I can somehow relate this entry to my previous one, the entry before this since it basically covers the same thing, how we as a society view women. This week’s topic was about nudes.
The first meeting was just an introduction to the topic. There was a power point presentation about the different ways of how we see things. After that was a presentation of nude paintings. At first I was trying to figure out why in the world most of the paintings only depicted women. Of course, that was answered once I read “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger.
Apparently, this was really how the western world viewed women. Women were regarded as objects which men were entitled ownership of. They were expected to know their place. This is where the concept of the surveyed and the surveyor comes in. According to the reading, the men were the surveyor. It is through them that women see themselves. Women on the other hand were both the surveyed and the surveyor. They were expected to do things for the satisfaction of men and to be treated as such; they had to see themselves as how the men see them.
The nudes somehow simplify this concept. All the men had to do to boost their already inflated egos is to look at a nude painting. For a painting to be considered a nude, the first criterion is of course, it should include a naked woman. Next, the woman in the painting has to have contact with her “owner”, in this case, the man looking at the painting (not the man, in some cases, with her in the painting). To have that kind of contact, she has to then be looking at the beholder. And the last and “most important” criterion of all, the beholder has to see the woman as an object.
In class, this was summarized as, the women in the paintings satisfy men’s sexual desire, they are aware they are seen as such, they are regarded as objects, they are submissive, and there is a spectator (the man aka owner).
Sadly, this western view of women hasn’t changed much. Even with the rise of feminism, women are still seen through the eyes of the spectator. One only has to look at the number of men’s magazines and the number of women who want to be featured in it to realize that women are still seen as objects. What even harder to accept is the fact that how women see themselves is still tainted with the western concept of women.
In contrast to the western nude, the eastern concept of nakedness (not nude) sees women as men’s equal (in terms of sexuality, I guess, but not in all aspects of life). The eastern art does not have the idea of male ownership. Women are not owned, rather, there is an interaction between man and woman or, what can be called as an attraction. Lastly, it portrays love and not merely desire or lust.
I honestly like the eastern version better for the simple fact that it does not objectify women. I personally see myself as man’s equal, sometimes, I even think of myself as better than most men.
spoke at : 5:38 AM
asil anom eht fo snoisrev
For the past two weeks, we have been talking about nothing but the Mona Lisa. Last Monday, we were tasked to draw our own interpretations of the Mona Lisa. For my group, we drew 2 versions. One was a lotion, The Mona Lotion (for that classic skin that glows!). The reason behind this painting was that the Mona Lisa had glowing skin, because of the kind of paint Leonardo used. It was Red who thought of that and we just found it as a good idea so we did that. Abby wanted to make a goth version of the Mona Lisa so she drew that, too. Then last Friday, we had to present what we did in front of the whole class. Now, there was one particular version I want to discuss here. It was the porn version of the Mona Lisa. When they presented it, the whole class was laughing. I wasn't. I was outraged. That was no way to portray a woman. I REALLY HATE IT. No woman deserves to be portrayed that way! ITS INSULTING!!! Sure its for art and everything but really, HOW FAR WOULD PEOPLE GO FOR THE SAKE OF ART???
Its disgusting. Its degrading.
spoke at : 2:31 PM
asil anom eht
This week we talked about...*drumroll*...The Mona Lisa!
So, just what is all the fuss about this painting? What's so special about this woman with weird a looking background?
When I was a kid, my dad used to play Nat King Cole on our car radio. One of the songs I liked from that tape was the Mona Lisa. I used to sing along the tape whenever it was played. As a kid, I just liked that song because I liked the tune and I was also amused in the painting. I didn't really think about what it meant though. All I knew was that, the painting was famous for the woman's smile. I have seen a picture of the painting a thousand times before and I used to think it was overrated. It was either she was about to smile or was coming from a smile, what was so special about that? I found it funny the way people venerated the painting so much. I read about the painting as well. There were books in our school library when I was in grade school and highschool about 100 famous women in history and other trivia books where the Mona Lisa was included. That was where I first encountered the descriptions abou how it was painted, like the pyramid shape of the body and that ever-famous smile. It also discussed the identity of the Mona lisa and, if i remember it correctly, it agreed with the La Gioconda version.
When I got to highschool, I found out about more conspiracy theories about the Mona Lisa. Things like, it was supposedly Da Vinci (because he was gay), he painted himself as a woman, and things like what some of those in class said about the Mona Lisa. Of course, there was renewed interest for the Mona Lisa with the release of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (renewed interest for all of Leonardo's paintings, actually). The rise of even more conspiracy theories about the Mona Lisa made it even more famous.
Those things being said (written), when we were warned for a week or two of thorough discussion of the Mona Lisa, I have to admit I wasn't so thrilled. Sure she's famous, the painter was famous, the smile is enchanting, but I sort of felt that there wasn't anything more to learn about it.
Of course, this is the part where I have to say I was wrong.
There was more to it, really.
Sure the conpiracy theories were present but these were exactly the reasons why the Mona Lisa was so famous. It's a mystery that has to be told (and not solved). Her smile draws the people to her. Leonardo Da Vinci is a great painter but I don't think his other paintings (except maybe the Last Supper), hold as much mystery as the Mona Lisa. His style is great but when you look at the painting, you don't really think about the painter's style. People don't usually look at the Mona Lisa and say, "ah, it's the sfumatto style!". No, people look at it, and they see the smile. And when they look at it, all these questions begin to emerge.
Then after the smile, everything else sort of follows. Everyone has their own interpretations of it. Even the background has varying explanations. For me, I think the background was also a painting. What made me think of it as such was that, when I looked at a picture of the Mona Lisa in one of the books in the library, I saw that there was something behind her. A shelf/table, like the kind you usually see beneath paintings. It has a round vase-like thing one each side, which was sort of cut in the painting.
It was said over and over in the discussion that its the questions a painting generates that makes it a classic. Its the mystery that makes the Mona Lisa so famous through the centuries and I daresay through the generations to come.
spoke at : 11:58 AM