Ways of Seeing

I thought Berger’s interpretations of reproduced artwork were very interesting. However I don’t feel that original artworks are less special than they once were, or that they are reduced to simply the value of an “original.” Their message may be broadcasted through photo reproductions, but there is nothing as magical as being enveloped by artwork. Small photos cannot recreate the size and awesomeness of a painting, and the brush strokes, pencil lines, or any small artist touches are most certainly lost in a photograph (especially a black and white photo). Berger touches on this point too: “In a painting all its elements are there to be seen simultaneously” (26).

I disagree with him that paintings lose their authority through reproduction, and I do not feel that paintings become subverted or more accessible. Some paintings are reproduced often, but I have never felt terribly connected with a thumbnail of a reproduced painting. I can’t experience a painting through a slideshow or a book, and I think that many people feel the same. Reproduced paintings kind of slide through my memory, but I don’t relate to them or feel that I can truly experience them in a copied form. I think that many people learn about paintings or see them through advertisements, (as Berger mentions in essay 7) but I don’t think that they produce a lasting, true interpretation and memory that a real painting, drawing, or other artwork evokes.

Berger discusses art’s place in class quite often, and class distinctions have by no means disappeared. While I do believe that it’s true that “high art” has a more common place in the upper class, I think that today art is more universal than it has ever been. I don’t think that traditional art is necessarily more public- meaning the “great oil paintings” of classical Europe- but artwork and creativity are being spread throughout the public. Berger talks about how art was once a way to show what a person owned, to glorify their families, foods, riches, slaves, travels, and property. I think that it’s beautiful that art can now be considered in library books, sidewalk chalk, city murals, street performances, animation, and graffiti. There is still an “upper class” world of oil paintings and museum galleries, but art has become so much more than that, and incredibly more diverse.

Ways of Seeing has a bit of a disturbing view of women in artwork, and in general, and it made me feel uncomfortable. Essay 2 shows traditional and modern interpretations of the “nude,” which Berger goes on to discuss in essay 3. Berger has a very valid point when he discusses the traditional nude in paintings, and how the body language of nudes and their submissive expressions lend to: “She is not naked as she is. She is naked as the spectator sees her” (50). Women in artwork have long been the “objects,” as they were in society. I think that Berger tries to be politically correct by saying that “according to the usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome, the social presence of a woman is different in kind from that of a man” (45).

He attempts to make his following observations seem less sexist. Instead of simply discussing gender roles in paintings and their creation, Berger makes very sexist comments and uses the “authority” of paintings as examples for his ideas. I feel as though he contradicts his earlier denouncement of photo reproductions that use paintings as authority, for it is exactly how he attempts to convince the reader that “Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at” (47). Berger uses several images on pages 50-58 to support this claim. It bothers me that before he even brings these paintings into account, he discusses women’s importance first. He makes the assumption that “to be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men” (46). He doesn’t substantiate this statement with any painted “authority,” and I don’t feel like there is any reason to feel that women are men’s possessions with or without artistic support. I don’t even want to make allowances for Berger because of his “time:” he obviously knew that many people viewed women as equal to men because he tried to pacify them with his opening statements in essay 3. However, he discusses that man’s power and his power over women, but is no longer discussing art for the sake of art in that particular essay.

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.

Ways of Seeing

What struck me the most about John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" was his focus on the spectator. He initially brings up the idea of the spectator in his discussion about women and the ways women are portrayed in art. When discussing women in general, Berger states, "Men survey women before treating them" (46). Berger goes on to discuss women in art, "It is true that sometimes a painting includes a male lover. But the woman's attention is very rarely directed towards him. Often she looks away from him or she looks out of the picture towards the one who considers himself her true lover - the spectator-owner" (56). These two statements indicate that Berger observes women as a "sight" that is there for him to see. However, he clarifies that when observing a painting, a man "can do no more: he is forced to recognize himself as the outsider he is" (58).

