Ways of Seeing

Berger’s book Ways of Seeing is an intriguing and interesting text; however, it is somewhat narrowly focused and very opinion based. Maybe I feel this way because every definition of art is an opinion, every thought is a view. There really is not right or wrong answer when it comes to art. It is all a matter of perception.

I agree with some of Berger’s views and disagree with others. When I read the quote “Every image embodies a way of seeing. Even a photograph” I thought about the goals that we try to achieve when we create a piece of art. Every artist has something that they want to depict, and certain ways that they want their spectators to view the piece. Hence, every image does embody a way of seeing in that it leads the viewer to interpret the piece in a certain way.

I found this evident when Berger discusses the female, her purpose, and her relation in artwork. Initially, I greatly disagreed with him when he began to discuss that the female was primarily concerned with her appearance to others, especially men. However, after reading further and viewing the artwork he was discussing I realized that societally, that is what was expected of European women for many generations. The European artists of past centuries were primarily male, and their goal was to represent the female subject as their property in a sense. The common view was that woman were there to provide for men, both visually and physically in the sexual and home sense. As Berger says, “ The surveyor of women in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object […]” (47). In the European art of past centuries, it is true that women in many painting appear this way, as an object. The artists decided to depict women in this fashion, and thus the images embody the views that the artists had when making the pieces. However, this point is as far as I agree with Berger’s view on women.

I have serious reservations with his other points on the female gender, and to the extent that he believes them to be true. Berger discusses the female as if she actually sees herself as an object, and acts accordingly. One of these such statements seriously bothers me: “ By contrast, a woman’s presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her” (46). He sees the female subject as if her intentions are always somehow related to men. He expresses this view particularly on page fifty-five when he compares two works: one a painting, the other a photograph in a magazine. Berger believes that both women are responding as if a man is looking at them. I believe that to be entirely untrue. Maybe the first one may seem that way, but the second I believe to reverberate the power and beauty of the female, not the influence of the male on her decision. The model seems to be comfortable with and love her body. This has no connection to impressing a man. She could be trying to impress a man in some sense, but I strongly doubt that was her focus as she was posing for the photograph. Even though I disagree with Berger’s view it is also important to note that Berger does come from a time period when men were viewed to be better and more perfect than women. This view is obviously reflected in his personal interpretation and perspective of artwork.

Another point where I seriously disagree with Berger is that relating to the context of images. Berger believes that mass copying and reproduction of original works has obscured the meaning of the original work and ruined its meaning and significance. I do not believe that photography and the mass production of images has ruined or lessened the quality in which people view art. Instead, the different contexts just provide different meanings. Seeing Van Gogh’s Starry Night at home may conjure of images of the stars and relaxation, while viewing the original work in the museum may inspire more of an awe and curiosity. Neither reaction is wrong, just different. The original work’s meaning is not obscured or lost, it is just appreciated in a different way. Perhaps Berger believes the meaning of the work becomes lost because he believes the work to have one purpose. I however, do not. I believe that part of what makes art so timeless and special is its ability to always relate to its viewer. It is meant to be interpreted. And in fact, when an original work is copied or photograph, each new image is in itself a new work of art. The meaning and purpose is now altered to fit the views of the new artist. The meaning of the original work is not lost. That piece is still alive. It is just that the reproduction, the work of art, has a new meaning, a new context, and a new interpretation. Therefore, just because Starry Night is viewed at home, on notebooks, in books, and on posters does not mean that the original piece is any less special, it just means that the artwork has evolved, has become new again, and is appreciated in new ways.

One last point of Berger’s that bothers me is his discussion of art relating to class and his focus on European and modern works. Berger’s argument has a serious blind spot in that it focuses mostly of the European artwork designed for the upper class. However, art is not limited to this small view. Art spans so much greater than Berger discusses. Many ancient cultures have ornately decorated ceramic bowls and architecture. None of these pieces or art are discussed or evaluated. Berger also does not consider the fact that lower classes also had their own forms of art in Europe. These pieces of art just have not been as well preserved or as often discussed. Also, the focus and appreciation of photography as a form of art is also limited. Berger focuses mostly on paintings, which are such a small section of the artistic world.

Berger has many interesting views and his impressions make the reader consider the purpose and meaning of art. His focus is quite limited and his societal and personal views strongly affect his critique. However, a very important point to note with art is that each individual perceives it differently, and that no one view is better than another. The beauty of art is that it is forever changing and evolving, both in purpose and design. Each piece of artwork is constantly gaining new meanings and perspectives with each new viewer. Art is human expression and perception, and thus it develops and evolves with us.