For class next week, you will be submitting your final draft of your critical analysis as well as your reading response on the third chapter of Berger’s Ways of Seeing.
Some reminders for your final draft:
- Please make sure you refer to the “formatting guidelines” on the syllabus. Check your paper for MLA formatting, page numbers, and double-spacing, and make sure to include a word count at the end.
- Please also attach the copy of your discovery draft and first draft with my notes.
- In your final writer’s letter, you should specifically reflect on the comments I emailed to you on your first draft. How did you address them? How did they guide your revision process? For more guidelines on the final draft writer’s letter, refer to the assignment sheet.
Please also read Chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing.” In your response, you can write about whatever you wish. However, I ask that at the end of your comment, you come up with 1-2 questions that you can bring to class discussion. As a reminder, your responses are due at midnight the evening before class.
In Chapter 3 of “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, Berger discusses the idea of nakedness in public images and how they relate to female or male sexuality. For example, he describes how women are expected to monitor their actions and emotions so that they can appear good to the public and men: “She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life” (Berger 46). In today’s society, women must look their best so that their female peers do not criticize or judge their appearance in public and be strong despite what is going on in their personal lives. This relates to the image because the woman is laying down naked, implying that she wants to appear beautiful and perfect in the eyes of any man and grab his attention.
Another interesting point is that Berger emphasizes how women are not their own beings, but created for the pleasure of men: “To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of women has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage within such a limited space” (Berger 46). Although women were taught to be submissive to men, like dressing a certain way, they have managed to live under this harsh patriarchal society and ironically, show their importance in society.
Overall, nakedness connects to how our society views sexuality. Men are portrayed as strong and fit because men are taught to have dominant characters whereas women appear more polished because they ought to appeal to men. As of today, this continues to exist, but these stereotypes on sexuality and gender roles are negative for future generations because no one will be able to express themselves freely.
My question is the following: “How does the portrayal of naked women differ from that of naked men? Is it fair? Why or why not?”
In Chapter 3 of “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger discusses the differences between the presence of men and women and how these concepts or ideas were shaped by outside criticism. For example, Berger states, “man’s presence is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies” and “a woman’s presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her”. In the perspective of men, Berger shows the idea that men’s external presence tends to define who they are or who they are seen as, while the presence of women tends to be defined by the women’s internal attitude of perspective of herself. It’s fascinating that John Berger seems to define the presence of men and women as be the direct result of an outside perspective, whether it be the perspective of others or the person internally judging themselves based on outside views. Furthermore, Berger emphasize the contrast between the natural tendency of women and men. For example, the quote “ Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at” reveals that idea that women are more self conscious about their image to the public. This reasoning shows truth in the idea that women are often judged long-term by her short-term actions. For example, “ if a woman throws a glass on the floor, this is an example of how she treats her own emotion of anger and so of how she would wish it to be treated by others. If a man does the same, his action is only read as an expression of his anger.” Berger reveals the general lens in which women in the world are examined through and is able to highlight that society puts more emphasis on their actions or are more critical simply because they are not men.
To what extent are the ideas of John Berger true about the way in which our society works on a social level? And if it is true, is it only true because a majority of the people believe it to be?
In John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing: Chapter 3” we see him juxtapose the representation of male and female sexuality throughout time. Berger implies that men look at female as objects by saying, “One might simplify this by saying : men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” He takes us back in time to talk about European oil paintings and how women were a subject in the painting, and usually always nude. Even today, men love to look at pictures, and now videos, of women. There are numerous porn websites all aimed at one general group of people, heterosexual men. Yes, there are now multiple “categories” to attract people of all races and sexuality (I just shuddered) but the main target audience is obviously straight men. I remember reading something, it could have been Snapchat, Youtube, or the news, I’m not sure, that proved that men were “visual creatures” and how we feel pleasure by physically viewing the action taking place. I agree with this, it’s something in our psyche that that causes us to act this way. All my male friends agree that looking gives some sort of pleasure. Berger reinforces his claim that women are objects by concluding with “…the image of the woman is designed to flatter him.” It is sad, but a true reality in today’s society. For example, in the song “I Won” by Future and Kanye West, both rappers talk about how they have riches and are luck to be able to have a trophy wife. A trophy wife is defined as “a woman who marries for money and sits at home all day looking pretty” by Urbandictionary. It is disgusting and quite shameful how two prominent icons in pop-culture made a song about subjugating women. My questions would be, why do men today still think it is okay to treat women as inferiors? My second would be, what would the world, or history be like had it been women treating men as lesser beings? Would we be in a better place, or would there be no difference?
