This video is getting demonetized so hard I might owe UKposts some money by the end of the day. Please check out my Patreon! It helps out a lot, a lot!!

Bold and courageous in this era to do this video...and completely the kind of thought provoking work I expect from you. Your own position and reaction are purposefully represented in your text and the tone of your voice. Bravo, well done.

I have always had trouble seeing Schiele's work as erotic. I understand there may have been intent, and certainly some of the work exhibits sexual situations, but I am alway struck first at the manner in which he rendered his subjects, which seems to me to exhibit, first and foremost, some kind of anxiety.

I will not comment on the art other than to say I was not initially disturbed but intrigued by it as a I grew up as the son of a figure artist who attended two art academies in Europe. However the discussion of Schiele's interaction with children disturbed me greatly. I was truly chilled by the his own mention of feeling more comfortable with children. Years ago by circumstance I became acquainted with a man who I enjoyed the company of but thought he seemed to spend too much time with children. Although he was more than middle aged he seemed to have a childlike innocence about him and he also expressed being comfortable around children. A few years after we parted I learned that he was in fact found guilty of abusing the very children he introduced me to and others. He was sentenced to 30 years in jail for traveling outside the USA to abuse children, likely a life sentence considering his age. This chance meeting hurt me deeply and will never be forgotten.

I have a book of complete works by Egon Schiele, and the children depictions sometimes felt a bit difficult to look at. But I always found them honest and strangely joyful. Schiele was and is really a complicated artist, the erotism in his works feels human, and I don't know why it looks to me like symbolism. But, I strongly believe they were a kind of protest against puritanism, and why not a depiction of a sad reality if we talk about teen prostitution. Maybe they were just about everything that was actually happening and noone wanted to talk about it. Thank you for this video. I love your content.

To be honest, I don't know how to react to such phenomena. You can depict yourself in any ways you want, but when it includes very young children, it sounds quite dubious.

Schiele is my favourite painter and now a video about him by my favourite art history channel? I'm in heaven

He was a genius artist. His drawings were powerful. When I judge the artist morality that is different from my own and when it is looked at through the lens of time. I probably may not have liked him as a person but I like many of his drawings. Picasso was no saint with his morality as well but I still love his work. Thanks for posting. Always great content.

Dude really put up the “eternal child” defense, I know we shouldn’t judge the actions of those in the past with the morality of the present but I still feel very uncomfortable

Something I've been growing to accept in my own work is how the unspoken truism between creative endeavours and gatekeepers, as you've put it, is that there's an acceptance of what's accepted as accepted. Like you said, the underage models are declared "art" because the artist is declared "art" by those who say they declare "art". I don't buy into the whole "oh, you couldn't make X today" argument because it feeds into an idealised past, but I also can't help but feel like there's an ironic and delayed appreciation effect when it comes to many works. Many galleries are now boasting about displaying artists they formerly rejected, to the point where they may be blinded to similar, contemporary artists today, who they'd only be lauding about the another fifty or so years (especially if they're dead). I think the only appropriate way to view these images is to remember; you are looking at a real person, a real child. Maybe they were comfortable, maybe they were fine, and the paintings are stylistically good, but remember, you are looking at someone and yet you don't know their name. You are looking at someone very vulnerable, very exposed, and you have no idea who they are. It's not just a sign of the control of the art establishment that an artist can have their history or work excused within a certain extent (e.g. everyone has always known Picasso was an abuser, it's only now people want others to think they care), but also that the name by the paintings are always of the artists and rarely of the subject. Nudity isn't inherently sexual, but it is vulnerable. I'm glad the paintings aren't banned or destroyed, but I think Egon wasn't as out of step with his time as he'd like to have believed.

I honestly didn't know anything about Egon Schiele before this video except that he was a visual artist and at one point David Bowie was supposedly going to play him in a movie that ended up never gettinf made. Watching this video, I'm glad that film wasn't made. This was a thoughtful discussion of Schiele and i don't really know how I think at this present moment. Some of the pictures you showed didn’t make me uncomfortable, but others are harder to be sure of their intention. One of the poses reminded me of the blurred-out stock footage used in TV news reports of child porn cases.

