As I began my research for this project, I started to think about my own
perceptions of nudity, not only in art but also in society. I have sat
through countless hours of Art History lectures and never really considered
the vast meaning behind all of the nudity. More than anything, that fact
really disturbed me considering I have been studying art extensively for
about two years. I have overlooked the most basic subject matter in
portraiture and dismissed nudity as just something prevalent in paintings
On the surface, art is what makes the difference between the nude and
the naked. If I see a painting or photograph in a gallery of an unclothed
woman, I look past the nakedness and see the beauty in the piece.
On the other hand, I find absolutely no appeal in a Playboy or anything
of a pornographic nature. However, on a fundamental level, it could be
considered the same thing. Just like if an undressed person decided
to take a walk outside, they would be arrested. But, if they painted
their body and called it art, they have absolutely no problem.
John Berger's chapter in Ways of Seeing was, to say the least,
enlightening material. Berger describes men and women as opposites
that work together in a virtual one-sided relationship. Men get their
type of life force from a show of power, or how much they can achieve
or provide. Women are pretty much an impression, and anything she thinks
or feels is merely expressed in her appearance (Berger 46).
Men and women fit together like a sentence. Men are the subject
and they do something that causes them to interact with the object
or woman. Even though this partial reality is disheartening, it
does hold a substantial amount of truth. In many cases, the man
would ask a woman to dinner, or a man is the one to be in charge
of an entire nation of people because they are believed to have the
natural gift for power and control (Berger ...