Ways of Seeing

John Berger's one of Europe's most influential Marxist critics, yet draws strong and contradictory reactions to his writing. He was an incredible informative, but has been accused of falling prey to "ideological excesses" and praised for his "scrupulous" observations on art and culture. Berger started his work off as a series on television. The main idea he discussed in numerous of his books was, “the way we establish our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it” (97). We presume all things are believable and think that everyone sees what I see. When really everyone thinks about things differently and sees things from another perspective.

The main point in Berger's argument in Ways of Seeing is that art work is not what it used to be. The way we look at things has drastically changed in the past century. For instance, photography and the ability to replicate and edit images have become more popular. Original images are being easily replicated and can be photo shopped so much to where they don’t even look like the same image. The meaning of these works of art is changing in two ways. First the meaning that the art work conveys to the audience is changing mainly because our way of thinking about things has changed within the last century. Secondly, the monetary value of the art work is changing. Berger refers to art as a thing for all classes of people not just a privileged few. The physical work is no longer the value it’s the rare part of the art that is becoming more important.

Many people presume things that are believable and think everyone sees what I see. Berger pointed out, “all images are manmade” (98). Every painting leaves room for interpretations and depending on the person it determines what you think about it. Another thing that can affect the way someone looks at a painting is the way the painting is represented. People tend to add assumptions to many considering beauty and civilization.

The beginning is the hand of the painter, which Berger shows has many perspectives. The intent of the painting can go beyond what the author originally had in mind. Berger describes this as mystification. The majority of the people that had access to the beautiful art work were the bourgeoisie. Owning one became a status symbol. Secondly, is becoming the subject of art. Very few people back then could afford the paints and materials needed to create art. This was quite a tragedy that interfered with sending visual messages.

Ways of Seeing

John Berger is one of Europe's most influential Marxist critics, with considering work. He has been recognized to write in tones such as quiet, powerful, thoughtful and measured. Berger started off his work as a seris on public television. Which made serious claims of what was happening in the United States. Bergers later wrote many books whom he choosed to focus on "the way we estalish our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words cad never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it"(97). He also sais that the way we see things is affected by what we actually think of it or believe. We presume things that are believable and think everyone sees what I see. He pointed out, "all images are manmade"(98). Because a picture even the simplest hasbeen given by men many interpretations. The way an image is represented also affects of ways of seeing the real image. Peaple add assumptions many concerning, beauty, civilization, and so on. Berger says these assumptions, "they mistify rather than clarify"(99). After an image has been seen we seem to situate ourselves in them. We are shown pictures of the past and some how we situate ourselves in the past so if we to be kept from seeing this important images its like stealing us the right to know. We accept these mistification of images because like Berger agrees, "we still live in a society of coparable social relations and moral values"(102). Then the camera came and seemed to destroy or rebuilt these mistifications. Now the idea of images were timeless. And that affected the way men saw. Now paintings sometimes have words attached to them to add value. The invisible power of a picture of the past is to share historical experience, "that is to say that experience of seeking to give meaning to our lives, of trying to understand the history of which we can become the active agents"(118). Berger concludes that wher we situate ourselves in history we make the entire past a political issue.

Ways of Seeing

There are a set of commercials that I have seen recently that feature young artists. One is of a young man who is making copies of classical paintings and adding his own personal twist. He is taking paintings by artists like James McNeill Whistler and Norman Rockwell and putting them into a context that he can care about. Basically he is taking classical paintings like the famous portrait of Whistlers mother (an old lady in a rocking chair, at the Louvre in Paris France) and changing the subjects ethnicity to something other than white. His reasoning's being that its hard for people to care about art that they cant relate to, and if all of the subjects are white and your not its hard to relate to. This relates to what John Berger is saying in "Ways of Seeing" in so many ways.

First the "cultural mystification" of the past. All of the paintings that this young man is repainting represent the white monopoly on contemporary and classical art. All of the paintings are so well known that even if you cant remember the name of the painting you could still recognise it. By repainting them with subjects that he can recognise and relate to he is creating a new interpretation of the paintings. He is also contributing to the appeal of the paintings by widening the range of its audience. This in turns challenges the notion of art being for a privileged minority.