In John Berger’s Ways of Seeing chapter 3, he discusses the differences in the sexualized nature of men and women. In addition to this, he spends a large portion of his writing talking about the difference between naked and nudity in artworks. He starts off by discussing the differences between men and women. He argues that men have a presence that determines the amount of “respect” they get. Women, on the other hand, are just made to be looked at, or “surveyed” as he says. They are being surveyed by the men, who judge them based off what they see. In addition to that, women feel themselves being observed by the men and themselves. He uses the term object to describe women in the article. Which is understandable as he argues that all they are doing is being looked at. Are women just looked at because they care more then men do about their appearances? Men just have to have a commanding presence in order to be respected and valued, women on the other hand must appear beautiful in order to get the admiration of men, and perhaps other women as well. This appears as though it is true today as well, to some degree. Women are expected to always look pretty and show off their bodies, rather than use their brains in order to impress people. This is shown in various advertisements, women are often used to get men to buy a certain thing. These women used are gorgeous and sometimes scarcely clothed in order to entice the man to want the object, and arguably the woman they will be able to get with it.
Is this phenomena people do on purpose? Or is it simply part of how we are as humans? Berger references Adam and Eve and how that changed the whole perception of nudity when they took the apple off the forbidden tree.
The part of this passage that most interested me was the way Berger drew a line between nakedness and nudity. In essence, it seemed that he described nudes as naked paintings meant to elicit a feeling of lust or sexuality, while naked paintings would be more anatomical, utilitarian. This was tied nicely into his suggestion that women are made to be constantly aware of their aesthetics and image, while men are viewed more in terms of their usefulness or ability to act on others.
I feel that, today, we see much more nudity than we do nakedness. The United States especially has a perception of being overly sensitive to any naked content – could that be because we’re so used to depictions of nakedness as sexual that we simply cannot accept that depicted nakedness can be functional or useful? I don’t think that nudity in culture is necessarily positive or negative, but I think that the fact that it is almost always explicitly sexual lends itself to serving a dominant, male-led point of view.
In particular, Berger’s final paragraph about imagining the naked painted women as men was poignant. Our culture doesn’t want to portray nakedness honestly and equally; it portrays nakedness as an action women can take to make men appreciate them more. By making nakedness such an action, it further reinforces the idea that women are placed into a role to serve men. Similarly, the burden was placed on Eve to accept subservience to her man. Either way, the portrayal of sexuality results in women being forced to fulfill their role as an object to be observed.
Should we be aiming to decrease the amount of nakedness in our culture overall, or instead shift the balance so that both men and women are depicted naked in similar ways? Would that help us, or should there simply be less nakedness and nudity in our culture?
In John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” Berger explains the difference in how women and men are preceived sexually. Mainly, how everything revolves around the “ideal male spectator.” Women have always been taught to look and act beautiful. Even today, in our ever changing world, women and physical appearance go hand in hand. Berger states, “Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another,” (Berger 46). According to Berger, women obtain a part of her own self-worth through the justification of other people. How other people -men- see her, is how she will come to see herself. And it is not hard to see how this came about. Men did start out as the first consumers. When men are painted, they are shown to be powerful figures, and when women are painted, they are shown to be beautiful objects. Paintings and such were made to please men and women were always an attractive item.
And this goes into what Berger points out to be difference between nakedness and “the nude.” He states that, “Nakedness reveals itself. Nudity is placed on display. To be naked is to be without disguise…Nudity is a form of dress” (Berger 54). It is very interesting that Berger places this difference on them. To be naked is to put everything out there, however, in nude images, it becomes a costume. It is now something impersonal and nothing about the person is shown. It just goes to show how objectified women have become. Where even in the state usually considered most vulnerable, it is just another outfit to put on. However, today, women are also consumers. While it does not happen as often, men are also now subjected to sexual objectification. Is there still difference in how the two genders are portrayed? And is it just in our nature to objectify our sexual desires?
In Chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” Berger addresses the contrast between what it means to be naked and a nude in regards to oil painting and the significance of these differences on how women are perceived. Not just how women are perceived, but how men establish power by asserting a view that women are subjected to by force and how this forced male perception influences female behavior and psychology. I really enjoyed this chapter and think it brings up so many pertinent topics that would be interesting to look at in the context of the twenty first century. Not that people today often post renaissance style nude portraits on Instagram, but there is a high fashion editorial and photography realm of instagram that explores nudity and gender perspective through photography.
