lives knowing that it was Christie's and not the Akron Museum of Modern Art that sold, or bought, Carla's likeness? Fat chance. And is it giving to Sodis, a charity, that we can relate to? Another, with all due respect, charity. We need not proceed further. What can the message be, and is it in any sense universal?
Representing or presenting the female figure throughout history has been seen and understood as that part of us which is always and ever aspiring. We seek beauty. And the effect of giving with whatever motivation to a cause or someone is, unadorned by speculation, interpretation and such, an unselfish, good act. A truth.
THE True, the Beautiful, the Good — through all the ages of man's conscious evolution these words have expressed three great ideals: ideals which have instinctively been recognized as representing the sublime nature and lofty goal of all human endeavour. (From A lecture by Rudolf Steiner, Dornach, January 19, 1923, http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/TruGoo_index.html.)
Take the particulars away. The specific details--BBC, Christie's, Carla, money, charity-giving, etc.--are not the message of the fluff. The universal message without obscured vision is to see ourselves and others and the best that our humanity in all its facets, and foibles, are capable of. That we aspire--and aspire yet again--let there be more nudes and more auctions and more unselfish acts. We can take pride and comfort in the meaningful, and ourselves.