Though most topics in "Ways of Seeing" are related in one way or another, I think this topic relates especially well to Berger's analysis of "publicity" at the end of the book. While explaining publicity, Berger says, "publicity is never a celebration of a pleasure-in-itself. Publicity is always about the future buyer...Publicity is about social relations, not objects (132). This immediately reminded me of Berger's earlier statements about women: "If a woman makes a good joke this is an example of how she treats the joker in herself and accordingly of how she as a joker-woman would like to be treated by others. Only a man can make a good joke for its own sake" (47). Putting aside how offensive the latter statement is, both statements express the same general idea. Women and publicity are not art in their own right, they need a spectator to become something. Without a spectator, they cannot become anything.

I think this topic stood out to me because some of Berger's ideas are similar to what I tried to explain in my "what is art?" post. Art could be anything depending on the spectator. Though I do not agree with some of Berger's examples, I agree with his main principles. I enjoyed reading this analysis of art because Berger was able to express some of the ideas I had, but had trouble putting into words.

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.

Ways of Seeing

"Discuss how CONTEXT has an effect on our understanding, our perception of art, of MEANING."

The meaning behind a work of art is dependent on many different aspects: the artist, the viewer, the setting and so on. It all depends on the context in which the artist creates his or her piece of art and when and by whom that work of art is viewed. In John Berger’s Ways of Seeing, he states that “[t]he way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (8). What people know and believe depend on his or her own personal experiences, so the way in which a person sees and understands art varies. Therefore, the context is very important to take into consideration when exploring the understanding and meaning of art.

A good example of how context matters is when Berger discusses the importance of perspective and the invention of the camera. The perspective of the painting or drawing is that of the artist’s, so the artist is the one who creates the viewpoint (16). However, the invention of the camera allowed for everything to be captured, not just what the artist sees (18). Before the camera was invented, people relied on paintings and drawings in order to recreate and depict what they saw. However, all artists have different ideas and likings, so the focal points may vary. For example, if two artists were to be looking at the same landscape, one artist may focus on the texture and arrangement of the trees, whereas another artist may focus on the sky’s intensity. The ability of the artist to direct the focus is evident in the part of the book that discusses nude paintings and drawings. In many of the nude works of art, the artists show the women looking in the direction of who is viewing her to believe that she is nude for him (56). However, there are some artists that have strong bonds with the women that they are painting or drawing, so the attention of the woman is directed to the artist and not the viewer (58). The artist has the greatest influence on what the audience is to focus on in the painting or drawing.

Also, setting should be considered when exploring how context affects the meaning and understanding of art. A work of art created in the 1800s would be understood differently depending on the person, location, and time. If it were in the 1800s, the people of that time would be more familiar with what is being depicted in the painting. However, in today’s society, people who know more about that time would be able to better understand the context and meaning behind that work of art. This does not mean that a person has to know the history behind the work of art in order to appreciate it, but it helps when trying to fully understand that work of art. Thus, when it comes to understanding art, it depends on who created it, who viewed it, and the setting of both.

Ways of seeing

"Discuss how context has an effect on our understanding, our perception of art, of MEANING"







What interested me most about this writing, was the shift from uniqueness that the author alluded to with, "When a camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings" (Berger, 19). This shift from originality, to personal convenience destroys the objects original intrinsic value. It is now within my means to build a doormat with a recreation of the Mona Lisa. Such recreations demonstrate that whatever inherent value such pieces once had, can easily be trumped by those who use it for their own means. So, if a person were to understand art via the context that it has inherent unique qualities, they would reach a vastly different conclusion of the piece than a person who views the item as a tool. This perceptional split is how I evaluated the rest of the book, and defined the context by which are is effected.



Further on in the book, the author explains the setting of a rather graphic painting. The painting is drawn in such a manner as to place the (male) observer in the painting either by "oust(ing) the other man, or else identify(ing) with him" (Berger, 56). Now, a believer in art may view this as an excellent depiction of the males drive for dominance and the beauty of its design. However, place a copy of this in poster form in a male 14 year old's bedroom and it will receive a much different use and appreciation. In each case, both experience a sense of meaning. Although, in the first case the meaning is derived from the art work, while the second meaning is derived for what the art can do for the person.