I would be curious as to what Berger would think about female photographers like Nan Goldin, Annie Leibovitz, and Cindy Sherman who explore portraiture and nudity in their work, but from a female perspective. Is there a homosexual element to both the surveyor and the surveyed being female? Does the female photographer lose her power if she now has nobody to survey her in the way her subject is being surveyed? Can men assume the role ascribed to women by Berger and derive power both from action as well as the awareness of having that action observed? Would that ultimately end up being a tremendous strength or an overwhelming weakness? Does Olympia’s glare have any of the same power if she would be replaced with a male?
In Ways of Seeing, John Berger speaks on the origins of how nudity is portrayed in our Western societies. Early in European art, nudity was shown through sexual and voyeuristic lenses. This had a significant effect on our society today and our attitudes towards nudity and sexuality. Because of how the nude was popularized in European culture, women have been forced to see themselves through a kind of “double consciousness”- a term coined by W.E.B. DuBois that explained how black people in America are forced to see themselves not only how they see themselves, but also how white people see them. I’m appropriating this term for another use because it is very similar to the phenomenon that Berger describes- that women are always simultaneously seeing themselves in the way they are and the way they want to be, but also are constantly seeing themselves in the way the world (and in particular, men) see them. As a woman-identifying person myself, I can really connect to this duality that we have been plagued with. From an early age I can remember getting dressed in the morning and wanting to wear something that was different or unique, something I thought was cool, but at the same time feeling this requirement that was never outwardly stated by anyone, but existed nevertheless that I needed to look hot, or sexy- namely I needed to look desirable to men. This meant wearing low cut shirts and stuffing my bra before I even had cleavage, as well as being late to school because I couldn’t decide on an outfit that I thought my friends would approve of. And I didn’t even get bullied to any pervasive extent when I was young, these were just conceptions that were made up in my own head, stemmed from outside influences that I guess were spawned thousands of years ago maybe by European painters. On the other hand, everything in mainstream media/advertisements/art helps confirm to men that they are doing well and that the world is constructed around them. For women, we look at things targeted to us or that are supposed to portray the female gaze and are just left confused/questioning our instincts. I didn’t know that I was supposed to think that $30 was a good deal on a sweater made in a sweatshop, or that I need to post a nice selfie and get 100 likes to feel good about myself- but now I’m starting to believe some of it. One other thing that I found interesting in Ways of Seeing is when Berger talks on page 59 about how nudity reminds us that we are sexual beings, and that when nude, our focus shifts from our eyes/mouth/facial expression to our “sexual parts.” I’m wondering if this is only because we are strangely uncomfortable with our nude bodies? Is it because we have been bred to be insecure about how we look naked? Berger says that these “sexual parts” tend to give a singular, satisfying answer, whereas our faces are ambiguous, but why do our breasts need to be seen any differently than our knees? What kind of singular satisfying answer do they provide?
In chapter 3 of “Ways of Seeing,” John Berger pinpoints an issue in society. He discusses how men can do things without being judged, but to be a woman is to constantly be self-aware because every action is seen as a statement about how the woman wants to be seen or treated. “… if a woman makes a good joke this is an example of how she treats the joker in herself and accordingly of how she as a joker-woman would like to he treated by others. Only a man can make e good joke for its own sake.” (Page 47) Here Berger is showing one example of how people discriminate against women in society, by showing that a woman has to be self aware and worry about something so simple as making a joke. This is certainly very unfair towards women, and hopefully soon enough there will be sufficient social progress for this to stop, so that women can feel equal to men.
On the positive side, society has definitely made tremendous progress in women’s rights in the recent past. Awareness has been brought to issues such as the wage gap, disproportional amounts of each sex in STEM fields, and more traditional beliefs about a woman’s role in society are becoming increasingly ancient. Legally speaking, men and women are equal, at least in America, and the only obstacle now is to eliminate prejudice in the people of our society. Though this may seem difficult, especially with recent realities about our country, it has still been steadily improving in the recent past and will continue to improve. A question that I find interesting is why does society objectify the woman body more than the man? Is there an inherent, natural reason for this, or is it a product of how society developed? Is this truly fixable on a mental level for all people, or is the best we can do equalize men and women legally?
In Chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing”, the idea of presence of a woman and of a man is being described differently. The image that is created when a person looks at their selves in the mirror is based on gender, in a sense because each has a different thinking mentality. According to Berger, women have two ways in which they view themselves: being a “surveyor” and being “surveyed” while men, on the other hand, have simply one. To clarify, women are more concerned with how they are being portrayed to others and their appearance, compared to men. Therefore, with this being a priority to them, the development of the claim that woman are an object being surveyed by people, specifically by men, was created. In this way of seeing themselves, women are becoming objects of society in order to be a presence that is looked upon. In addition, the other side of a women’s self is a “male” that is looking at the object that is appearing. I found this assertion of Berger’s to be interesting and true in the past because women were viewed only as housewives and were not working since, men were the provider of the family. However, in today’s society, women are taking initiative and working hard towards breaking this barrier or gap between the expectations of men and women. Individuals are less apprehensive on being viewed differently based on what they wear or what they believe in now thus, this ideal image for women and men does not exist.
In history, women have been taught the appropriate way they should be seen by other and how they should act in order to create this ‘perfect’, ideal image for themselves. My question is: Does a woman need to become detached from her inner feelings to achieve this ideal presence that they were taught since, they view themselves as objects?
An interesting concept to focus on in society is the representation of nudity. In chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Way of Seeing,” this concept is fully examined, and juxtaposed to the concept of ‘nudity.’ His distinction between nudity and nakedness is that being naked “is to be oneself,” whilst being nude is “to be seen as naked by others and yet not recognized by oneself.” This distinction is different than that made by the dictionary which lists both words as synonyms. It appears to draw in a starch cultural difference to these two concepts that should theoretically be the same thing.
Berger delves deeper into this distinction to depict being naked as a more natural act, or “to be without disguise,” while being nude “is a form of dress.” The concept of nudity is apparent in European oil paintings, that are aimed towards a male viewer. Since the viewer of paintings is assumed to be male, it makes being nude applied more towards women who must be in some way reacting to the male in the painting or reacting in a way for the male viewer. A minor criticism of Berger that I have is that he claims that in non-European traditions, “nakedness is never supine in this way,” that in this case, they are excluded from his criticism of nude vs naked. However, in most of these cultures, the viewers of the paintings would be also be male, and they are mostly like European cultures patriarchal. Thus, would the paintings not have similar themes and depictions? This is a bold claim by Berger that hints at some sort of European exceptionalism which just isn’t proven.
Discussion questions “How has the advent of modern technology affected the way people view nudity and nakedness?”
“What parallels from modern-day photography on social media and the European Oil paintings can be drawn? “
In Chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing”, we saw a very realistic and interesting idea of the difference between men and women. It really seems like the world is spinning around men. Women are just a side of decoration. Burger categorized women as “a sight” which is fairly accurate. Men are allowed to do things in certain ways and will never be worried about being judge. However, in women’s case, if you act in a way that man acted. You will be judged and even punished. Why is it so unfair? What If the world that we lived in is the complete opposite? What if we started as women overpowering men world? Will things be different? In my opinion, things might not be different. The reason is that men are physically stronger than women. Back in the time when most work requires strength, men will still be more dominant than women. The society will still end up being like what it is right now. Burger also talked about the nudity of women, “Her body is arranged in the way it is, to display it to the men looking at the picture. This picture is made to appeal to his sexuality.” The oil painting wasn’t trying to show how sexy or attractive she is, though she is the main element in the painting. The main idea of the painting is still about men which this nudity is pretty much to please the male’s interest.
What is your opinion on if this world runs the opposite of what Burger said? Do you think the society nowadays will be much more different? Will women be more powerful than men?
In Chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing”, it allows me to see a different perspective of a subject as simple as men and women. This chapter often speaks about how a woman in our eyes, as a human, is a lot more different than a male. The chapter says, “men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” (John Berger, 46)This statement itself says a lot. Women were obviously not treated the same way as men back in the times where these paintings were created. These paintings were created to entertain spectators. The women in the paintings were used like objects, not like a human. The experiment at the end of the chapter where in your head, you swap the woman with a man, really gives you a different thought to think about. Women have a lot more to worry about while presenting themselves. I was able to understand that truly, women care a lot more about their appearance more than men. Men are not used to being spectated or looked at, as much as women are. Society has made us this way. What if, in the beginning of life, things were swapped? The way women are portrayed, are instead, used with men? It gives you a different aspect. Life would be a lot more different. These oil paintings from the Europeans were solely produced to please the spectators, not even to beautify women. I really like how they differentiated the definitions of being naked versus being nude. “To be naked is to be oneself. To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself. A naked body has to be seen as an object in order to become a nude.” (John Berger, 54) This statement really says a lot about how beautiful the human body is.
