Representation of the female body

In our class discussion yesterday, I realized how much gender influences the way we view art and because art captures the human experience, in a way, ourselves and others. I think the field of photojournalism is fascinating, and it was odd and strange to see someone's last moments in a picture. It's strange how photography strives to capture both the organic and artificially staged moments. That doesn't make a picture less or more important or beautiful, but it certainly changes the way we see them.The story changes if a person captures an actual scene of abuse, compared to a scene that recreates it.

One thing that really got me thinking last night is the representation of the female body and I guess what it means to live in a female body. I think that nudity is an interesting subject, because I don't think nudity automatically makes something sexual. I think it's interesting for me in general as someone who is ace, because I probably don't experience the same feelings when I look at a picture that is supposed to evoke sexuality. So I think that makes it harder for me in general to pick up on sexual motifs, but I don't think nudity should automatically create some sort of sexual context. And that brings into question, is it the artist's intention that is more important or is the viewer's interpretation more important? I mean for instance, the Beatles have said Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was based on a child's drawing they saw, but most people interpret it as a song about LSD. So I guess what I mean to ask is if I viewed a picture in a certain way, but the artist meant for it to be something else, does the artist's intention supersede my own interpretation? Becca's point of sexuality versus sensuality was really interesting, because the artist might intend a picture to be sensual, or not even be sensual in the slightest. I think nudity is easily misinterpreted, but I think there is something very beautiful about the form and shape of the human body, and if an artist wants to capture that then they should be able to. Then there's the whole legal debate of obscenity, and then the entire controversy of whether nudity in art is seen as beautiful or obscene, and if teachers are allowed to show such works in school, and to behonest the whole things seems rather arbitrary. But I guess that can bring into question: Is something like the statue of David sexual? Personally, I don't think anyone sees it and thinks it's obscene, but is it sexual, I'm not sure. Personally I don't think so, and I think most people don't seem to think so either. In fact it's celebrated as an "ideal form." So where does the nudity of the female take place?

Historically, according to the Met, "The ancestry of the female nude is distinct from the male. Where the latter originates in the perfect human athlete, the former embodies the divinity of procreation". So even in art, the origin of nudity for genders seems to reflect the gender roles that still exist in our society today. And I guess this leads into the sexualization of the female body today. I mean even in pictures in advertisements, one can easily see a topless man and not a completely topless woman (I'm not counting pictures where women are covering their nipples). Topless men are thrown around in media all the time. There's the typical lead man taking a shower scene or otherwise showing off his body in all the movies. Even in scenes that don't require it, the movie directors seem to love sticking in these completely irrelevant scenes. Would Star Wars The Last Jedi still be as good of a movie without Adam Driver taking his shirt off? (Imho yes) Does nudity sell? Does sex sell? Is it the same for both genders? Honestly, I don't know if it sells, but I know there's a difference in the way nudity is treated for each gender, in media, in art, and ultimately in our everyday lives as well.