Good video. I think you handled this sensitive subject matter really well. It's sad that UKposts will demonitize this video because from my perspective it's nothing more than a documentation of art history.

10:07 the age of consent in Austria is not 13. And contrary to the most common answer on google it's also not 14. The 14 thing is specifically for teenagers with a maximum age difference of 3 years. Despite that I think the rules in Austria need some updating because they are convoluted and give the wrong impression.

I've found at my grand-parents house a lot of little drawings and paintings, dating from somewhere between the 1940's and 1960's (I precise here that I am french). Kind of popular strips by the time, representing little boys and girls aged around 5 or 6, mimicking adult conversations, always about seduction, always with a sexual connotation. Like a little girl dressed like a miniature whore, asking a boy dressed as a sailor: "And my butt? Do you like my butt?" It was intended for fun. Not pornography, neither erotism, but still very disturbing. Not because of any crudity on these images, but the fact that, not so long ago, it was considered normal and comic to use little children to suggest a sexuality they're not supposed to have, is disturbing. Later on, during and after 1968 social and cultural revolution, the pretext of freedom has been used by some people to suggest that free love should include everyone. But there were always adults talking about freeing children's desire, not children asked by anyone about what they thinked of it. Not mentioning that this kind of blurry and taboo frontiers have been used deliberately by some artists and activists as a provocation against the bourgeoisie of the time. I'm thinking about Serge Gainsbourg's song "Lemon incest" for example, which has been an absolute scandal. It was probably the purpose. I think that all societies and eras have those demons, and since they are huge taboos, at least uncensored art is a way of not keeping it into an absolute silence and secrecy. I don't know what to think about Schiele in particular. I knew those drawings and there are both disturbing and so well executed. His way of drawing bodies is very crude, no classicism or romantism here, it's just the raw flesh. Thank you for this video and your commentary

I feel it's entirely possible to depict nude children in a non-predatory manner, it's been done many times before- though I am personally distrustful of Egon Schiele's personal intentions. I've heard what he's said in defense of himself said by others before and it doesn't sit any more right with me now. However, the bulk of his work is still incredible and should still be artistically appreciated.

One of the most interesting videos I've seen in a while! Good Work!

Reminds me of Lewis Carroll's relationship with his child muse My mom read Through the Looking Glass to me as a child, and I was disappointed when I discovered the true nature of their relationship 😕

Thanks for your honesty.

I really love Schiele’s work, especially the raw frankness witch which he depicted sexuality. Of course nudity isn’t always sexual, my parents themselves have some pictures of me taking a bath as a little kid. But given the nature of Schiele’s art and some of the poses I can’t help but feel uncomfortable. We’ll never know whether or not he abused those children but the 13 year old girl story is very damming.

eu sou um cara bem leigo em história da arte e em ferramentas de leitura e contemplação de pinturas. mas quando vi pela primeira vez as obras do schiele eu fiquei bem impactado. os traços e contornos finos das figuras que ele retrata dão uma tensão e delicadeza muito interessante, ao mesmo tempo que elas são expressivas, persistentes e tem seus músculos e seus corpos muito vivos. ao mesmo tempo, não posso deixar de me preocupar com a história e o valor simbólico do conjunto de sua obra, levando em conta o aprendi agr com o vídeo sobre a relação problemática dele com crianças. enfim, valeu pelo vídeo

I have to say, I find that with every video from you I learn something new, something interesting. And this time as well. It's thought-provoking and very well-made. You phrase it well at the end, and we will certainly not have a conclusive answer, but your question could open the possibility to compare his drawings of children with drawings and paintings and art overall that also shows children. Even in general, how does art perceive children?

I’m glad you addressed this. Troubling.

I was looking at Schiele's work the other day and hoping you would do more videos on expressionism! In regards to looking at his work now, I don't necessarily see the harm as he is not around to profit from them. The reason why you may not buy a JK Rowling book but can still buy a book of Schiele's art and not feel guilty.