What would happen if the roles were swapped? What if nudes never existed?
In Chapter 3 of “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, the subject of men and women and how they are viewed on society is discussed. Berger focuses on how women are portrayed compared to men, particularly through nudity in paintings. He argues that the way women are shown makes them seem like they are property and their sole purpose it please a man. He categorizes the way women think into two roles, the surveyor and the surveyed. “She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life.” I think that this statement from Berger reflects the society we live in today because a lot of people think that women have to be married or need a man in order to be successful in life and are often times looked down on if they are single. In addition, women are being objectified even more these days as a result of all the media and advertisements that surround us in our daily lives. Between magazines, social media, commercials, music videos, and even television shows and movies, women are being displayed as objects more and more. Although societies are becoming less patriarchal, women are still often seen as inferior to men even in the United States. It is important that people become more aware of the way women are being objectified in order to put an end it.
Do women portray themselves to be less than men or is it the other way around and men assert their power over women leaving women no choice but to be subject to men?
John Berger’s third chapter discusses image differences between men and women. Initially Berger discusses how a man’s social presence is dependent on his power, on what he can do for others. In contrast, women are objectified and their presence is based upon physical attributes. He then transitions to how European nude paintings were typically made for male spectators. Berger goes on to provide examples of European oil paintings where women are aware of constantly being watched and judged based upon their physical appearance. For example, in the painted Susannah and the Elders, while bathing nude, Susannah is depicted as staring directly at the audience. Overall,the sole purpose of the painting is to please others even if it means Susannah is exposed. Being that the painting was created for the visual entertainment of spectators, having Susannah’s gaze directed towards the spectator creates a level of intimacy. This is witnessed in majority of the oil paintings Berger provides. In Bacchus, Ceres, and Cupid, the male in the painting is fixated on the nude woman, but, “she looks out of the picture towards the one who considers himself her true lover – the spectator-owner”. Nude women gaze at the spectator even if other people are present in the painting. In another instance, oil painting, Vanity, showcases a woman gazing at herself. Berger discusses the hypocrisy of the painting,”morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure.” Essentially, it was acceptable for others to gaze upon a woman, but if she publically showed her appreciation for herself, it was viewed as conceit. The ideas presented in Berger’s passage leads me to question in what ways are these principles are manifested in modern times? Additionally, how does social media impact these principles?
In chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” Berger analyzes women’s perception of power through their portrayal in paintings. At first, he compares women’s perception and men’s perception to give a sense of the difference in genders. Men’s perception of power comes from them showing what they can do while women’s perception comes from being analyzed by how good of an image they present to others. Men do not necessarily need to reflect themselves truthfully but rather in how they want others to see them. Women on the other hand, can’t separate themselves from what they want to exhibit to the world, because they need to present themselves in a way that makes them desirable for others, as that is how their success is determined.
Berger uses illustrations to demonstrate his point that women are judged as sights, specifically European paintings that portray nude women. He starts off with the story of Adam and Eve, where after eating the forbidden fruit, a hierarchy between the man and women was formed. On page 48, Berger words it by saying, “The second striking fact is that the woman is blamed and is punished by being made subservient to the man. In relation to the woman, the man becomes the agent of God.” The hierarchy comes as a result of a punishment in eating the fruit and now, the punishment is exemplified by having women become objectified as an object of vision, or as a sight. These paintings portray a sense of nudity rather than nakedness which may seem like the same thing but are drastically different. Nakedness is natural and shows the viewer everything with no sense of urgency. Nudity on the other hand is an artform, where its purpose is to captivate the viewer, to appeal to a man’s sexuality. The pictures are created in a way to appeal to men through the actions of the women in the painting.
Now has this way of thinking changed in our society today, especially with so much society has begun rapidly changing perceptions of gender? How natural is the relationship between men and women? Is there a deeper reason behind this “hierarchy” of men and women or is this something that just happened upon by chance? If things worked out slightly differently, would there have a chance for men and women to simply coexist as equals?
