#ways_of_seeing

[photographyatmit]

BlogPost #9.1

“…as though pictures were words, rather than holy relics”. I love this sentence by John Berger. Treating pictures as a language, contorted to context and subjection rather than mysterious and hard to fathom icons. He states how paintings lost uniqueness with photography, and had to replace it with mysticism and false value. Emphasis is no longer on the emotion or declaration but on originality. This is most clear with the children’s analysis of Caravaggio’s Supper at Emmaus.

But there is a paradox here. We reject the art expert’s take due to generalization and added mysticism and conclude that art is akin to words. But we cannot fully accept pictures and art in general as a language. Art is vague, subjective and hence innately mystified. The innate mysticism helps different perspectives connect with it, because they can be subjective. The added mysticism that we rejected from “art experts”, I believe, is an effect of the innate mysticism; when a painting can have so many meanings, it allows taking a specific one to the extreme and generalizing it. A solo un-mystified analysis is only possible if we could fathom the uncertainty in our views, but we can’t. Therefore, we can only remove uncertainty with discussions with multiple perspectives. However, we don’t need discussion to un-mystify what “tree” means in the English language.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #9-1

I was intrigued by the ideas and discussions presented in the first episode of Ways of Seeing and how they provoked me to think about art, its reproduction and its value differently. I found myself agreeing with Burger on how value of art is often determined by its reproducibility, making an "original" painting much more valuable than a reproduced artwork. To me this definition of value feels artificial, as it steals the spotlight from the art itself to its uniqueness. I personally find the value of an artpiece proportional to its "art" and not its uniqueness. This way, an artwork can reach a much greater audience and live in many different forms than to be restricted to only one vessel. More so, I believe that with reproduction comes collaboration. Artists can share their own vision on a reproduced artpiece whereas a unique artwork will remain as is forever. Apart from that, I enjoyed is how Burger also sheds light on the irreplaceability of the experience; how the environment where an artwork is presented alters audience's perception of it. While I agree with Burger that one now can alter the meaning of art by changing the environment where and how its presented, I find this to do more good than bad. Once again, this freedom allows other artists, even the audience, to view art in a different light, which I find inspiring.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #9-1

In Ways of Seeing, John Berger discussed the relationship between original paintings and their reproductions in images and films. The use of a camera allows people to see what is not right in front of them. Another reality can be briefly captured and shared with those who would never otherwise have that experience. There are of course limitations in this, such that the camera cannot capture the entire scene, the sounds, the atmosphere, and the moment before or after the shot. Nonetheless images can be vastly spread for viewers to see in a wide variety of settings. Printed pictures of paintings for example allow people to see them anywhere rather than a specific location where the original artwork remains. 

However, Berger noted that images of paintings lose some of the unique features of the originals, distorting them. The original painting still holds value and authenticity that pictures cannot reproduce. This is evident in people going to visit art museums to see paintings rather than the lower effort alternative of looking them up online in a digital catalog. There is something magical and breathtaking for some in seeing a famous piece of art in real life instead of through a lens or screen. 

Berger also talked of the experience of seeing a painting hanging on the wall silent and still. When paintings are shown in film, that aspect is often lost through the movement of the camera and music or narration playing over it. Details are focused on so the audience can see the highlights or perhaps more interesting points on the canvas. Meanwhile the tone is set through the choice of music that may accompany the video, changing the viewer’s perspective by adding an unconscious bias. While these additions may help to get the filmmaker’s opinion across, it does not match the authentic experience of someone forming their own thoughts in seeing an artwork in silence and stillness, 

I particularly enjoyed the scene of Ways of Seeing where the children reviewed Caravaggio’s work. Without any knowledge of this artist’s life, they picked up on the ambiguity of the central figure’s sexuality, which was purposefully not obvious. The kids had other thoughts that perhaps the food was stolen or the middle person was Jesus or a woman about to be kissed by the other men in the painting. Each viewer had their own unique opinions, showing that art can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, whether that be the intention of the artist or not. 

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #9-1

John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing” discusses the evolution of art due to the impact of photography – the way people see art is different now. He claims that people no longer view art in a “natural” way because of how common it has become to see art in settings outside of its “intended environment” with photography and technology. Before cameras were made, people enjoyed and analyzed what they saw in front of them but now that pictures are available everywhere, we are able to see things far away by zooming in and view places we have never been to by searching online. People are able to see things outside of their original setting. I found this interesting as I didn’t notice that it wasn’t doing the art justice. When I see pictures of places I’ve never been to, I still find beauty in it and wish to be there one day. When I am looking at art or scenery, I also try to photograph it but if I didn’t have any form of camera on me, I would definitely spend more time analyzing and admiring what is in front of me. 