Excellent topic and discussion. It would seem to me to impossible to judge his work from a current world and time. 13 and 14 yr olds were viewed in a different light then especially people of the streets. Are all photos of nude children automatically sexualizing them? were the nude babies or early classics different, children used to run around on front lawns through sprinklers naked and laughing, family picture of childern were often nude. is our reaction based on an uncomfortable response to internalized feelings ? why do we automatically declare his work to be sexual in nature as opposed to natural studies of children? we do not know his state of mind emotional maturity and as with modern day naturalist (nudusts), nudity is open and not to be ashamed of in families again without sexualizing the practice. my goal is to evaluate the art for what it is and lacking overt sexual actions I would not impose my own thoughts on the work. let me also point out the 1978 movie Pretty Baby which could not be made in todays culture let alone released to theatres

Schiele had a distinct way of rendering the human form that it is a great injustice for society to diminish his achievement simply on the basis of his choice of subject matter.

In an imagery driven society, not everything should be shown and or displayed, but nonetheless they are. Much like the capitalist system we’re saturated in where all things become commodified. Somethings we are never meant to see. They serve private functions. Either to us as individuals or to Earth. This is one of those private examples.

thanks for opening up this conversation. Some of my favorite painings are Schiele's because I love his style and the honesty and sensuality they exude. However I recently found out a lot of those models were children and that he was charged with all those things. It was a sad thing to learn because there definetely is something very iffy about the whole situation, regardless of his incarceration being "politically" motivated or not. I think it's important to recognize the bad deeds of great artists, posing no excuses because we will always see morality through today's standards (whatever that means). Artist's legacies are often complicated Personally, it makes me both sad and most of all, uncomfortable, to know a person whose art I love (but who I knew so little about) ultimately portrayed those children in such manner

From what I've seen in the video so far, most of Shiele's works cimes off as a sincere depiction of sensuality n vulnerability n not to be vuglar for the sake of being vulgar, which is same for the kids. It's uncomfortable looking at the for sure but it doesn't seem to be a malicious painting. The works are as sincere as our feels are. We need to remember that creative people tend to be the most daring people. They'll express topics, feelings n emotions that are earnest n transparent despite the backlash of those who don't take the time to understand or see it for what it was. This is why artists like Shiele are recognized cuz they did things no ones else would back then or even now. Also, worth noting, we've seen pictures n portraits of baby jesus n cherubims in numerous religious artpieces, sculptures of these nude childlike figures in full form yet we don't bat an eye, heck we even adore them more like theyre heavenly figures so what exactly makes Shiele's depiction any different? Is it because his style more rough n abstract compared to accurate proportions making it less appealing than the smooth, round depiction of heavenly cherubims or are we just projecting our own embarrassment in looking at a child naked to the person we jold responsible?

I am an advocate of the artistic nude. I believe that if society, as a whole, understood the difference between nudism and s*x, or even s*x and porno**aphy, things would be easier in many areas. When the artist's relationship with child models is addressed, I have no doubt that what could be done and judged about it should have been done appropriately at the time in question, and it is not up to us (in the future) to decide whether it was fair given the our context. What I believe is that pe*op**ia is not an isolated case, a crime without recurrence, it is a disorder and needs to be treated. I support the "censorship" of artistic child nudes due to the fact that one cannot be sure of their origin or destination, and they could fall into the hands of people with the disorder. Despite this, I believe that the semi-nude should be present in art just as it is in our daily lives, without any malice, and with the purpose of the human figure study (it would be inappropriate to say that it could not be accessed in the same way by ab*sers, as long as its origin preserves the identity and intimacy of the model).

In all honesty, I don't really know what to think. Times were different, yes. Comfort levels were different, yes. How people behaved were different, yes. But, the thing I would ponder on is the realism of the works. I would, also, find out about how open people were about genetalia being exposed. This would include the former artists, which did realistic work displaying the breast or genetalia of figures of all ages and genders. Its a curious topic.

I don't find the images sexual, but a man doesn't need an overtly sexual pose to get off. That said, I think it is impossible to try and guess his intentions; we will never know. I think he was a brilliant artist, and I hope his intentions were innocent. But like I said, we just don't know.

