Female Nude Responce

Richard Leppert- Exploratory

The Female Nude: Surfaces of Desire

            Leppert uses a lot of good points in his argument over Berger’s so called “thesis”.  While Leppert does make good points, he at the same time doesn’t make them at all, this I will explain later.  There is a lot of back and forth between different writers and makes points by using others explanations.

            Now for me I can agree with Leppert on some points in his writing because I feel that Berger’s didn’t look at the whole picture, but merely at a time in history in which female paintings where very big.  We can look back at history and see that during the Greek and roman time’s men and women were both equal when it came to art.  This being a good point made by Leppert, but then he goes off on to little tangents instead of focusing on the main points of Berger’s “thesis”. 

            While Lebbert does go off on tangents, he comes back to the point in the end in a strong point I think.  What if women do the paintings and the paintings are of men or women?  What if women look at the paintings that were supposed to be made for “men” only?  Can the women do this?  I believe that this in itself is a very important part of the argument because it’s all very true.  Women can look at the paintings; they themselves are artist, so this makes it a whole new ball game.  I mean if we look at a painting in the renaissance from what Berger’s is saying then we are to be the owner she is to look at us and be looking directly at us, possibly in a way that we can fantasies.  Well are women going to look at a woman and do that? That’s up to the person and the same with the man, everyone is their own person and regardless of what side of the painting they are on they are going to look at it in the way that they want to and interpret it as such, similar to Lepperts main point.

Natalie Beech

English 1101 

The female nude: surfaces of Desire responce  

 I once again choose Jeffs essay because he under stood the essay. In his essay he talks about the roman times how men and women we both equal when it came to art. In his essay he says Leppert went off subject often and away from Berger’s thesis. I also agree how he says, “What if women do the paintings and the paintings are of men or women?  What if women look at the paintings that were supposed to be made for “men” only?  Can the women do this?  I believe that this in itself is a very important part of the argument because it’s all very true.  Women can look at the paintings; they themselves are artist, so this makes it a whole new ball game.” This makes a very good point for Leppert’s essay.  

  I like how he showed both opinions about the female nude surfaces of desire. I think he focused more on Leppert’s opinion.  I think that when he says we look at a painting in the renaissance from what Berger’s is saying then we are to be the owner she is to look at us and be looking directly at us, possibly in a way that we can fantasies. I think that this is true. The picture with the fur is a perfect example of this.