Ways of Seeing

I was initially intrigued by Ways of Seeing by John Berger, and thought that the author had some good insights. The first essay was definitely the most powerful. Not only did it cause me to take time and reflect on his ideas regarding perspective, but it also helped me to form my own ideas about perspective and art. However, as the essays continued, I became upset with many of his extreme generalizations, especially those regarding gender.
I do agree with that idea that touch is a way to relate oneself to another being or object. However, to me, touch is also a way of reassuring yourself that someone or something is present. It is a powerful way to physically reach out for support. When someone is uneasy, or excited, they may grab or touch someone to solidify the excitement, or make sure they are in touch with reality.
Regarding perspective, every piece of art represents a different perspective. In this way, every piece of art is unique in that no piece of art can suggest the same point of view. While two artists could take a picture of the same buildings, chances are the photographs will be different. Each artist is evoking his/her own perspective, and bringing his/her own experiences, and taste into his/her work.
Compared to literature, in my mind, images are far richer. However, images are not necessarily more precise. Images can carry ideas, and present much more details than literature. They can also hold much more mystery, and in turn be open for more diverse interpretations. In this way, I see literature as being more precise, but in turn, far less intriguing.
I definitely agree with Berger in that when observing art, one does not just view it; one becomes a part of it. In this way, art is powerful in that it can transform people like no other media. Vision is also one of our strongest senses, and has a tendency to override, and capture the other senses. Therefore, by looking at art, not only are we psychologically transporting ourselves there, but our sense are helping is to make that journey as well.
Context can greatly skew one’s understanding of art. By placing an image in a series, the subsequential images can completely change the meaning of the previous piece. The other images can suggest ideas, and attitudes that would not have been found in the original work or art. The location of the work can also change one’s meaning or perception. For example, if one sees am image in a museum versus in someone’s basement. The image set in the museum may be taken slightly more seriously, and in turn, setting itself up for more serious interpretation.
In regard to objects of the past, they are undoubtedly very important. By becoming a part of one’s culture’s past is a very powerful way to connect with and understand that culture. I’ve noticed that even when I’m walking around the buildings historic St. Mary’s I feel as if I have a better understanding of history. I feel as if I have a much stronger understanding of the past even by just being around physical objects that were once used by people also living on the St. Mary’s river.
As far as social status, Berger seems to ask us to whom art belongs. Does it belong to people who can actually relate to art in less sophisticated way, or professionals who are trained to dissect art? In this way, I think that the camera’s ability to reproduce art is very powerful. I can bring art to more than one group of people. While some people may place importance of art on the original work, others are just happy to have the image present in their lives. For example, when I buy a poster of a famous work of art, I still find myself equally as taken aback by the meaning, and influence on the image. Berger claims that even though much or art is able to reach the masses, the majority of people remain apathetic. While this may be the case to some extent, I do not think that one should assume that the few who are interested, belong to the group of art specialists.
The statements about gender were rather upsetting, and extreme. In many cases, the ideas that he had about women could easily apply to men. For example, the idea that how a woman appears to a man will determine how she will be treated. I think this idea could be characterized as prejudice, which is not limited to women by any means. A man dressed in a nice business suit is sure to be treated differently than a man wearing a sweatshirt who looks of a lower class. Berger stated his idea that women checking to make sure their actions are permissible. However, women, men, and children are also supposed to follow societal norms. I do agree that women’s actions are definitely more severely analyzed than those of men. On the other hand, Berger seemed to claim that all women were primarily concerned with the way they appear, and woman themselves are the ones doing the scrutinizing. I do not agree with this at all. I believe the majority of women are comfortable with themselves, and are not constantly checking themselves to make sure they are in line.