From a cave painting to holograms, mankind is always trying to expressing himself without using written dialogue. This process has incredible depth and purpose. Its meaning transcends the subject of focus to show us a piece of history literature can’t reach. The medium and availability has also undergone a metamorphosis as technology advances. In the essay “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger makes many insightful observations of where man’s eye meets his hand and how we give the product of that union value.
Dialogue begins with the eye and not the mouth. Berger opens up by giving us our point of visual origin; our view of ourselves in our environment. The world unfolds around us and we have several ways of describing it. Many use literature but the most potent method is always visual. Wither it’s a photo or finger painting we gain special insight into not only the event, but the one going through the event. Berger includes photography in this analysis. While it is not as personal as paint and pencils, it is still a moment that a person thought important enough to hold on to.
Holding on to moments changes not only our perspective of the world; but of ourselves as well. Berger writes “Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can also be seen”.(98) Berger points out that as we capture the world around us, we are captured by others in their world perspective. It doesn’t need to be in the form of art. By this time it could just be in some ones conversation about the culture in which he lives. It’s humanity attempting to organize its existence.
As people make sense of their environment, they will ultimately document it. We will take what is seen and place it into a form that others can take part in. The beginning is the hand of the painter, which as Berger shows has multiple perspectives. The intent of painting can go beyond what the artist had in mind. Berger describes it as mystification. It is a two fold problem. First, the majority of people who had access to beautiful works of art were the social elite. Viewing the masterpieces, let alone owning one became a status symbol. Second is becoming the subject of art. Very few people had the resources to become immortal though the use of paints. Here is one of the tragedies of sending a visual message.
Most of those painting the elite were people whom the elite would otherwise avoid. Berger sites the life of Frans Hals. Hals was living a life of total poverty when he was commissioned to pain Regents of the Old Men’s Alms House. Little is known about the personal interaction between Hans and the regents, but Berger illuminates something amazing. The artist exposes two points of view in his painting. First is the reflection of the subject. The wealthy regents were being painted by a human who was most likely of little worth in their eyes. The commissioned work was likely to be the only time they would be in same room. Next is Hans looking into their faces and painting them in a way that would not betray any form of prejudice or contempt.
Berger also shows us how we link to the past through the paintings that pass the test of time. As we make note of the faces and places. We associate ourselves and those around us as apart of our normal functioning. Berger writes “We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still live in a society of comparable social relations and moral values.”(102) As we look into the worlds that have been painted, we inevitably see our world in them. The expression of disappointment which Leonardo da Vinci can lay down on canvas could just as easily be present on the faces of our parents.
As time progresses and photography moved in, Berger notes the change. Photography removed a sense of the timeless. It became a captured moment of real time without moving through the filter of the mind. A photo can be placed geographically where a painting, even of a true landscape, is still a product of an artist’s imagination; molded to describe a location the painter once occupied. Photography isn’t finished here.
Photos have also changed how we see paintings. Pre-photo, we would need to go to great lengths in order to experience the hard work of the masters. Now we only need to open a book or browse the internet. The freedom of access and the quality of replication have taken the importance way form the skillful hand of the craftsman and moved it to the authentication of the reproduced work. Reproduction can also sacrifice the forest for a single tree. We crop and focus on one aspect of the painting; forget that every part of the piece has meaning. This will eventually push us into artistic inflation, where there are so many versions of a painting that it will be common and mundane. We will no longer give it value because of the stroke of the brush but the luck of the paintings survival. Even the experts speak less of the master, and more on the lineage of the owners.
Mass reproduction has also changed the perception of the original art. It began as a treasure for those in power. With limitless access by any social class, the aristocrat can no longer possess art. It gains greater appreciation. People who care very little about its sales record over the last three centuries can look at it and see it for what it was intended; a gifted person presenting their view of the world.
Deep down, I feel as though we all knew what Berger wrote about. When ever we stand in front of one of the great renaissance masterpieces, most people will find themselves in awe. Berger has helped us all by illuminating why the awe exists. I never notice the transition from two dimensional stain glass windows to Salvador Dali’s melting clocks. With the window, all that can be done is the visual recognition of human subjects. We have never met anyone who lives in a flat environment. We can marvel at its beauty, but something is missing. On the other hand, Dali’s melting clocks don’t exist in our reality either, but his sense of perspective draws you into a world of his creation. Both works of art are windows. One you look through, the other you look into.
Berger’s view on reproduction of art was refreshing as well. People who bathe in power and status always make a fuss when someone threatens that power. Resources are no longer a factor in the possession of fine art. Posters and t-shirts carry familiar images and the only party hurt by this is the upper class. Art is now for everyone and culturally speaking, everyone now wants are. The possession has taken priority now. Berger shows the statistics of gallery attendance and the group which dominates is the educated upper class. They still attempt to hold on to the viewing aspect of elitism. As reproduction becomes main stream and the layman has the same amount of access, we will become less inclined to listen to an expert. As we see the art, we will begin to form our own opinions and observation. We go right back to Berger’s first point. Once we have seen it, we will begin to say it.
There was one thing I think Berger missed in regards to replication of art. Artists today take full advantage of prints in order to increase profits. It is much less work to create one painting and mass produce it. The value of the print increases the closer you get to the first one produced, but how does it matter. It no longer comes from the hand of the artist and the original is still far from you. I suppose this is the downside to reproduction. It’s not intended for public view; instead it is for the greed of the creator. I doubt the greats through out history would partake in prints of their art.
Berger was incredibly informative. As a recreational artist, I never realized how much of my views go through my hands. This explains the trends I see in my work. It is nothing outrageous or strange; more like a fragment of my personality. In my future work, I suppose I’ll be looking for how I express my world view. Berger’s essay has aided in my understanding of me and my artwork. I think that my next piece will be a little more interesting.
Word Count: 1458
No comments:
Post a Comment