Berger states that the image is the most direct communicator of history, compared to text for example, and that it is ‘therefore ‘more precise and richer than literature’ (Berger, 1972:10). This was due to an increasing sense of individuality and of history. Images developed to include people and how they looked, and the consciousness that it was an image of how one person felt another looked. Originally images were used to conjure up invisible entities- this use corresponding to the ritual which Benjamin describes (Benjamin, 1999:76). How we see a photo is dependent both on how the photographer sees and how we see (Berger, 1972:10)– but this is true of all art forms I think. Surely this compares apples and pears? Both artist and photographer choose subjects similarly, but whilst an artist uses an artist’s techniques – brushstrokes, choice of colours, and other technical processes, a photographer uses technical knowledge of exposure, colour filters, light levels etc. His choice of subjects reflects his way of seeing, as do the brushstrokes of a painter reflect his (Berger, 1972:10). This is less ambivalent than Walter Benjamin’s view, and accords to a greater extent with my own (see above). It is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its appearance….īerger believes that photos are not a mechanical record we are aware that the image taker has selected the image from many different variations (Berger, 1972:10). The author gives one idea for the definition of an imageĪn image is a sight which has been recreated or reproduced. If we see we can also be seen, and this reciprocal nature is more fundamental than that of speaking/dialogue (Berger, 1972:9). We do not simply mechanically see, we choose what to see by moving our eyes (Berger, 1972: 8). Of course what we see informs what we think, but what we think changes the way we see too. He continues by presenting the concept of how a picture may look the same to many different people that view it, it may carry a different message to each viewer.As an introduction to this powerful piece the dominance of vision in our lives is suggested by the fact that seeing comes before words- both in the infant, and as we make sense of the world through seeing and thinking (Berger, 1972: 7). He suggests that instead of painting the subjects as stoic government officials, they are portrayed as drunkards. “Regents of the Old Men’s Alms House” by Frans Hals is cited as an example to show us that the viewpoint of the painter affects the tone of the painting. Even pictures, according to him, cannot be taken for face value because one must consider the intent of the photographer and other factors that may have skewed the message. He then makes us question if we can truly believe our eyes, if what we see is actually reality. I believe that ultimately, Berger’s argument of original pieces of art losing their value is solid.īerger starts out by establishing how sight is arguably our most important sense. He speculates that this is because of the inaccessibility of art along with the widespread popularity of copies. My first reading of “Ways of Seeing” barely provided me with any information, but subsequent readings finally gave up some of Berger’s most interesting points, such as his idea that the meaning of great works of art no longer send out the message of the original creator. His writings can seem extremely complex and difficult, even cryptic at times but trudging through his works can yield many fascinating nuggets of truth. He has been praised numerous times, yet condemned just as much. Berger seems to be an extremely controversial art critic, based off opinions of him that range from “stimulating” to “preposterous”. John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing” is a short commentary that seems to be about how different classes of people perceive art, how its meaning has changed through the ages, and how the introduction of technology has affected it.
0 kommentar(er)
