In episode #2 John Berger emphasized on how women are seen in the eyes of the spectators, how they are being judged as a women and how it still relates today.

The term “naked” here means to be oneself where as “nude” means to expose oneself in an object and not realizing the fact that you are actually being exposed. 

Berger restructured the classical nude paintings and compared it with the modern images of women advertisements so as to show where really the status of women stands in the world at large. That’s when he started analyzing the relationship between men and women and their differences in depth.He directed the path on how to perceive the paintings and images. The relations between the painter and the women performing for the painting is inseparable  and there is no way to miss the sight of the main women character even though there are dozens of other characters within the same image.

One contemporary example I can relate here is the famous and iconic former American  world #1 tennis player (Billie Jean King- an LGBT figure herself0 who who 39 grand slam titles. she wasn’t that famous until she tackled her inner self to the world that converted how others should see and treat every individual equally after she won “The Battle of the Sexes” match against a 55 years old Bobby RIGGS.

In episode 2 of ways of seeing we come to see the perspective Berger has on how women were objectified by men through paintings. Also a great point that Berger develops is that women in paintings were not really depicted in them they were just portrayed the way they were for the pleasure of the spectator. Which at that time the spectator was mainly men and the painters were also mainly men as well. In the episode Berger also mentions how to be naked is to be oneself meanwhile to be nude is to be naked for a spectator but in a way as a disguise in order to please the individual observing the painting. I find this very interesting because in a way I believe we still do this for pictures in our every day life we typically are not ourselves when we take pictures and post them on social media. So from my point of view I think to be able to be ourselves in pictures we would need to not be aware of the picture being taken I have always thought those are more powerful pictures rather then someone simply smiling for a picture. Fortunately we have come a long way women are progressing and striving in all fields of expertise where before during the time of the paintings women were limited to even thinking of doing certain jobs and positions of power in politics that they have gotten now so this goes to show we have improved in society. From this episode all I took from it was how little women meant for men they were painted nude in order for the pleasure of men rather then being painted doing the tasks they do in their everyday lives or so on so the image we have thanks to the art is totally different from what women actually did in society at the time.

Bergers central point in episode two was that even in art women were labeled as objects to the viewer. The difference between nudity is when there appears to be an audience or some sort of viewer while being naked is when you’re alone in your own skin within yourself. Men were depicted as the more dominant ones basically implying that it didn’t matter what the women wanted. Through these works of art there was an image being portrayed. The image was women weren’t see for their thoughts or personality , but for the desire of a man. A point that Berger made was that women ultimately get judged for pampering themselves too much or self confident when that’s what men criticize women about. This was significant to me because being from the black community constantly on social media a lot of African American women are judged when they wear their natural kinky hair. The controversy comes in place when they try to get the look that society seems to say is good hair. Wigs and weaves are talked down by the media, but isn’t that the “look” that is praised? A Lot of these things don’t make sense, but will there ever be a time that certain ethnic groups won’t be criticized for being there self.

In the episode 2 of “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger says, “to be nakedness is to be yourself, to be nude is to be seen naked by others”. In his eyes, nudity means people can see woman’s body as an unemotional object in the old Western culture. He thinks man judged women casually and women’s status is low in the European tradition. Artists explain that a nude is women’s natural way to display themselves. In the other hand, the artists themselves are strangers in their eyes because they are wearing clothes on. But no matter the era, women are still seen to have lower status than man in many countries. For instance, women who live in countries with the religion of Islam are forced to cover their bodies and faces until they marry a man, their body can only take off their clothes in front of their husband. The society limits the power of women; women have less human right than men. Same as the Western artists who draw naked women in the oil painting, they think women as objects that belong to men. From the accent time to the present, men like to see women in the nude but they judge women in the nude at the same time.