This dichotomy is further expressed in the reading with, "painting was also an instrument of possession" (Berger, 86). Even the items being drawn were just mere representational items of ownerships, as apposed to their own worth. This conflict of contextual significance continues through out this book, and through out art in general. Depending on the context art is placed, you will subsequently treat it as such.



As for a general reaction to the book, I can appreciate the way he structured the patriarchal response to biblical scripture. All though some may view it as politically incorrect, these opinions he shares are not new. Berger however, manages to deliver them in a way that is fresh, and provides further incite as to how a potential viewer observes/interprets the artwork. As a psychology major, that interested me the most.



Unfortunately as the book continued on, it went through a faze of repetition in which my interest of the "plot" of each painting began to fade. Regardless, John Berger delivered and excellent evaluation of art. He successfully explained a complex subject with minimal confusion.

Response to "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger

My first reaction to the book Ways of Seeing by John Berger was my reaction to the cover art. I was really confused by the images being shown next to unrelated words. The author discusses how this relates to the separation of what we see and what we know, which helps to make the artwork make more sense, as the words and images do not change our opinions of what we already know about them.
When I got to the second chapter of the book, I started to believe the author was portraying a stereotype. The images shown in this chapter were all of women, and were mainly ones concerned with beauty and vanity. This seemed to imply that all women are self-absorbed, and that there aren’t any men who act this way. I went on to read chapter three, and found many other opinions which I felt were jumping to potentially false conclusions about women. For instance, a quote states “To be born a woman has been to be born…into the keeping of men.” So all women have to be dependent on men? I don’t think so. The author then makes some statements about why women act the way they do, which is something I highly doubt that a male author would know the whole truth about. Other parts of this chapter tell about motives for why the artworks were made. The book says that paintings of women portrayed females as objects. These artworks were aimed at a male audience, and the “women are there to feed an appetite, not to have any of their own.” Being a girl, I was pretty disgusted with some of the things said about women, as I definitely do not support the portrayal of women as mere objects. However, I actually could see those as being the painters’ motives. I feel the way women are portrayed today can be the same, as many portraits are ones which focus on a woman’s physical appearance first, putting personality second. Also, I don’t think that many works by female artists were shown in Ways of Seeing.
The book Ways of Seeing discusses many ways in which people can view things, and how this relates to artworks. A person’s sense of touch is one way in which they “see” something. If you touch an object, you gain a way of being able to describe it. You can also compare its feeling and texture to other ones which you are familiar with. It gives us a better sense of understanding something.
Ways of Seeing addresses how art from the past is seen today, and the connection it makes between past and present. I thought that this was really interesting. A painting from many years ago will continue to portray the same scene, but the way in which people look at it can change with time. In this sense, a work of art can be a piece of history, and can give modern people a way to learn more about people from the past. Also, since art is open to interpretation, people can assume it means something completely different from the artist’s original intended meaning.
In the first chapter, Berger states that “Every image embodies a way of seeing. Even a photograph.” I agree with this statement. I have become more interested in photography during the past few years. I feel like photography is an art form, like drawing or painting. The photographer has a vision of what they would like to portray, and has reasons for why they believe their picture will be an effective piece of art, whether it has visual beauty or makes a strong statement.
1. Berger, John. (1972). Ways of Seeing, (pg 46.)
2. Berger, John. (1972). Ways of Seeing, (pg 55.)
3. Berger, John. (1972). Ways of Seeing, (pg 10.)

WAYS OF SEEING

"Discuss how CONTEXT has a effect on our understanding, our perception of art, of MEANING."

The first chapter of John Berger’s Ways of Seeing, I feel, is the most important for an artist to consider. Ways of Seeing suggest many different reasons why pictures were made, for example old oil paintings of female nudity were made for lust, some pictures were made as a show of your possession, pictures made for envy... Whatever reason these pictures were made for, the reading is telling me how to look at it, otherwise I may not have ever looked at the pictures this way. .. The meaning of the picture has been affected.