So how did this young man achieve this, did he spend countless hours in museum observing the works of the masters, probably not. The increasing availability of prints is what helped him to create his own unique versions of well known works of art. But is also the way that a lot of us are exposed to classical art now, be the reproduction form a text book a warped add in a magazine.

The meat of Berger's argument in Ways of Seeing is that art is not what it used to be. The way that we see things has changed significantly in the last century. Part of this change involves photography and the ability to replicate great works of art, and provide it to the general masses who would have not normally been exposed to such things. The meaning of these works of art are changing in two ways, first the meaning that they convey to the audience is changing. Partially because our own way of thinking about things has changed so much in the past century and because of the wider audience that now have access to such work. Then there is the monetary value of the paintings that is changing. The appeal of the actual physical work is not longer the value, its the pedigree of the work that is becoming important. Berger warns us to not let art be a thing of the privileged few, that art is a thing for all classes of people.

A Way of Viewing “Ways of Seeing”

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

Photo

Ryan W

Word count

(824)

  "Photo"

In “On Photography,” Susan Sontag maps out chronological events in photography from the early 1900s to today.  She discusses the different uses of photography and photographic images and how they’ve changed over time.  Sontag introduces the subject by saying “Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality than anyone can make or acquire” (4).  Photographs are history; they’re records, hard evidence that show a glimpse of something or someone at the moment in time in which the photograph was taken.

 

Sontag notes that often we see photographs as proof of something we’ve heard but haven’t quite believed.  She challenges the idea a photo represents truth when she talks about photographers such as Dorothea Lange taking dozens of pictures of a subject “until satisfied that they had gotten just the right look on film” (6).  She says photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings or drawings.

 

 

Over time, photography has gone from something that required patience, time and money to something used by almost everyone.  Sontag states that family households with children are twice as likely to have a camera; “not to take pictures of one’s children…is a sign of parental indifference” (8). 

 

Sontag says that “most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter.”  I feel that the other side of the story would be that taking a photograph may lessen the moment at the time, such as if you’re making people pose – but if you’re taking a picture of an object you can capture the image in less a second and you can still appreciate the object after you’ve taken the picture.  One might feel that taking an action shot of a animal or a similar situation takes away from the moment, but taking a photograph can help keep your mind from distorting the image from what you wanted to see to what you did see.  A photograph can also make that moment immortal because you always have that picture; you can keep it in an album with all of your memories (or “slices of time” as Sontag calls them), and you can show all your friends.  A good example of this is National Geographic – the  photographs in this magazine share and make tangible moments that readers would otherwise never know had existed. 

 

Sontag goes on to quote Diane Arbus, a photogragher who stated that she always thought of photography as “taboo”, and that’s why she liked it.  Sontag responds that “using a camera is not a very good way of getting at someone sexually” because “there has to be distance” between the photographer and the subject (13).  On a blind date, you don’t start taking pictures of the person you’re seeing;  you want to be close and sensual to that person, not distance yourself from them.

 

On page 7 Sontag introduces a theme that runs throughout her paper; “There is an aggression implicit in every use of the camera.”  On page 14 she talks further about how people can get “trigger happy”, so to speak.  She makes a comparison between a camera and a gun, and says that the “camera is sold as a predatory weapon.”  I think an example of this would be the paparazzi, skewing the truth by taking hundreds of pictures and usually picking the most controversial.  Sontag continues “…there is something predatory in the act of taking a picture.  To photograph people is to violate them… it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed” (14).  I’ve heard that some cultures believe that photographing a person is to steal a part of that person’s soul. 

 

I do not think of this as true but our culture is a little more caught up in a picture-frenzy than some.  Taking lots of photographs helps establish social networking and identify oneself with others; examples of this might be facebook and myspace.  People sometimes put erotic, almost pornographic pictures of themselves on these sites.  This is another example of a camera being used like a weapon, but in this case people are choosing to hurt themselves with it.

 

Sontag  discusses how photographs taken in war can provoke “moral outrage” and cause political action.  But the more violent or pornographic images we see, the less shocking they become and the more it becomes okay.  This can numb our society and actually prevent action. 

 

Sontag concludes this paper with the idea that “photography implies that we know about the world if we accept it as the camera records it.  But this is the opposite of understanding…” (23).  Sontag argues that true understanding only comes through questioning something, not just accepting what it looks like on the surface.  She leaves us with the idea that our culture is made of “image-junkies” – “having an experience becomes identical with taking a photograph of it” (24).