Berger’s central point in episode #2 Of Ways Of Seeing proves to be true even in today’s society. The idea that women have been taught from an early age to survey themselves continually is ever present in today’s media. Many times in television shows, there will be a scene where a woman is being slowly and closely filmed in order to show off her physical looks. The purpose is to glorify her looks in order to catch the viewers attention, usually meant for the male viewer which in turn feeds into the objectification of women. In other cases, women are shamed/harassed for being of different sexual preference or identity and are often put down for not being “straight”.  One example which aligns with berger’s ideas in episode #2 is the advertising business and how it objectifies women in hopes of higher sales. The point of ads is to sell a product, but what happens when you add a women into the mix? Often times you’ll get half naked images of women, and other times its sexually suggestive images of women. All the time, it’s something that in some way degrades and objectifies women and builds the idea in their head that they must also be that way. 

 The video above is an example of how women are objectified in contemporary advertisements. The clip that follows works to relate the idea of how girls are taught to be that way from a young age. 

This video is a compilation of t.v scenes in which women are sexually objectified for the male viewer. 

In my sentiment, Berger’s central point in episode #2 is to represent the differences between nakedness and nudity. Which naked is to be oneself.  And nudity is to be seen naked by the spectators. It contradicts the depiction of women at some point because it depends on the spectators’ views. They have a bunch of perceptions in which somehow the information becomes irrelevant to the real meaning of the images. I think it kind of agrees to the LGBTQ community situation because, like on what Berger’s point on nakedness, the naked person can express her or his feelings freely to the community. Furthermore, to the LGBTQ community, they dare to express themselves in public and they are proud to show people what they truly are despite those judgments by the people. It is similar to Berger’s point on nudity, you are being judged by people and still letting them to judge you but you can’t even do anything but pretend to yourself that you are truly not. While the LGBTQ community is judged by people, but despite those judgments, they are trying their hardest to earn the respect and acceptance of society.

do not let yourself being judge by other people

BE HEARD LOUD

   Episode #1 of John Berger’s Ways Of Seeing speaks on the idea that since the invention of the camera, images have become a sort of language that can take on a completely distinct meaning from its original intended purpose. This is done through the manipulation of  context in which the image is found. Take for example the memes we see everyday on social media. The format is simple, yet effective. This image for example…

Shows a point in time in an episode of a  television series where two of the same character are pointing at each other as if to be confused about what they are seeing. “That man’s an impostor” one of them says, to which the other replies “THAT man is the impostor”. The intended purpose of the films creator during that time was to express that one of these two is an impostor. However, social media has manifested a new “comedic language” in which words are placed over these sorts of images and given a completely new meaning. The end product looking something like this…

…The words placed over the image join together with the image to tell the viewer that having insomnia due to anxiety is the same as having anxiety because of your insomnia. Another example would be the following…

…Just like in the previous example, this image was taken from a film. The characters seem to be in the middle of thinking up a plan, however the words placed over them give the image a new meaning. A sort of friendly and funny meaning. This relates to John Berger’s ideas because it hits on the idea that easily reproducible images can be easily stripped of their original meaning and given a whole new array of possible meanings, which also depends on the viewer’s perspective. 

~~~The idea that perspective is all about the eye, and how the eye can only be in one place at one time is what makes a viewer’s perspective so distinct from one another and also what gives meaning to what the viewer is looking at. This means that what you are looking at is distinct to you and only you, and no other person sees that image in your head  the way you do but you. This also means that no other person can attach the same meaning to those images as you. They are seeing it from their perspective, through their own life experiences. Things another human being could not replicate. Until the camera. Camera’s are able to capture moments at any given time, and can be duplicated endlessly. Things you would normally travel miles to see now travel to you. It’s ironic how the very act of endlessly reproducing images due to their uniqueness, actually takes away from the image and in a sense lessens the quality. You can see an image of The Eiffel Tower a million times in a textbook, and it wouldn’t mean a thing, but it’s different when you’re standing in front of it. You can feel the greatness of the structure. But you’d probably take a picture of it there anyways. Likewise, when you play music over images you can change the feeling that the image gives off, and thus its meaning. ~~~