In the first essay John Berger explains how a work of art is affected by what surrounds it, by words, by other pictures next t oit, whether it’s in a magazine, slideshow, even what kind of music is in the background. He suggests that art rarely ever truly “speaks for itself”. There are examples of this being true throughout the book, like the second essay has one page with pictures of women shown next to pictures of meat; the women have now been given a disturbing meaning to me. And then, later in the book, the pictures of women are changed again: the third essay suggests that a good portion, if not all, oil paintings of women in nude were just for a man’s pleasure. You are then instructed to go back and look at all of the pictures of women and imagine a man in their place. Again, suddenly, all of the pictures I had previously looked at changed meaning. Even the last essay shows how corporations can obscure a picture, and use it to persuade people into buying their product. This can easily be related to our studies on “place”. How each of us interprets the different places depends on our past experiences, what surrounds the area, etc.

One piece of work can be interpreted an infinite number of ways.
So what does that mean for the artist? It means I have to consider my viewer when making a piece. I know how it feels to me, but how can I truly get that meaning across to the viewer? How can I display the Shoe Tree or the Daily Grind to them, the same way I see it and feel its meaning? If it’s on display, do I want it against a white background? Brick? Wood? Should I add words and symbols? This will all affect my picture and I can use such manipulative tools to help give the viewer the affect I want. I also need to consider how will my own picture be manipulated by others? How others see my picture, in the end, depends solely on their past experiences. Will I want to target one specific audience? Or try to keep it open for all to interpret?

A true masterpiece is one, as they say, can stand the test of time. After time, my picture will most likely end up meaning something very different. This is what makes art a living organism. A picture’s meaning is always undergoing constant changes and I will have to accept the inevitable, my piece will become contorted. A true masterpiece is not a picture that might be popular for a short piece of time, but something like a Picasso, a Da Vinci, a Michaelangelo; artist’s who are still famous centuries after their time, despite how often the meanings of their pictures have changed. That is a piece of artwork truly worth making.

Ways of Seeing

“To touch something is to situate oneself in relation to it.”

"Discuss how CONTEXT has a effect on our understanding, our perception of art, of MEANING."


For such a thin book, I feel I have many reflections/responses. Though there were a few arguments that I did not agree with one hundred percent, there were many "eye opening" details throughout it. For example, what struck me as really interesting was the "way" in which we look at things. It is hard to admit, as a person, that when we look at things, we do not always keep an objective eye. When it comes to art, I like to consider myself objective and seeing what is meant to be seen. However, on pages 25-27, Berger reeled home this argument for me. On page 25 there are two pictures. When I look at the picture on the top of the page I do not focus on one person in particular. I take note of all the different people and how they are connected. However, when the bottom picture is only zoomed in on the woman, it looks like a portrait. I then took note of all the detail and beauty that I was missing before. Therefore, when I looked back at the top photo, how I looked at the photo was changed. On page 27 Berger discusses how knowing that a particular painting was Van Gogh's last before he died. Therefore, as the text says, the painting is somehow changed in my mind (though I don't know exactly how it was changed or why, it just was). This particular section was interesting for me because I realized how much our personal opinions, thoughts, and knowledge really affect how we look at something. This fact changes the thought of art for me, in general. Art goes from a picture or sculpture or whatever, to something that we have meaning and a "relationship" with (based on our personal experiences and past).

The argument continued and really stuck out to me on page 51 when Berger discusses a mirror in the naked-woman painting. Because the woman was holing a mirror in picture, it could have been depicted in a number of different ways, for vanity reasons of the woman or because the artist wanted the woman to see herself as a "sight" (51). By simply just changing this particular fact or the way we think about the picture, it can change how we see the painting.
Throughout the entire book, a reoccurring thought kept going through my head. I kept thinking about how we as humans desire to making meaning out of things. When we see a painting or a piece of art we are constantly trying to make meaning and sense of it in our heads. In chapter 4 (with the pictures) there is one particular picture (page 81) that really stands out. I realized that I flipped through the other paintings more quickly because they seemed more obvious or the meaning was not hidden. However, on page 81 the picture of the man through me for a loop because I could not figure out exactly what the picture was. Was it a mirror? But no it couldn't have been because it was the back of the man's head again. I just thought to myself about how much we as humans want to make sense and understand the meaning of art. This took me back to my first paragraph when I commented on the "way" we see things. This brings me back to Berger's point as well that “To touch something is to situate oneself in relation to it.” When it comes to art we are constantly trying to put ourselves in relation with it and we bring our personal experiences to the art, whether we mean to or not.

