There is a narrower focus in the drawings.  They are predominantly female nudes cloaked in classicism as a means of rendering them socially and culturally inoffensive.  In Ways of Seeing, John Berger described the situation well, and disrobed the classicism.  The woman in a “nude” is, due to the nature of a painting, an object to be looked at.  The looker is presumably the one who buys the painting, and historically male.  This asserts the situation of male as owner/judge, and the woman as object/judged; a situation which has perpetuated itself throughout the history of art, and is encouraged even today, albeit through different media.  Beyond this more complex assessment, nudity exists in art because sexuality is enticing.  While I acknowledge that this state of affairs exists and is widespread, I don’t think that it is a necessary case; I think that there are some legitimate and beautiful examples of the nude in art.  The problem comes when you try to lay down a standard to judge the moral legitimacy of a nude beyond “I know it when I see it.”  I don’t have a resolution to the problem, so how am I supposed to approach the idea of nudity in art?