Chapter 3 of Berger’s, “Ways of Seeing,” definitely introduces some ideas about nudity that I can honestly say I haven’t personally thought about very much. Certain parts of the passage stuck out to me very much. The first part that annoyed me just a bit was expressed on page 47, and basically, discusses the distinction between men and women. I think the true reason it genuinely bothered me is the fact that in my mind, I know there’s actually a lot of merit to the idea that women become objects to the male gaze. In our society and its history, this is often the case. Women often do subconsciously present themselves as objects. Berger explores this throughout history as a whole, showing that in Europe, this is not a new concept and has in fact been happening throughout history. Berger shows this by citing paintings and even a biblical example depicting Adam and Eve. This leads to a behavioral question. Berger makes it clear that in other cultures, men and women are shown more equally in depictions of nudity, so what is it with our culture today that hangs onto the point that women are somehow still objectified with all the knowledge and advancements we have in other areas? Why is this primitive idea still able to exist? Is it something caused by nature that will continue to persist? Is this because women DESIRE to be seen as an object or because they’re more forced into being seen as such? What about today where women often look at nudity as a form of empowerment or feminisim? Is this still related to being seen as an object? Many questions were raised in my mind while reading this portion.
The next portion that stuck out to me was on page 51. It was just a bit funny when Berger was discussing the place a mirror has in a painting. It’s supposed to show a woman as vain. The fact that Berger points out that you can enjoy looking at this naked woman, but her looking at herself becomes vanity, is a very hilarious and ironic point he makes. I genuinely enjoyed seeing this portion in there, it made me laugh a bit. It’s very true, even in today’s society. It’s okay to observe someone else’s beauty and compliment them, but when they’re confident enough to agree and observe those qualities in themselves, they’re often deemed as vain, arrogant, or unlikable. It was just an interesting parallel to observe.
The final part of the passage that genuinely interested me was the discussion of nudity in painting, magazines, etc. Women are almost always posed in a way that treats the often male spectator as the object of desire. Even when with another person in the physical image, the woman is focused on the man observing the image. This part was so interesting to me because once again, it’s something I see that’s very evident in society continuing into today’s time. Having this pointed out allows me to see something I hadn’t before really paid attention to. Why is it that artists often want to appeal to a male spectator? Why is our culture so different from others? Berger states that in depictions of nudity fro mother cultures, the people expressed are usually wrapped up in each other. What is it about our culture that lends to us depicting nudity in a way that lures an OUTSIDER in? It’s just a very interesting topic that I’d definitely like to explore more. I enjoy Berger’s analysis and evidence very much and would genuinely enjoy looking into this topic and idea further.
In chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Waying of Seeing” we were shown the differences between men and women, specifically with sexuality. Men and women are portrayed in very different ways in society. Women and men each have different physical and emotional characteristics. Since this is the case, it often poses an issue on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Some women if not all women want to be known as respectable and classy. The media overall does not seem to portray this postive image. Often it is more sexual, which is not liked. The male and female body are works of art in one sense. So is it appropriate for society to have this portrayal? Some agree, some disagree. Girls want to be understood before having a relationship it seems, while men possess a stronger sexual desire. This conflict makes things difficult. Women now are taking action to change this persona and promote a postive portrayal. Often in todays day and age it is not uncommon to hear songs about the negatives of women. They are often degraded which seems to invoke much anger in the eyes of women. Slang terms seem to be very normal now. What has the world come to now to promote such horrible terms for a female? Why is it that the male race does not care about this matter. Are they only in it for the sexual pleasure. It is important to understand both perspectives and how there past changes how they feel. It is sad to see other countries essentially treating women like slaves and forcing them to do things they do not want to do. Nakedness and nudeness seem to be two distinctly different things. However, others seem to pose the idea that they are quite similar. Why are these issues so important? What as a society can we do to stop this?
In the third chapter of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing”, the author compares and contrasts the way society views women versus men, and how nude images of women reflect their role in society as objects that live to please men. Initially, I couldn’t understand what Berger’s argument was because I found his wording and his way of explaining concepts poor. For example, on page 46 he writes, “That part of a woman’s self which is the surveyor treats the part which is the surveyed so as to demonstrate to others how her whole self would like to be treated.” At face value, I could not grasp his metaphors, which is not surprising since metaphors usually fly over my head. But, later on, he used a visual example with a painting of a nude woman holding a mirror, which represented women’s vanity. It was at that point that Berger’s argument made sense to me. Berger believes that men view nude paintings with awe and desire – the paintings are made to please men rather than liberally express female sexuality. Once a woman is admiring her own nakedness, it becomes a problem – she is seen as vain and perhaps whorish. Berger hammered in his point near the end of the chapter when he tells the reader to imagine the roles of men and women switched in relation to nude paintings. This made me think of Narcissus, a Greek hunter, who according to mythology, perished due to starvation because he fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water and wouldn’t stop looking at himself. In this scenario, a man is so incredibly vain that it causes him death. Isn’t that a bit dramatic? Yet, it is almost expected of women to be vain and concerned with their appearance. But with men, they aren’t to be focused on their exterior but rather the amount of power they hold. Berger seems to boil it down to women are seen as objects while men are the objectifiers. I take issue with Berger’s use of generalizations, however. Does he see all women as victims of objectification or is it rather a trend in society? Does he think men can also be objectified, or only women?