Although I wouldn't use the term "strangely joyful" as another commentator stated, and I certainly do not want to defend any actual pedos, there is some merit in what they said. I was exploited/molested in my childhood and I understand just how high their numbers are, even today. Conversely, my brother is an artist so I can definitely see this side as well. (No, he never exploited me; he barely tolerated me😆) Disclaimer stated; here's my (complicated) opinion: Very few works of Schiele presented as overtly sexual. Perception, however, is *our* story, not the artist's. I imagine through his usage of shadow and light an adult model would have been much more interesting to him. Children's bodies are smooth and unwarped whereas adult bodies tell a better story of its wearer. Also, viewers of art often get completely caught up in subject matter where the artist is more interested in technique and expression. I imagine the conflict of Schiele's art rose up from inside the viewers who had been shown a mirror. With their opinions spreading like a social disease to those whose minds were blissfully unaware of this side of life. Although I don't know his personal background I imagine like many artists the money for models just wasn't there. But I could be wrong. Standing for an artist (or frankly posing in any position) is actually quite exhausting and takes up great amounts of time, and must also fall in time with the natural light considering the era; it would have been expensive to hire even an adult prostitute. They would otherwise miss out on so much money working the street. Children may have been a means to an end, at first. They were just trying not to starve and perhaps get a break from the weather and would therefore be much cheaper. I imagine though, once he started using children as models, their absolute vulnerability in their grim daily lives probably intrigued him as an artist. It definitely spoke to his inner self. It's important to remember that the nudity came into his work far before children did. Or maybe I'm wrong and he was a total pervert. We will never know. To shut the door on brilliance judged by our current societal values is to shut the door on almost all history. Perhaps we should? It's not for me to say. But if Schiele's work is offensive to you, whatever you do don't go looking into Michelangelo's personal history.

Uh oh...The UKposts police are gonna demonotize the hell out of this video.

your discussion of controversy reminded me of the mixed feelings i had after viewing works by the artist Mr. and then researching his older works where he depicted himself or other older men naked, with mouse-sized young girls climbing on them. It's easier for me to draw the line with a contemporary artist who I expect to meet todays standards of acceptability to a degree. I can't quite articulate the feeling of seeing art that almost obviously communicates attraction to children.

I think I know where the Artist behind Aeon Flux drew some inspiration.

I have a more good faith reading of Egon's motif of using underage nude models. His art doesn't seem to seek to be stimulating but more thought provoking instead. A protest against Puritanism, a defense of the human body as a neutral agent and nothing inherently disgusting. Even if Egon's art was intended to evoke sexuality that does not inherently connotate an intention to stimulate the viewer. Like The Canvas said, in Austria there was a rampant amount of underage prostitutes and Egon was likely privy to that in a way that he wanted to comment on rather than engage with himself. Surely asking children for favors in exchange for treats and money brought the concept to the fore of his mind on many occasions, it would have made sense for him to comment on it. I've oscillated in and out of a belief that children shouldn't be in movies or television because they don't know what they're truly signing up for. It's so often exploitative and there to just chew kids up and spit them out like worthless wretches with pretty faces for at least the next few years. An artist who makes art in good faith, who doesn't seek to exploit but instead observe and comment, seems much more preferable to engage with as a child than the reality television machine that's ubiquitous with parents and agents shoving children into like cattle for slaughter. It's really hard to tell if an artist was making in good faith until far in retrospect though, so I suggest that vigilance should occupy every corner here. This is really down to luck in almost every single respect here.

The subject of nudity inherintly contains a spectrum if intimacy and sexuality (two very distinct things). How these are interpretted by the viewer are largely subjective, especially in cases like this where most of the details surrounding them are unknown. I'll accept that there some (however remote) possibility that his relationships with the children in his drawings were platonic. However, it seems much more likely that they weren't. In my experience, no one can resist whatever appeals to them unless there's some other force at play (civil punishment being just one example).

Difficult subject area xxx

Having never really seen his work except for a few photos of his own image. I would imagine he was very like the author of Alice in wonderland. Just take with young things. Whether abuse occurred or not doesn’t seem to be anyone’s business. The art is beautiful.