Linda Segar "Creating the Myth"

The Blogger Myth

The myth so happens the be that this article was fulfilling, meaningful, or at least mildly entertaining. Segar has managed to do nothing more than walk the reader through a step by step process of what the reader probably already knows about what they like to see in a movie. One could not promote this article as clever unless they broke down the movie "Eight Legged Freaks," and convinced the reader why they might enjoy that "Myth."
I wonder if Segar truly understands what a "Myth" is. Yes a myth is typically a story that may have little truth or reality; however breaking down the typical storyline, buildup, or character growth does not entitle one to entitle a section of your essay the "Hero Myth." Myth is thrown in so often to this article that I have tendency to seriously doubt Segar.
Now after sadly attempting to discredit Segar, I will attempt to do so further. Although she did use the best storyline ever created within the movie industry (yes ladies and gents that is Star Wars), She could have simply called her article "A Break Down of How Star Wars Plot, Ideas, and Growth Should be Emulated Throughout All Movies." One does wonder though, if perhaps her husband made her watch the series just one too many times, she snapped and decided to write about it, and near put me to sleep. "In Star Wars, the first time we see Luke Sky-walker, he's unhappy about having to do his chores, which consists of picking out some new droids for work." Well 'Dr. Phil,' whatever shall we do with this character? Oh I know, how about a ten part break down of how a typical character develops in a movie plot line, based off Star Wars with a few simple story line add ins.
Segar finishes her article with a grand send off how how we the reader can apply all the idea's we have just learned into our own writing. Recommendation... "it's not a bad idea to reread some of Grimm's fairy tales or fairy tales from around the world to begin to get acquainted with various myths." In a culture saturated with the love of myths, I thank you for your stroke of genious Segar.

Creating the myth

Why do some stories capture our imaginations, while others don't? Why do some heroes inspire while others annoy? Linda Seger has an idea about that and she shares her formulas for creating heroes that people love in this selection Creating the Myth from Making a Good Script Great.


To begin Seger describes the myth as, "the story beneath the story". Despite cultural back grounds and geographical separation, the myth is universal. It speaks to us all on the most basic human levels. A good story be it a movie, comic, or book will incorporate the different aspects of myths.


The central and most important part of all myths is the hero. After all without Jason there would be no reason for the Argonauts to set sail. Without the hero there is no story. Seger has a formula form making heroes. In a nut shell Seger's formula is to first introduce the hero before he is a hero, in his average surroundings. This is so that we can sympathise with the pre-hero. Next introduce something wild into the hero's mundane life, and give his something to fight for too. Now we the audience get to sit back and watch the pre-hero blossom into a eral hero.

The introduction of the hero as just another average Jo is very important; its part of the reason why we care so much about the hero. They are a direct reflection of us, they could have been us. By watching our once normal heroes do great things, we realize that we to can do great things. That's why Spiderman is a better hero that Superman. We can all relate to Peter Parker in a way that we never could to Clark Kent. Its also why Batman is a better hero that Wounder woman. Even though Bruce Wane is an over achieving rich boy we appreciate is lack of super powers. Wounder Woman on the other hand is totally alien. Not many of us share the experience of growing up on an island with a bunch of Amazons.

There are two types of myth searching and healing. In the old myths that involve a search there is always something to go get. Some very physicalobject that must be attained. A lot of modern day comics still involve the search myth but instead of the exterior physical object, they are searching for an intangible idea. They wish to rid the city of crime, this is something that is an interior search. The second myth is the healing myth where the hero starts out broken and the trials he faces heal him. Love is a strong force in the healing myth. The Punisher is a good example of a broken hero in a healing myth. It this type of myth is not the heroes average Jo background the we sympathise with its his hurt and loss. After all if you can make the Punisher cry about his girlfriend, then maby you don't need to feel so bad about shedding tears for your own hurt. Just please refrain form blowing John Travolta up.

The formula is not set in stone, and there are good stories out there that may only contain small amounts of it, but that's sort of the point. Seger is not asking us to just keep remaking the same old myhts. She is offering a way to make an ok story great, by giving it more depth and meaning.