So I thought I would open up a new post for you guys to add your thoughts on the John Berger film "Ways of Seeing" that we watched in class last week. Normally if you would like to begin a new topic you can create a separate post(using the new post link on the navigation bar on the top of the web site when you are logged in.) For responses to specific films or readings I will try to post something that you can comment to.
Feel free to point out what you do and don't agree with in Berger's film. How do you think electronic media has changed our view of painting. Do you think what he is saying is important to our understanding or ultimately trivial? How would Berger's idea about television compare to viewing a painting on the internet? Feel free to expand on these ideas or add others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I thought the Berger had a lot of valid points that he made throughout his film, even though he got a little repetitive. I'm not sure that I agreed with his point that as an original piece of art is copied over and over it becomes less important, I guess I just don't think it matters. I feel like in order to continue creating new things we must be able to pull inspiration from everything in our world, which includes original pieces of art. To me, in Berger's film, he is looking at technology as the bad guy and art as some kind of sacred thing that can only be viewed in its original form, but to me technology and art are the same thing. One is not more important than the other.
Berger does definitely hit on many points and he does repeat them over and over again, but one point that he made stood out to me, "everything around the image is part of its meaning, its uniqueness is part of the uniqueness of the single place that it is." when i was younger i got drug around france (i didnt know how cool it was at the time) and i saw all these old museums and even the mona lisa and the David statue. Just simple postcards or pictures in text books of these two major icons cant really do the real things justice, because Berger is right-the place where David stands adds to its amazingness. you cant get the whole effect by looking at photos. Honestly, sometimes the photo does it for me and i couldnt be less interested in seeing a piece of art for real but then there are others that deserve to be seen in person-just so one can have that intimate experience with it-like seeing the cracking and glazed oils, seeing its size compared to you, and just other little details that a text book could never give to you. okay i just blabbered on there -sorry c:
also berger's voice is very hypnotizing- after watching it again on youtube i was in an odd trance of sleepiness and puzzlement
Berger did make some valid points. I especially liked how he demonstrated how subtle things such as music can effect how one views a painting. However, I agree with Natalie in that I'm not sure I really agree that the value of an original painting is lessened when it is copied again and again. Take the Mona Lisa, we have seen the image many times throughout our lives in things like books, or on tv, or even on coffee mugs etc. But I don't think that would take away from getting to see the original painting in person.
I also disagree with Berger when he says that an original work of art loses its value the more it is reproduced. While it's true that the atmosphere surrounding the original definitely plays a role in how special an in-person viewing would be, just the sheer fact that an image has been reproduced gives that image power. If more people are able to view a painting, then that painting's ability to affect people is stronger. Reproducing an artwork only emphasizes how important and revered the piece is, which makes the act of seeing it in person that much more desirable. Seeing a painting by an obscure artist in person could be a worthwhile experience, but getting the chance to see a painting that is world renown would be better.
i agree with Emma, and Berger when they say that what is around the piece changes the way its perceived. i dont know about anyone else, but in my classes whenever we hang up our work teachers often emphasize the space in the room so we can all spread our pieces out without anyone elses effecting the viewer when they critique it. its the same thing as what Berger is saying, to me. also, rachel took the words right out of my mouth when she said that reproducing art makes it so much more desirable to see in person, to say that you have seen it, to see every detail that you know a postcard can't show.
It's funny that most of these comments focus on the part of the video that addressed art that is "lessened" when copied, but my overall response to the video had more to do with the title and the "Way We See" literally.
I think that Berger is making a point that when art is taken out of its original context, it can be interpreted differently than it was in its original setting. Whether lighting is different, sound is different, or any other factors, the way we perceive things change depending on the setting which is affected by the things around us and more personally, our background knowledge that we bring to the table.
Some would say that a work has "lesser value" when taken out of its original context, but I believe Berger was just using this as an example, saying that this perception is POSSIBLE, but not true for everyone.
Although some of the points that were repeated a hundred times were valid, they were definitely outdated. Why does he only mention painting? A reproduction of a sculpture or installation seems like it would be altered more so. You can't see a three dimensional object the same way in a photo, and the intention of an installation is to transform the environment around it, but in a photo the environment disappears and your perception and assumptions of what exists becomes fact.
Also, before photography people would travel to see art and they would tell others about it forming preconceived notions and their own ideas, so isn’t this the same thing? Can't hearing about something altar the meaning as well?
I don't think that reproductions of art lessens it value or ruins the concept because it is still art, and painting isn't looked down upon because of it. We all perceive things differently, which is why I thought this movie was interesting for five minutes. Ps, don’t read this, I rambled about nonsense.
Well, I read what you had to say, Joseph, and I thought you brought up a good point about the film only considering the value of a painting, when there is a whole other realm of different ways of producing art that could become altered through reproductions and that could have questionable values over time. I think that reproducing a painting is so common; we see them numbers of times in the art world--like how the Mona Lisa was mentioned earlier, and also the American Gothic painting. But I agree, I think no matter how someone perceives an image or piece of art--through interpreting it with a copy, or through hearing something about it--it can be altered in a way. When you hear so much about something and there is so much hype over something, that can have an effect on its value.
I really agreed with Berger on a lot of points, actually. I think that obviously the way we see and interpret art is completely changed by the context, and I do not see this as necessarily being a bad thing. I think it's great that art is available to everybody these days, it really takes it off of its pedestal. It can encourage and inspire people. It's really sort of a teaser to see a postcard or a picture in a book of a work of art, it makes me personally want to see it even more in person. I know from experience that a picture cannot do a work of art justice. In the same way, reading a simple description might get a person's hopes up, only to be disappointed on actual viewing.
i agree with the video man, that a setting can change the meaning of art, or anything really. Meaning only exists within a context, so it seems logical that when its context is changed, its meaning is changed also.
Oh man...kind of wrote what I felt about the movie on my other response...Yeah anyway...besides almost the same points as the other response, I felt that this video got pretty repetitive and I got the point much earlier. Art is not a simple "what you see is what you get", but more of a product of judgment based on our own way of wanting to see things.
Post a Comment