I think the fact that I have seen him discussed so much but have not seen these specific images in the latter part of the video included or even talked about/acknowledged before says a lot

4:44 please help, can't find this girl with purple hair anywhere 😭😭😭

There's a big problem with the sexual freedom of men at this time, in that it was exploitative, immature, egotistical, and consumptive. Think of Gauguin and his sexual exploits of children (probably linking his own sexual expression to Primitism) or Picasso and his mixing of misogyny and masked prostitutes. We do not see these problems because of the glamourization of these men and the appeal of the individual man expressing his sexual freedom against oppressive prudes. No doubt, a lot of men find these rebellious sorts appealing in navigating sexual freedom. Echoed in further developments, such as the legalization of porn, Playboy, Hustler, and Pornhub. It's sad, though. Not for the idea of sexual freedom. But that sexuality becomes so individualized that it lacks connection to the person you're attracted to. It looks pretty lonely. The only artist I can think of that seems to see the value in that sexual connection is Alex Grey. Who is more contemporary. Anyways, there's my two cents.

Lewis Carroll would take photos of unclothed children and there's a bit of debate if it was for sinister intent or not. I saw the argument that naked children in photos was normal at the time and there's obviously art involving such a thing. It's sad that in general people will defend celebrities without putting in the effort to consider that MAYBE their heroes were flawed or terrible people. Concerning Egon I don't know much about his art beyond this video but it's strange people don't have a bit of doubt going in either direction. So much documentation gets lost and some truths may never be fully known.

Please Do Tetsuya Ishida

Interesting video. I was only familiar with one female nude & the artist's work & name was not one I recognise. I am ignorant to judge his draughtsmanship or technical ability but I don't find the drawings visually appealing. The only thing I noted was the contrast between the vibrant pink nipples to an otherwise mostly black & white portrait. Appreciate the video & commentary but if I never see his work again I won't be disappointed.

Obviously telented draftsman with a unique style. Nature intends the female body to be fertile shortly after it enters puberty, which means, in all our evolutionary past females had been sexually active as soon as they hit puberty (secondary sexual traits, menses and hormones) - that being said, culture had imposed certain limits on this and it is for civilisation purposes. Out in the nature, rules are much different; the fact is, all sorts of things had been happening during the course of our human culture and history. Rules are flexible, not one single taboo has ever been kept without transgression. If anything is or isn't acceptable in a certain cultural and societal context is up to be decided within that particular context, yet we should bear in mind we ourselves are those who are imposing some taboo on the body of reality. Nature itself is difficult to understand from within certain civilized lens, indoctrination of culture or some superficial rules structure imposed for sake of distilling some sense out of incoherent amorphous stuff that nature generates by default. In the 21st Century, this sort of content and ideation in art or social media or anywhere really, is one of the strongest taboos, so even discussing the subject matter from biology perspective can already be considered a transgression. Schiele would most definitely be identified as a p/dophile.

Schiele was basically a Victorian in time-frame. It had been a thing throughout that era to portray the innocence and naturalness of children through simplicity and nakedness, stripping away the artifice of adulthood. It was a different time which has passed, as our own awkwardness about nudity will one day pass. If they had been child prostitutes, in the context of that earlier time, perhaps painting them naked could have been a way of giving them back their childhood innocence Just a wild theory from me but if I can think of it in today's word, someone from his day certainly could. Context is everything. I can tell you that as a former archaeologist and amateur historian: without context you can't really understand the true meaning of anything from the past.

I think every work by Schiele is about himself, an expression of the depths of his soul. And whatever model he used, the final work always seems to be pure expression, not depiction. So I think it's justified in that way

Thank Goodness! He was jailed. What a creep!

It reminds me of Peter Chang's animation style, the same edgy vibe

There is one drawing I think I saw in my copy of The Joy of Sex...back in the days when I was in my 20's.

