Venus of Urbino: How Titian Reinvented the Nude

The reclining nude female is not a novel subject matter in art today, nor was it unusual in Titian’s time, but his Venus of Urbino struck a nerve with viewers and crossed an invisible line that had been drawn between decency and scandal. As it turns out, it was not merely the nudity, the brazen pose, or the seemingly seductive gaze of the sitter that played into viewers’ reactions; it was, in fact, the background and setting of the painting that rendered this famous painting immodest.

Despite a wealth of research having been conducted on both the life of Titian and this painting in particular, several questions remain about the work. It is widely accepted that the patron who originally commissioned the painting was Guidobaldo Il della Rovere, Duke of Urbino, based on a 1538 letter describing the transaction between the duke and Titian. Less clear is the original purpose of the commission, although many art historians believe that the painting was intended as a wedding gift for the duke’s young bride, Giulia da Varano, whom he wed in 1534.

In an arrangement that is shocking to hear of today, Giulia was married with her parents’ encouragement and full consent to Guidobaldo Il della Rovere when she was only 11 years old. The duke was nearly ten years her senior. It is posited that the painting was created four years later, not necessarily to celebrate the specific date of their marriage, but the point at which their relationship was consummated.

Scholars point to the model’s traditional bridal hairstyle and what is likely a wedding dress over the shoulder of the attendant in the background when discussing the painting’s probable purpose as a wedding gift. Somewhat less overt, the dog at the model’s feet was understood to be a symbol of marital fidelity.

The Identity of the Mystery Woman in the Painting

Perhaps the greatest mystery surrounding the famous work is the model’s identity. Given the assumption made by some scholars that Giulia da Varano was the intended recipient of the painting, it has been suggested that she is also the model in the work. Evidence for this claim, however, is based primarily on visual similarities between the model and a portrait of Giulia by Titian. When examining other portraits by Titian, though, it seems that he often idealized his models, endowing many of them with similar formulaic facial features that conformed to the current standard of beauty at the time. For instance, the subject of Titian’s Portrait of a Lady, painted around the same time period from 1536-1538, also resembles the model in his Venus.

Other theories state that this model could be just that: a favorite model that the artist utilized repeatedly or potentially a romantic partner of Titian himself. Until further information is uncovered, the identity of the reclining nude figure will remain an enigma, if she is, in fact, a specific person at all. The possibility exists that the famous young woman in this work is based not on one person but rather on a composite of features that Titian found beautiful and believed would appeal to the patron of this piece.

Any brief survey of Renaissance art will quickly demonstrate that nudity, both male and female, was not only considered acceptable subject matter but was appreciated for its inherent beauty and the skill involved in creating it. Heavy emphasis was placed on mastering the nude form among Renaissance painters and sculptors, which was based on the standardized ideal form popularized by ancient Greek and Roman statuary.

While Renaissance artists undoubtedly worked with live models, societal norms at the time dictated that female nudity be depicted within the confines of antiquity, religion, or mythology. In these contexts, the women in works of art were removed from viewers by centuries, if not millennia, and their identities were obscured.

Examples of what were deemed appropriately executed Renaissance nudes abound in the mythological compositions of Sandro Botticelli and the religious sculptures and paintings of Michelangelo, including many illustrated biblical narratives in the Sistine Chapel.

As the Renaissance unfolded, paintings began to emerge, which seemed to be more thinly veiled erotic scenes created under the guise of telling historical tales. In particular, depictions of stories such as Susanna and the Elders and the Rape of Europa were increasingly sexualized.

What would have been unacceptable in a modern setting was permissible by enshrouding the interactions within well-known ancient narratives. Giorgione would push the boundaries of this shift, and Titian would take it to the next level, removing all doubt about the contemporary and intentionally seductive nature of his Venus of Urbino.

Titian and the well-known Renaissance artist Giorgione were both trained by the Italian master Giovanni Bellini and maintained a friendly working relationship, so it is unsurprising to see some common characteristics in the oeuvres of both artists. It was Giorgione who is believed to be responsible for the first image of a reclining nude woman in Western art with his own portrayal of Venus. The Sleeping Venus was created in 1510 and served as a forerunner for Titian’s work in many ways.

A formal comparison of the two works reveals with certainty the influence that Giorgione’s painting had on the later version created by Titian. Both works place the model on a surface of red fabric, which gives way to white, and include a dark background behind the model’s head and a balancing structure on the right side (in Giorgione’s case, that structure is the landscape, while Titian employs the subject’s attendants). In terms of posing, both women have one leg tucked under the other and a hand draped sensually over the abdomen and pubic region.

Giorgione followed some of the accepted conventions of the time, including portraying the figure as an ancient goddess who has dozed off outside. However, he also took steps to further the evolution of nude imagery. While his model’s gaze is not engaged with the viewers’, she is asleep, which suggests vulnerability and sexual availability. Investigation of the background buildings reveals that they are not structures from antiquity as one would expect to see but are actually contemporary buildings, situating Venus dangerously close to modernity.

Notably, Titian’s work departs from Giorgione’s in a few key ways. His model is not only awake but seems aware of and engaged with the viewer. While the exact nature of the woman’s facial expression has been debated (some wishing to ascribe to it an air of invitation or seduction), it is clear that it does not suggest surprise or dismay at the fact that she is both nude and being gazed upon. Furthermore, Titian’s work is not only set indoors; it is set in a bedroom, and the woman is reclined on either a bed or sofa, with sheets rumpled.

Two women are in the background, one looking into a large chest and the other with a lavish dress draped over her shoulder, both dressed in Italianate Renaissance-era clothing. Given the dim lighting beyond the villa’s balcony, it has been assumed that the women are retrieving wedding garments early in the morning for the subject’s upcoming nuptials. It might also be the case, however, that the attendants are returning the fine clothing to its storage space after a wedding, and the dim lighting outside is indicative of evening, while the rumpled sheets are a sign of amorous activity that has just concluded.

A New Genre

These features above, in tandem with the tapestries, inlaid floors, and architecture, leave no doubt that viewers were intended to see in this painting a nude woman who could have been behind any door they passed by on a daily basis, not an ancient goddess. In fact, neither Titian nor Guidobaldo Il della Rovere coined the title Venus of Urbino.

Famed architect, painter, art historian, and biographer Giorgio Vasari first labeled the model as Venus, so it is entirely likely that Titian never intended for the subject of this painting to be viewed as such, despite her similarities to Giorgione’s painting. Whether the sensual figure was a representation of Giulia da Varano or an idealized Italian beauty, evidence points to the artist’s intention for her to be seen as real, nearby, and attainable.

As Charles Hope explained in “Titian’s Life and Times” in the book Titian, this piece was a rare example in its day of an overtly salacious painting without any earnest attempt to disguise its nature, and it was the type of painting only truly available to the aristocracy. The commission would have been quite costly financially, but at a time when such works were not yet widely acceptable, owning one would also have required quite a bit of social clout. The Duke of Urbino and other notable patrons owned additional works by Titian that pushed the boundaries of propriety, a theme for which the artist became known and sought out.

Titian’s Venus of Urbino might be merely one of several portraits of a nude woman to raise some eyebrows, but in many ways, it was the first. This significant painting paved the way for future artists to explore the genre of the female nude with fewer restrictions and more freedom of expression. The direct influence of Titian can be seen in works like Rembrandt’s Danae (1636), Manet’s Olympia (1863), and Modigliani’s Reclining Nude (1919). When taken as a whole, these works argue the point that the female nude has been, and continues to be, a primary vehicle for communicating noteworthy transitions in cultural values, market demands, and artistic trends.