When Cy Twombly's painting, Say Goodbye, Catullus, to the Shores of Asia Minor (1994) was exhibited in Houston, a visitor to the museum was so moved by the painting that she took off her clothes and danced naked in front of it. She later wrote, “The painting makes me want to run naked."
When Clyfford Still's painting, 1975-J, went on display in Colorado...
... a visitor to the museum was so affected by the painting that she pulled down her pants, rubbed her bare bottom up against the painting and slid her way down to the floor (where she urinated).I agree with their judgment that the Twombly painting is superior to the Still painting. Nevertheless, we shouldn't overlook the fact that nude criticism suffers from some inherent ambiguities and is therefore susceptible to being misconstrued.
For example, a young woman critiqued Gustave Courbet’s infamous 1866 painting L’origine du monde, by hoisting her dress up above her waist and sitting on the museum floor in front of the painting with her legs spread. (NSFW).
Her action may have sensitized some visitors to the oppressive colonialist patriarchy responsible for such paintings. However, a disturbing percentage of the crowd seemed to miss the point entirely, and happily applauded or pulled out their cameras.
Perhaps for this reason, the woman felt it necessary to return to the old fashioned written word, going back to the museum to deface the painting by scrawling "Me too" on it.
Art criticism written in words has a more direct, literal meaning than symbolic nude criticism. It eliminates a lot of ambiguity. But of course, ambiguity can be a desirable thing when the critic is a nitwit.