‘It’s doing exactly what art is supposed to do’: Readers react to MFA nude performance

At an art museum, nudity usually hangs quietly on the wall. This time, it laughed its way through the gallery.

After a social post of Xandra Ibarra’s “Nude Laughing” performance at the Museum of Fine Arts sent Instagram commenters into a frenzy, we asked Boston.com readers whether the backlash was fair or an overreaction.

Of the nearly 250 readers who responded to our informal poll, 57% said people overreacted, while 36% said the criticism was fair. Another 8% said they were somewhere in the middle.

Why most readers said people overreacted

Many readers who defended the performance said the outrage was exactly the point, arguing that art is not always supposed to be pretty, comfortable, or easy to explain.

“Much of the art that we think of as pleasant, that is easy to look at, was groundbreaking in its day,” wrote Linda B. from the South End. “Art should make you stop and think. It should evoke strong responses.”

James Q. of Acton agreed, writing that “art is supposed to challenge you and your preconceptions.”

David T. also pointed out that nude bodies have filled museum walls for centuries: “There are lots and lots of paintings of nude women. And we can’t handle a real nude woman walking in the gallery? Come on!”

Others said the conversation around the piece proved it worked.

“Artistic expression should stimulate conversation and discourse,” Michael D. of Mattapan wrote. “I would say it did just that.”

Some readers also focused on choice. To them, the MFA gave visitors enough warning to avoid the performance in person, and people who later saw it online could simply keep scrolling.

“As long as people were warned, they didn’t have to go into the galleries where it was being performed,” Bonnie from Fort Point wrote.

K. from Milton said the same logic applied online.

“There is always the choice to unfollow or not engage with the art, so I don’t see the problem.”

Why some readers said the criticism was fair

Readers who agreed with the criticism were not all opposed to the nudity itself. For some, the issue lied in whether the performance had enough artistic substance to belong at the MFA.

“The criticism is fair if it’s directed toward the goofiness, not the nudity,” wrote David of Brookline. “Outrage for the sake of outrage is not art.”

Douglas K. of Needham called the piece “beneath the status of the MFA,” adding that it seemed “more like a college museum act.”

Some readers saw the performance less as boundary-pushing art and more as a sign that the museum had lowered its standards.

Gwen G. of Brookline called the work a “shock value gimmick,” writing that it “wasn’t ‘art’” but “a publicity stunt.”

One reader said the criticism itself is part of the point.

“Criticism is always fair,” the reader wrote. “Without it the world becomes pretty bland.”

Why others were torn

Some readers landed somewhere in the middle, unsure whether the performance crossed a line or simply did what art is meant to do.

“Good art is meant to evoke a reaction. My initial reaction is to be offended,” Larry T. of Ayer wrote. “While this exposes my bias and prejudices, it opens the door for me to examine why I feel offended.”

For AG of Chelmsford, the performance raised a more basic question about craft and artistic merit.

“Walking naked while carrying pantyhose filled with props doesn’t demand a particular talent or trained skill,” AG wrote. “But then again, does it have to?”

Below, readers share their thoughts on the MFA performance.

Responses may be lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

Was the backlash to the MFA’s nude performance artist fair, or an overreaction?

No, people overreacted

“I saw the photos online and while it surprised me for the MFA, I was not at all offended by it. There is always the choice to unfollow or not engage with the art, so I don’t see the problem.” — K., Milton

“Art needs to break boundaries to be relevant.” — Charlie, North Shore

“With all the garbage social media/internet content that is consumed voraciously, people are worried and outraged about an actual thought-provoking artistic portrayal by a naked woman? Come on.” — Bill, Back Bay

“This is art, and art is disruptive and outlandish at times, but it serves as an expression of the human condition. And that will not be ignored.” — Todd, Brookline

“Performance art is intended to engage.” — ML, Woburn

“I can’t believe that 50 years after the musical ‘Hair’ first used nudity on stage, people are still upset about this. Art is supposed to be upsetting sometimes — it’s not just supposed to be ‘pretty’ all the time. It’s supposed to make you react, and make you think.” — Jennifer, Peabody

“OMG, it is art! It is sometimes designed to provoke, which is exactly what it has done. It is so interesting how our culture has issues around the human body, racism, sexism, and white privilege. We avoid or ignore that which we should be addressing.” — Lloyd J., Cambridge

“The fact that the naked human body, and in particular a feminine-identifying body, still can cause such a stir shows how necessary this work is in celebrating and de-sexualizing live bodies in today’s hyper-fixated social media body distancing. I cheer on the MFA for having and exhibiting her work.” — Jason, Quincy

“It’s art. Let them express themselves.” — Ryan, Norfolk

“Anything can be art.” — A Boston.com reader

“Art is supposed to challenge you and your preconceptions.” — James Q., Acton

“As long as people were warned, they didn’t have to go into the galleries where it was being performed.” — Bonnie, Fort Point

