Ways of Seeing

“Every image embodies a way of seeing. Even a photograph."

Works of art are thought to be unique pieces, with each one displaying something that no other piece displays in the same manner, even if the subject of each painting is similar. Why should this be so? Simply put, how it is viewed can change the meaning of the piece entirely. The audience that views the piece could see many different subtexts or read the context differently, so that each person sees a slightly different work of art. This is the theme of Berger’s Ways of Seeing, which made me realize what goes through the artist’s mind as a piece of art is being created.

Early on Berger explains how current methods of reproducing images and objects make the meaning of an original work of art change. Paintings used to be valuable because they were one-of-a-kind masterpieces, though the meanings also added to the value. Today, being the original doesn’t mean much since thousands of copies can be made and sold. Does the viewer’s perception of the painting change because it is a reproduction? Outside of a collector’s standpoint, the original is no more than a master copy.

So how should one see a painting? Personally, I think that this started the shift to “deep meaning” art, where the artwork itself might not be masterful, but could even be mediocre, as long as the audience saw some meaning in the piece. This is why paintings of geometric shapes can sell. The skill level required to paint squares is third-grade at most, but what if the artist injected a hidden message into the piece, intentional or otherwise? Then, and only then, does it become a work of art. Thus, the way of seeing for these works of art defines the painting, instead of the painting helping to define the way of seeing.

Berger also covers the mindset behind the theme of the European nude. The preceding chapter is a “silent” chapter which only shows pictures of several unclothed women, but the next chapter is intended to reveal what the pictures truly mean to show. In these cases the audience is almost always directly addressed; the woman depicted looks towards the audience as she presents herself towards, we assume, the man. Berger makes the point that “men act and women appear” and that men look at women, but women watch themselves being watched. Thus it makes sense in the context of nudes that the intended way of seeing is that of a man. Berger also asks the reader to imagine the pieces of art shown with the women replaced by men. Naturally, this leads to what most would consider "more than disturbing mental images." I think the point there is that men aren't meant to be put on display like the feminine nude portrayed in those works.

Berger’s book has changed my way of seeing very much. As my mother is a painter specializing in murals and Trompe L’Oeil, I’ve seen how the art can force a way of seeing upon the audience or let them have many different perspectives for each part of the painting. Now I can see why this is so. Art is a relationship between the artist and the audience with the art acting as a medium to exchange meaning and feelings. An artist, when painting, may ask himself “what do I want to tell people through this?” and a person may look at that painting and ask “what is the artist trying to tell me?” The painting holds the answers, and they can only be found through a way of seeing.