News
Artist Xandra Ibarra’s “Nude Laughing” sparks conversations about consent, viewer etiquette, art history, and the human body.
A mid-performance shot of Xandra Ibarra’s “Nude Laughing” (2014), staged at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston on Thursday, April 16 (photo Tim Correira, courtesy MFA Boston)
In the heart of America’s puritanical culture, Xandra Ibarra’s performance at the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) Boston challenged the traditional view of the nude female figure as merely an art object. Her presentation of “Nude Laughing” on Thursday, April 16, as suggested by its title, surprised those present and stirred online debates. The museum’s Instagram post became a battleground for discussions around the performance’s artistic value and appropriateness.
This performance was a focal point of the exhibition Subvert, Repair, Reclaim: Contemporary Artists Take Back the Nude, where 12 artists critique the ingrained racial, gender, and power structures in Western art history.
Carmen Hermo, the museum’s contemporary art curator, emphasized that “art history was made that night.” In a conversation with Hyperallergic, she stated that the exhibition’s proposal was deeply connected to the museum’s colonial legacy.
“Nude Laughing” took place during the museum’s Third Thursday, when entry fees are reduced to $5. Ibarra appeared in the Contemporary wing, adorned in a breastplate and yellow heels, pulling a sack filled with blonde wigs and exaggerated feminine items, which she termed “white lady accoutrements.”
As Ibarra moved through the galleries, she transitioned from quiet steps to joyful laughter, which grew louder as she engaged with the artworks. Her interactions peaked in front of Paul Gauguin’s “Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?” (1897–98), where her laughter became uncontrollable, leading her to the floor and into the nylon bag.
In a note to Hyperallergic, Ibarra expressed that museums are defined not just by their collections but also by their architectural decisions, historical narratives, and the flow of experiences they create.
She elaborated:
I laugh at how museums normalize and integrate a violent archive of sexuality within their collections, art history, and the art market.
I laugh at the comfortable detachment museums maintain with colonial fantasies while portraying them.
I laugh at the prevailing sexual and racial violence, and the denial of it.
I laugh at the violence endured by subjects in nude paintings, depicted as silent objects.
I laugh at the selective memory regarding the historical attacks on nude art by puritanical elites.
I laugh at the ingrained perceptions of the nude that the museum and its audience uphold.
Hermo shared with Hyperallergic that Ibarra’s act lasted around 20 minutes. However, the audience stayed longer to discuss their thoughts and reactions, covering topics like consent, art history, and the human body.
On social media, the performance sparked polarized discussions. Some Instagram users criticized the act as disrespectful to art history, with one person even contemplating canceling their membership.
Others labeled it as “disgusting,” “vulgar,” “exhibitionist,” and even “public indecency.” Despite the online uproar, an MFA Boston spokesperson told Hyperallergic that only two complaints were formally lodged with the museum.
Several observers noted that the reactions reflected more on the audience than the artist. A user named @creamyskeletons commented, “Bodies are art and they have always been appreciated. There’s nothing sexual about this. If it makes you uncomfortable, maybe dig deeper and think about why it does.”
.