John Berger also mentions the reproducibility of images with cameras. He claims that paintings and sculptures are now “forms of information” because of the context they are placed in and the meaning of the art is altered. He is not a fan of the change in meaning and the people who claim reproductions as their own. I agree with the fact that the ability to share pictures of art decreases its uniqueness. However, I am not too sure that it decreases the value. I think pictures as a “form of information” is also valuable and alterations like photoshop and editing are also forms of creative art. The editor is inputting their style and increasing value by making it relevant in different settings. 

[photographyatmit]

Blog post #9-1

Concerning "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger, I found the clip with the collage of the childrens' art next to replicas impactful. Often times society places more value (monetary and cultural) on paintings by talented/experiences/successful artists - like Leonardo and Monet. Yet, when childrens' art is placed right next to reproductions, the placement questions the viewer to decide which has more value. Should the viewer prioritize 'lesser quality' originals or 'higher quality' reproductions? Both are symbolizing the human experience in their own way. Yet, the difference is in seeing the exact brush/crayon/pencil strokes and seeing a copy of it. One is unique and the other is not. But I don't believe the reproduction's lack of uniqueness diminishes its meaning. In fact, it can create a larger meaning and a greater piece of art. For example, the world is now a collage of the re-contextualized piece of art: the artwork is now a repeated nuance of the world. Since the piece of art has been re-contextualized so much, it now helps tell the story of humanity - and humanity is now inside of the artwork. In this way, the piece of art can now live many more lives. A reproduction may not have the history the original does, but it has the opportunity to create its own in a way the original cannot.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #9-1

The first episode of Ways of Seeing by John Berger makes me think about the changing concept of reproducibility in art with technology. Consider forms of art like oil paintings. As Berger talks about, any attempt to reproduce it fails to match because of the fundamental knowledge that only one of the painting was ever painted. Even if the same artist makes a second attempt, it is a different piece of art. But if you consider a more modern form of art, this limitation does not exactly apply. Consider photography. Once the photo is captured in the film or digital sensor, the variables of the scene and the photographer’s vision is frozen. One one can develop multiple copies of it- each representing the same art. Same with other digital arts too.

At the same time, I cannot help but think about what it does to the value of the art. Are oil paintings more valuable than photographs just because they cannot be replicated? Given the difference in price for which paintings are sold in comparison to photos, it does seem to be the case somewhat.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost 9-1

"Ways of Seeing" raised a number of points on the modern perception of art as it relates to the idea of recontextualization. The digital age has enabled the unprecedented reproduction of images originally intended to be static; these copies now roam the internet to be viewed anywhere. The act of seeing paintings outside of the religious or museum contxts for which they were intended has altered the fundamental relationship between art and subject. Personally, I thought that the discourse on demystifying art was quite interesting, as it's true that we are encouraged to perceive art as something wholly other than our everyday experience, although it often depicts things familiar to us. The idea that seeing a reproduction of a work is significantally inferior to seeing the real ting is also of interest; while sometimes I feel that a sense of depth and immediacy is lost in reproducing an image, often (especially for works produced in antiquity) I am just as satisfied looking at a reproduction as I am in looking at the original. It is true that the artistry is often easier to recognize when one is able to see the individual brushstrokes, or examine the texture the goauche leaves on the paper. I think that the inclusion of the discussion with the children at the end also highlighted an aspect of art that we are persuaded to leave behind as we age, which is the joy that can be found in relating art to our personal experiences. Through the lens of school and academia, we are pushed towards the assumption that all art has one specific and correct interpretation, even though that kind of thinking makes art feel much more inaccessible. Just as much pleasure can be derived just simply from freely associating the work with whatever your brain conjures; after all, art is an incredibly individual experience.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #9-1

Berger's "Ways of Seeing" examined the ways that the camera has changed the way humans view art, especially paintings from long before the inception of photography. It is a story of reproduction and perception.

He first discusses how photography no longer makes the physical location and context of a work of art fixed. This is one of the major ways that photography potentially compromises the "uniqueness" of a work of art, as the place that it was fixed in can be a significant source of meaning (the wall of chapel, for instance). As Berger says, there is no longer a need for "pilgrimage" -- religious or otherwise -- as the painting comes to you.

Another theme was how reproduction naturally lends itself to the commoditization of art -- not only because a large or far away painting can now be easily packaged and sold, but also because the combination of reproductions and time create a market value, or premium at least, on what are deemed to be the authentic paintings.

Overall, I really enjoyed how Berger alternated between laying arguments and showing demonstrations and examples of how cameras can distort a piece of art, whether by cropping or by distorting with sound in the Caravaggio example.

Lastly, my personal favorite quote from the episode was when Berger described the quality of certain works as being that of a "corridor," connecting the moment the painting describes to the moment that you, the viewer, is currently in. I think it captures what I like most about many of my favorite paintings.