In my opinion, depicting nudity non-sexually is when Schiele would portray himself. He would be his own voyeur and no one else would be the subject of his gaze. We know he’s consenting to it because he’s his own muse. Schiele is also an adult cis man where his body isn’t socially objectified the same way women’s and girls’ bodies are. Even if we believe he’s innocent, that doesn’t really change the problematic aspect of the bodies he *let* be consumed through his art.

jesus christ this got dark

I actually think all of his art is beautiful and i don't think any of them are sexualized. I see his art, kind of the way i see Alice Neel's work, or even more it's like Lucian Frued's paintings! I don't think nudity is sexual in general. I don't know, i just don't see any of the paintings you showed as sexual in any way. I might be wrong. ❤

Woah, I’m not sure about the DISPLAYING of the child drawings, but he definitely shouldn’t have been punished for it. Prison is a horrible barbaric practice

Wow such naughty pictures from pre-WW1....???

🙂👍🏾

7 min video for me

I think it's wrong to over think and analyze art from the past in the lighf of today's morals or lack of them.

Yikes!

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, why wouldn't what is sexual or not? If your attraction is towards pregnant women than a nude of a pregnant woman is sexual.

Pain and discomfort are necesary steps in unlearning bigotry, what 2e think is abhorrent today will be the norm in 30 years.

Contrary to the common views on Schiele I have always found his portraits disturbing. In truth they remind me of the piles of bodies in the forecourt of Auschwitz thirty five years later. As such, I could never view them in any way sexual, including the children.

Child models is a bizarre concept, can a child even consent to be a nude model for an artist? Do they understand their role? Do we know the intentions of the artist when they draw/paint a nude child model? That is very questionable and I don’t think children and nude models should be even be anywhere near each other. 😢 What is this interpretation that he “related” more to a child than an adult?? Once you had sex and been in a relationship as an adult with other adult, once you started to live your life as an adult, there is no possible way you relate to a child! This “explanation” is just a blatant justification to something highly inappropriate, which is shameful.

I can't watch without doxing myself. My 5 minutes of internet research suggests "nudes" was the problem. Egon drew nudes and like a good little ittle artist, died young. All hail Egon. Damn Egon! All hail Egon. Damn! Egon was really old. 1917 kinda old. What's all the fuss about, internets? Duchamp pissed on Egon's lunch box: the next century is outraged!

The album cover for Nevermind is one of the most iconic images in history and it's just as bad right? Well if it's bad then why does no one have a problem with it? Can we really blame the artist for the illness of others? It's tricky but personally i would play it safe and never use children like that for their own sake of being perved on but then with that logic you'd have to cover up all the images featuring nudes. I can conclude that this is a total mindfuck for me but I do feel secure in saying that the people that use that kind of art as pornography are pedophiles. Schiele definitely exploited those kids and if the parents knew i doubt they would want that to happen with justifiable reason. If i was Schiele i wouldn't have bothered but I'm not Schiele, what was his intention? Idk, this is pretty fucked up but this shouldn't be ignored. Good video but, honestly i hope the next video will be a bit more comfortable

His art is so intentionally ugly that there's no sexualization

Children should not be sexualized. Ever. But why? What is the essence that makes it so? Using words like "puritanical" villanizes our sense that childhood is sacred. And the defense of that sanctity is noble. We rationalize it as a function of brain development or puberty, but convince me that we aren't all being a little bit religious -and rightly so- to condemn this.

He literally goaded children with candy. Why didn’t he ask the parents of these children at least?

After what you’ve just exhibited, can you really say that you love Schiele’s art and admire his motives? Afterwards, you state that you, as well, are “extremely uncomfortable” looking at the images and argue that you feel the same way towards the people that “seemingly brush away this strange behaviour”. Aren’t you, in some way/indirectly, also brushing it away in the first half of the video? Your video, seems to me, another apologetic argument to feel good with yourself about liking his oeuvre. As other people here in the comments or that stop to watch other artworks of such nature, by saying that you feel uncomfortable with these depictions, you’re already crossing out his work on children as wrong, to some level, and thus making yourself look like a hypocrite or at least frivolous in a sort of modernist way; not really mindful of the journey but of the end result. Still, leaving the context behind, the way in which you’ve posed the video makes you look unable to defend your position coherently in top of dysfunctional.

I'm sorry to say this but should you at least censors or blur the last few art pieces in the video?? I don't think it's appropriate to showcase an underage model nude art pieces.