I am an artist myself...untrainted, but paid nonetheless. I am also a woman and mother of 4 daughters. I don't find this painting in any way obscene, but beautifully honest. The talent/skill that Courbet had is awe inspiring and if I had been the model, I would have been flattered by how romantically the most raw portrayal of my sexuality had been imortalized. I plan on studdying the technique he used to portray this so that one day I might reach such genius in my own works.

Opinions are subjective and reflect the values we have imbibed, more because of our environmental factors, rather than unprejudiced judgment. Therefore, there would invariably be no unanimity of opinion in most of the matters involving 'morals'. No wonder while the medical fraternity appreciated the path-breaking work of Henry Havelock Ellis (1859-1939), English psychologist and author (impotent until about 60), the administration deemed it proper to ban the very 1st.volume of the Studies in the Psychology of Sex (7 vol.,1897-1928; completed ed. 4 vol., 1936) on charges of obscenity.

I found a painting under the name Phalluzoïde or L'Origine du Sexe. Maybe it put the question of what was first : the egg or the chicken ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26915283@N07/3551448186/

It's a good piece, but this article needs help. So you know, Courbet was already a proto modernist before this painting, and as a stylistic choice, or even a social choice, it is not that strong of one when considered in the context of his oeuvre on the whole. Also, the 'Origin of the World' was rarely shown to anyone for some time after its creation. Kalil Bey had it hidden behind a small curtain with the design of a valley on the front (through the shapes of the mountains and hills were taken from the outline of the thighs and chest in the painting).

Also, to keep some things straight: the 18th Century refers to the 1700s, so when talking about Courbet, you mean the 19th Century (or 1800s); don't ever end a sentence with a preposition if you can help it, and don't ever ever ever end with "at." "At" is used for specificity: I am "at" steve's, etc. In this case, the painting is "IN" the museum (the Musee do'Orsay) and you can say in very plain english, awkward but plain, "where it currently is." (better to say 'where it currently resides' or 'is currently on display.'

Finally, Courbet was fighting the "established" academic approach to nudity, but he never had to fight the idea of nudity itself. While "academic" nudes worked very hard not to show labia, the question of realism was really only one of pubic hair, which academic artists avoided because it broke up the serenenity of a shining form of translucent skin. It was also sometimes an awkward thing to sculpt, which is why it was left out of classical statues. And to be clear, the classical statues did not originally have fig leaves, these were added to the statues in the vatican collection as an effort to make them more "chaste" and "appropriate" and was a sorry mistake. At different times, private collectors and some kings did similar things according to their religious zeal or the tastes of the period. The classical fascination with the body was not all that sexual, however, which is why female genitalia were glossed over, and male genitalia - though very present - were played down.

In Courbet's time, nudes were very popular. But the social traditions of the time meant that if a woman was to be depicted nude, she had to be embarassed by it. This was society's was of excusing the nudity for art's sake, while ensuring that all who saw the piece understood the naked form to be immoral. This is what Courbet fought with this painting (although to a very very limited audience) and it is also what Manet fought in his "Dejuner sur l'herbe" a little earlier. (http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Manet_Dejeuner_sur_lherbe.jpg) Notice that the nude here, though mostly hidden by her arm and the turn of her back, is totally unashamed of her nakedness, let alone being naked in front of two men.

Also, it is probably very safe to remark that by 1866, Courbet was no longer at the forefront of the avant-garde, and his fame, while consistent for years after, was no longer one of a great innovator. Unlike a JMW Turner, who evolved at the forefront throughout his life, Courbet had already made his mark on the artist progress of his century and was now watching as other carried his legacy to the next step.

Thank you for your very useful suggestions, critic. Some mistakes you appointed were due to the translation from the original portuguese post and they will be corrected.

Now, regarding to your comment I agree with you in global terms. But I can not agree with you when you say that Manet depicted an unembarassed women in "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" in order to shock society codes. I believe, as far as I know, he only tried to "quote" a Raphel's ilustration BUT needed to put on some contrast in his painting like the photographs of the 19th century. Manet was quite different from Courbet, as well from all the Impressionists.

I understand that you are a true "connaisseur" and interested in art. Is there any chance you write one or two articles for obvious?

critic, Your comments about ending sentences with prepositions are quite off base. This is an old grammar "rule" that has for years been causing stuffy, awkward writing. I taught college English for many years, and even when I completed my doctorate in the field in 1980, this was routinely cited as an example of antiquated prohibitions rooted in Latin grammar. Please see the following for more information:

http://wordplayblog.com/grammar-myth-1-ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition/

Where's her head?

That's not the point, right Emily?

Well, it depends seven. In many nude pieces of women painted by men, the women are painted to showcase why they are attractive to men. Which included subservient poses, a vacant look in their eyes, or no head due to a poor opinion of women. This piece - is it respectful? Is it disrespectful? Is it a testament to the sensuality of her body and the source of where we came from? Is it another example of a man just appreciating the vagina and sexuality in a woman, and not her whole? There are many questions aside from the one art critics interpretation.

For me, I think it's a sensuous and fantastic painting, and the raunchiness of her head unshown is kind of thrilling. There are other lame pieces that are disrespectful, and though I think this piece could be considered to take its cues from those attitudes, I don't think it does.

Thank you for commenting back, Emily.
About the head: heads, proportions, poses and so on, where represented by classic artists in some sort of a idealistic way. If you see Leonardo's or Rapahel's portraits you notice they all look the same - and that feature remained till 19th century.
But this is not jus a mere nude painting. This a manifesto against all the conventions and academic rules that opressed the artists. Could Courbet find a more suited theme? I don't think so. In some way, modern painting began here...

I saw this painting at the Musee D'Orsay last year. I could tell that visitors in that hall were slightly embarrassed. They wanna take a closer look yet took a few steps back. It was a funny sight.