In 1956, Kenneth Clark drew a now-famous distinction: to be naked is to be oneself without clothes; to be nude is to be seen - composed, idealised, and offered up for viewing. It is a framework that has shaped how we look at the body in art for generations. But in 2026, it feels worth asking: does the distinction still hold, and more pointedly, who holds the power of that gaze?
Arthur Russell 'Untitled (Between Two Points)'
Across this selection, the body appears in many registers - intimate, performative, psychological, and at times uneasy. In works by Norman Lindsay, the nude remains unabashedly theatrical: bodies arranged for pleasure, spectacle, and myth. By contrast, Rick Amor pares the figure back to something quieter and more introspective, where presence feels less about display and more about interiority.
Norman Lindsay 'The Revellers'
Arch Cuthbertson 'Untitled (The Judgement of Paris)'
There is also a subtle but important shift in authorship. In works by Sue Jarvis and Anne Marie Hall, the female figure resists easy categorisation. These are not simply bodies to be looked at - they are bodies that seem to hold their own gaze, complicating the viewer’s position. The question becomes less “what am I seeing?” and more “how am I being asked to see?”
Perhaps that is where we arrive in 2026: not with a neat resolution, but with a more fluid understanding. The nude is no longer a fixed category, but a shifting conversation - about power, authorship, and the right to be seen on one’s own terms.
Want to learn more about collecting art with confidence?
Join our weekly newsletter for expert insights, market highlights, and stories that help you collect with clarity and joy