“It’s art. There are lots and lots of paintings of nude women. And we can’t handle a real nude woman walking in the gallery? Come on! Do we want a Walmart art museum?” — David T., Minot, Maine

“A nude woman pulling articles of femininity in pantyhose. I can’t think of a more appropriate art exhibit. Kudos to the artist!” — Michelle O., Newton

“Americans need to get over their fears of nudity.” — Xyomie, Boston

“If an art museum clearly warns patrons that a certain area of the museum is going to be hosting a live art piece involving nudity, what are they expecting to see? People who are outraged were never taught how to look at various forms of art: What is it evoking in me? What is it symbolizing? What is the message the piece and artist is trying to say? Some people only like to look at landscapes and watercolors, and that’s fine. But a museum is allowed to change and grow with the times and have different sections for different things.” — Leanne S., Malden

“Performance art is meant to be provocative and to stimulate you, which is exactly what this piece did. The human body has been featured in art for centuries. This was artistic expression and should be appreciated as such.” — Twol A., Needham

“Artistic expression should stimulate conversation and discourse. I would say it did just that.” — Michael D., Mattapan

“People are overcritical about everything. It’s lame.” — Pete, Lynn

“Art in any form is an expression. It can pull on many parts of our being. It’s intended to be uncaged. People need to look beyond themselves. As long as there is fair warning, which there was, you can embrace it or avoid it if your morals are too sensitive.” — Harry, Charlestown

“Much of the art that we think of as pleasant, that is easy to look at, was groundbreaking in its day. Art should make you stop and think. It should evoke strong responses.” — Linda B., South End

“Art is art. The nude is a legitimate form of art, and the human body is not taboo. We are all skin, soft tissue, and bone — there is nothing bad or disgraceful about it.” — Lincoln T., Nantucket

“Art has always pushed boundaries. It has you talking and discussing the topic, so mission accomplished.” — Mike, Southie

“Nude paintings are on the walls already, so she was doing it live. Big deal.” — Ed W.

“Art is supposed to surprise us and make us think. It appears to me that this performance art did exactly that. I can understand that some people may have thought it went too far, but they were warned it would happen.” — Pamela M., Dorchester

“People are offended by everything these days.” — A Boston.com reader

Yes, the criticism was fair

“Not sure what is artistic about walking around nude in the manner described.” — Erin, Nashua

“Beneath the status of the MFA. More like a college museum act.” — Douglas K., Needham

“The criticism is fair if it’s directed toward the goofiness, not the nudity. Outrage for the sake of outrage is not art.” — David, Brookline

“That’s not art.” — A Boston.com reader

“Criticism is always fair. Without it, the world becomes pretty bland.” — A Boston.com reader

“Where do you draw a line? For most of the world, nudity is unaccepted in public places, and especially where children could be. Come on, this shouldn’t even be a question.” — Ron, Iowa City

“It’s called ‘schlock art.’ No place in the MFA. Why not perform at the ICA, which is perhaps a more suitable setting?” — David M., Gloucester

“What’s next?” — John, Shrewsbury

“The facility is a museum, not a performance art venue. OK if it had been done where attendees knew it was a performance art exhibit.” — James O., Holden

“Shock value gimmick. It wasn’t ‘art.’ It was a publicity stunt.” — Gwen G., Brookline

“It’s not art.” — Rich B., Back Bay

I’m somewhere in the middle

“Art is expression — and ultimately, it’s in the eye of the beholder. That said, it’s hard to ignore the question of craft. Walking naked while carrying pantyhose filled with props doesn’t demand a particular talent or trained skill. I tend to think of art as something rooted in ability — either a natural gift, or a discipline honed through real dedication and practice. By that definition, this doesn’t quite fit. But then again, does it have to?” — AG, Chelmsford

“Good art is meant to evoke a reaction. My initial reaction is to be offended. While this exposes my bias and prejudices, it opens the door for me to examine why I feel offended. Religious upbringing? Check. Sexism? Probably a check. Morality? Yeah. Let’s check that box. As a society, we’re puritans in public and perverts in private. So this makes me take a hard look at the way I view the female body. At the end of the day, it’s good art.” — Larry T., Ayer

“I did not see the performance, so cannot really say yes or no. But this strikes me as shallow and lazy art that folks are trying to put meaning to and be elite about. My take on it is, if this was a nude homeless woman dragging a selection of her belongings behind her, would it be art and a statement, or would she be labeled unstable and arrested?” — Elizabeth, Brookline

“I think the museum was responsible and did the right thing by issuing a warning about the nudity and the audience discretion, so the artist should be allowed to express herself. However, I selected the middle because I am understanding of others’ feelings, even when I may not be affected in the same manner.” — Claudia S., Weymouth