In John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing: Chapter 3” Berger discusses the representation of male and female sexuality in the public view and how they are interpreted. He hints at the patriarchal view people have, giving men more freedom than women. For example, Berger mentions how women are expected to keep certain standards such as monitoring their emotions just to appear acceptable to the public. Anything a woman does seems to have some sort of purpose, like how Berger mention that the female sexuality is only for men’s pleasure. “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” It is insinuated that this relationship is only one sided, meaning men have much more freedom than women, even when it comes to sexuality. Men do not have to think about how the whole world thinks of them, they only have to care about what they think of themselves, women, according to Berger, do not have this right. They are mainly seen as objects. Berger also mentions the nude paintings of men and women. Men are always drawn to be these powerful, dominating forces, while women are always painted as gentle and beautiful. These paintings are just a reflection of how the public perceives these two genders. And to be honest not much has changed.
Women to this very day are still expected to maintain a certain image, beautiful, skinny, etc. Sure there has been some improvements for women over the course of these few years, but society was never able to fully break away from these stereotypes. While the amount of power women can hold has changed, the perception of the female sexuality has not changed. But you could also use this argument for the men. There are some men that do not follow the perception of the male sexuality. Society finds these men to be weak, something that really wasn’t noticed much back then.
My questions are how much has the perception of male sexuality changed in regards to the perception of female sexuality?
John Berger in chapter 3 discusses relationships between men and women and nakedness. What I really found interesting that Berger says that men, “Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves.“ In cases like this, John Berger makes a good point but is the relationship between men and women important to a female or the relationship with themselves more important when they dress?
What else I find interesting, when I took Art History in my previous semester the way women was constructed was always to show beauty, elegance or even power. We would see this in paintings about greek mythology of Venus. The artists would depict her body as weightless and elongated. I found it to be elegant, nothing sexual. In modern times women are perceived more with the ideal of sex and man’s ideology hasn’t changed. For the most part, today’s world the thoughts changed and became “soft.”
Another Question what is your take on nudity do you see it similar to John Berger or the opposite?
I have to say that I find this article very sexist in its representation of the image of women and historically dishonest. I don’t believe one can speak in such absolute broad strokes without knowing what is on the mind and in the hearts of both the object and the objector meaning the male and female. Perception is an essential tool but not to be mistaken for reality and should not be used as the intended vision one conveys. Male or female behaviour is not determinate but can be predicted through the use of framework yet always with the understanding that an individual is exactly that, individual. That one should assume to speak as though gender behaviour is an exact science implies an ignorance to the actual science which acknowledges its many flaws . I will concede that there are certain behaviours to male and female that are almost constant based on their environment but to suggest that men are predators and women coy and preyed upon as a constant unchanging variable, I find both antiquated and insulting in their simplicity.
I find the piece about the creation story also interesting because of its attempt to acquit Eve of blame but according to the book of Genesis it is Eve that succumbs first to the temptation and then relays the invitation to Adam who also succumbs. The woman is doomed to labor and deliver children in pain but the man is to toil all the days of his life to provide for the woman and children they produce, which makes them both guilty and both agents of God and creation
It is certainly true that the female body and identity is a complex and divine work of art and when it is exhibited with dignity and in an appropriate context is very beautiful but I disagree with the author’s assertion that nudes are “always conventionalized”. Nudes are always a matter of commerce and profit but as a matter of modernity they are often far more perverse, grotesquely depicting the inherent beauty of human anatomy of either sex. “Nudes” have become another means of objectifying women even if that wasn’t always the intention.
Is it possible to create “Nudes” as art and a display of beauty without evoking perversion in most people?
Where is the line drawn between healthy and sick displays of nudity?
