Reflect on Pre-Raphaelite Women Painting

Poster： Janet Tung (483200584) at 12:42:10 11/17/97 from c550-10.svdcc.fju.edu.tw
Mentioned：

Among so many paintings we have on the web, most of them were painted by Rossetti. As Kate mentioned in the class, the gazes of those models are indirect. They don't look at the painter, nor the viewer. The eyesight, as I call it, is without soul. There was certain kind of emptiness in those sensuous women figure. Women appear in the picture as some kind of object. They're not only objects when being painted by the painter, but also objects without soul in paintings which are exhibited in front of people. In the Rossetti's novel, he stated the idea of painters or poets that cultivate their emotions and imaginations, and then, express them. So the question is, whether the soul of the woman figure belongs to those women or the painter? I think the figure itself is empty, but the soul of the painter is within the painting. The painter intends to arouse people's sensual feeling by those bodies. However, the main part inside the painting-the women-lose their soul/spirit then. In Jane Morris' photo, and Fanny Cornforth's photo, we can see their emotion or feel they're really "alive"! However, in those paintings of Rossetti, I've never seen one of them with certain eye contact or feel their emotions. They're only objects that make no difference from the landscape, or furniture in other paintings. The painter paints them that way was because people hope to see! So women's appearing attractive in their painting was only one goal among the theories of Pre-Raphaelite discourse.
Here I'd like to discuss something that happened in Taiwan. Everybody knows a famous woman, 許曉丹. When taking off her clothes in front of the public, she claimed it's for art. Then things go farther and farther. She once participated in Legislator election. Recently she held a so-called "marriage in Garden Eden." Did she really tend to sacrifice for art? Or did she do it for sexual liberation? I think she did it because 1) People/men like to watch woman's body. 2) Other women did not come out doing it yet before her. I think she explained many times that it's for the sake of art. Besides, she insisted to take off her clothes. However, how to explain the election later? How to explain her wedding in nudity? For the sake of art? As a matter of fact her argument was not strong enough to explain her conduct. When so many disputes are aroused, her purpose was rather vague. Isn't it like Pre-Raphaelite paintings that were to satisfy male's desire of watching female's body? At least Pre-Raphaelite painting formed a trend of art. But look back at 許曉丹, what did she become?

Response:

where is soul and what is art? -- Kate Liu 14:23:41 11/19/97

Reply the post:

Your Name ：
E-Mail Add：
SUBJECT ：
Your opinion ：

>> Among so many paintings we have on the web, most of them were painted by Rossetti.  As Kate mentioned in the class, the gazes of those models are indirect.  They don't look at the painter, nor the viewer.  The eyesight, as I call it, is without soul.  There was certain kind of emptiness in those sensuous women figure.  Women appear in the picture as some kind of object.  They're not only objects when being painted by the painter, but also objects without soul in paintings which are exhibited in front of people.  In the Rossetti's novel, he stated the idea of painters or poets that cultivate their emotions and imaginations, and then, express them.  So the question is, whether the soul of the woman figure belongs to those women or the painter?  I think the figure itself is empty, but the soul of the painter is within the painting.  The painter intends to arouse people's sensual feeling by those bodies.  However, the main part inside the painting-the women-lose their soul/spirit then.  In Jane Morris' photo, and Fanny Cornforth's photo, we can see their emotion or feel they're really "alive"!  However, in those paintings of Rossetti, I've never seen one of them with certain eye contact or feel their emotions.  They're only objects that make no difference from the landscape, or furniture in other paintings.  The painter paints them that way was because people hope to see!  So women's appearing attractive in their painting was only one goal among the theories of Pre-Raphaelite discourse.

>> Here I'd like to discuss something that happened in Taiwan.  Everybody knows a famous woman, 許曉丹.  When taking off her clothes in front of the public, she claimed it's for art.  Then things go farther and farther.  She once participated in Legislator election.  Recently she held a so-called "marriage in Garden Eden."  Did she really tend to sacrifice for art?  Or did she do it for sexual liberation?  I think she did it because 1) People/men like to watch woman's body.  2) Other women did not come out doing it yet before her.  I think she explained many times that it's for the sake of art.  Besides, she insisted to take off her clothes.  However, how to explain the election later?  How to explain her wedding in nudity?  For the sake of art?  As a matter of fact her argument was not strong enough to explain her conduct.  When so many disputes are aroused, her purpose was rather vague.  Isn't it like Pre-Raphaelite paintings that were to satisfy male's desire of watching female's body?  At least Pre-Raphaelite painting formed a trend of art.  But look back at 許曉丹, what did she become?

[Local Preview]