The question the text seems to answer is the interpretation of the model notion. It tried to twist the meaning or giving it anew one. For the portrait, the model sits before the artist for at least a moment but after some time it is no longer in space beyond the drawing paper but inside the mind. She is no longer the model as she used to be before, but still around to check on the drawing against, she is there in her infinite complexity to correct, judge or change the drawer's simplifications by the simplifications that are inevitable of the drawing on the paper. This does not mean that painters have to use models. The model can exist in the head or everywhere. So the writer refer model to an imagining. The question that derives the writing is how does one participate simultaneously as models as well as a painter? (Berger, pp, 106).A moment that I feel fascinated with in the text is the collaboration between model and painter. I do agree with the writer's theory of visible in relation to model. I can expand further that model is the exterior stimuli. In my case I don't have living models, am not officially allowed to paint anyone alive as it is prohibited. However, in a few times I have done it but collaboration ha been nearly zero. In larger composition I have only used clothing designs of ladies and mostly teenagers. In recent times one of my models has been clouds but even at times, they refuse to be models.
Clothing industry and fashion is fascinating the designs keeps on changing time to time depending on taste and preferences of different generations. Coming up with a design which will be adored by most of my age mates needs artistic style and study of the fashion trend for the last few years and predict what would be more appealing to most ladies. With such an achievement its most likely even for the designs to be adored by celebrities or models which would really appreciate the artistic styles which had been put into considerations.
Want an expert to write a paper for you?