John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing: Chapter 3,” mainly discusses how female sexuality are being criticized and subjected to the eyes of a man. The chapter in itself seemed to have completely degraded women, making her whole life’s purpose about pleasing a man. For example, “To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men.” (page 46) This saying alone urgs me. This statement basically explains how women are simply created for the very reason of pleasing a man. Like excuse me, was I not created for my own self purpose? The whole idea of women belonging to a man, being undermined by men is not only a long outgrown tradition but also a complete insult to women as a whole. “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at…Thus she turns herself into an object – and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.” When reading this, the only image that came to my mind was showroom. Imagine, a showroom where the only audience are men and the ones being showcased are woman waiting to be selected by the male. This shows how woman are being viewed as mere objects for a man to please himself with. For example, “She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life.” This quote makes it seem that all the power belongs to the man. Think about it, if all you life you’re constantly “surveying” yourself, afraid that one wrong thing will suddenly make you unpleasing to a man, then why even bother living if the whole purpose of living is for somebody else? Even the idea of using something as classic and beautiful as nude art is being put simply for the enjoyment of men. For example, “In the average European oil painting… He is the spectator in front of the picture and be is presumed to be a man. Everything must appear to be the result of his being there, it is for him that the figures have assumed their nudity. But he, by definition, is a stranger with his clothes still on.” (page 54) While reading this nothing but anger arose inside me, I wouldn’t call myself an extreme feminist or anything like that, but the idea for a woman’s only existence is to please a man really frustrates me. This then leads me to the question, why are we still stuck in a world where gender traditions tend to consume society? As well as, is life even worth living if the whole purpose of it is to please someone else and not yourself?
I forgot who it was but a prominent business figure once said “How many companies would go out of business, if all of a sudden women around the world woke up and were satisfied with the way they looked.” When I first heard this only a few make-up companies come to mind, but after really thinking it over, really hundreds of companies would go out of business. Gyms would go out of business, dietary plan companies, plastic surgeons and the list goes on and on. The same thing came to mind after reading Chapter 3 of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing.” He talks about the visual aspect of women and how women are held to different standards. Women generally spend more time on their appearance. This belief is further exacerbated by the media. The media sets unrealistic standards for women. This could just be a method of selling things. Models are set to unrealistic standards and it often comes out that some models have eating disorders or starve themselves for days to fit the part. Overall, society is structured to believe that women should take care of their appearance and Berger hits this point when he says “Women watch themselves being looked at.” This line is great because it not only mentions the objectifying of women, similar to how we see in our society but also emphasizes that women are aware that they are being looked at. He is implying that society is just structured this way. Connecting to a more contemporary point of view, this goes along with the “free-the-nipple” movement. Women nipples are censored while male nipples are not on Instagram and other apps. This movement which has caught on explores precisely what Berger is saying about women are to be looked at. Berger’s piece feels like it could have been written today.
To what extent is modern day feminism tackling the ideas bought up in Berger’s way of seeing? What effect does globalization have on the issues of nakedness as discussed by Berger in rather conservative societies?
John Berger’s Chapter 3 of Ways of Seeing discusses multiple topics, but much of the focus is put on the portrayal of women. It’s not a secret that men and their appearance are more often associated with their level of power/authority, while women have a lot more being judged based off of their appearance. It also brings to light that women have to be constantly watching what they do, to the extent that they are themselves both a surveyor and the surveyed. Being a surveyor of herself allows a woman to see herself in the way others do, and therefore allow her to carter to others. If a woman decides to discard those two separate identities and not behave in a way that is expected of her, she risks men feeling that she can be treated however they want. That additional pressure is unrealistic yet that perspective has been adapted, and as Berger points out exemplified by European culture through art. I feel like Berger calls society out on the important issue of shaming woman. He mentions an artist who painted a naked woman, presumably because the artist enjoyed naked women, and then put “a mirror in her hand and called the painting Vanity. Thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure”. A similar mentality is present today when women are told to be sexual, and then put down as “sluts” or “easy”. I like that Berger points this out in simple terms and bringing to light the hypocrisy that often exists.
Personally, nude and naked have been interchangeable in my vocabulary. When Berger states “To be naked is to be oneself. To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself. A naked body has to be seen as an object in order to become a nude.” I find that as interesting way to separate the two, and the separate definitions are a good way to account for the fact there is a difference when your body is being presented naked for no cause versus for others. Lastly he addresses how women are often posed in a way that directs desire towards a male spectator. I think this is probably because men expect women to always want to please them, so naturally artists portray women in the way that men WANT to see them. I’m not sure whether this applies when the artist is a woman? How do cultures different from the one we are a part of portray women in their societies?