The final chapter in the book was extremely interesting as well. When Berger discussed publicity and advertisement I saw an overlap with points that had been made earlier in the book. For example, on page 152 the advertisement was very interesting. It was a picture of a woman looking out the window, holding a towel. Out the window the man was looking inside. This was an advertisement for a bath soap. However, earlier in the book, Berger discussed how in much of art the woman is the one that is waiting to be directed and the power was in the man's hand. Though this ad. was for a bath soap, it truly coincided with this idea. The man was looking through the window and his presence was based on his power and his control, making the woman his object. Though I do not necessarily agree with this way of thinking, it is interesting to see an argument or way of thinking about art actually put to use when it comes to advertisement. Again, the book just brings up a change in the way I may look at art, or things in general. It is very striking to me to think about how we think or view things, rather than just simply thinking or viewing them.

The Ways of Seeing: Images and Publicity

“Publicity does not manufacture the dream. All that it does is to produce to each one of us that we are not yet enviable- yet could be.”

Without a doubt, I found the most interesting and thought provoking section of John Berger’s book, The Ways of Seeing, to be the section on art/advertising and publicity. The section starts off by confirming what many of us already know, that we are constantly viewing and are the constant target to public images or publicity (advertising). However, I never thought of how we are really “seeing” this publicity. According to Berger, publicity suggests to each person that his or her life may become more glamorous or enviable if they buy the product. The idea that publicity is the process of manufacturing glamour (131) was an idea that I had been aware of before, but this book really expanded my understanding of this concept.

Berger makes an interesting point when he states that publicity, “…Offers him an image of himself made glamorous by the product or opportunity it is trying to sell. The image makes him envious of himself as he might be” (132). I believe that this section could be used to explain how many of today’s big-name brands use people’s insecurities to make money. Someone who is insecure about their looks may see an advertisement for a beauty product and see how well it worked for the person in the ad, and the insecure person will then see themselves in that same position. However, the person will not really be happy until they buy the product and use it themselves. By doing this, the advertisement’s target has fully bought into what the product has promised- glamour, beauty, and a better life as a result.

After reading this section I came to agree with Berger when he says, “The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life” (142). Of course when we seeing ads we wish we could have what it is showing us; but how can we fight of this publicity guerilla warfare? I think the key lies in understanding where our feelings are coming from, namely insecurities that the publicity touches on. If we understand what will affect us, we can anticipate and be prepared, by doing this we will be “seeing” the true nature of the ad.

One final thing that I thought was very important about this section was how it highlighted how images play a major role in understanding someone’s social status. People are constantly attempting to make their life better in any and all areas especially since everyone wants to appear “glamorous” and enjoy the “good life.” The “glamorous people” rub off these wants/desires onto others who continue the epidemic of images and publicity, because they want the good life too. As Berger says, “Glamour cannot exist without personal social envy being a common and widespread emotion” (148). However, I think that by knowing ourselves, we can control our desires, not the images.

6 Places

ARC:
The ARC, to me, is a work of art in its utilitarian design. It is meant to provide a perfect environment for the perfection of oneself. Its seemingly bland facade and inner design betrays its efficiency and openness. The latter characteristics themselves produce the true art of the ARC; great athletes and their places of honor within our community. It is in the arc where, carefully catalogued, are the great achievers of SMCM athletics. With that emergent force, the ARC becomes charged not only with utilitarian purpose, but a central feature of the Saint Mary's culture of achievment. It is with this place we can show ourselves that more can always within our grasp.

Shoe Tree:
The shoe tree is like a totem. Though only a small fraction of us actually participate in its associated rituals (if we did the branches would fall from the weight of all those shoes,) it reminds us that we can come together in a place and be free and grow as people. It shows us that this is a place of fun, and of growth. Whenever I see the Shoe Tree, after laughing to myself, I also imagine the faces of all those kids who came through that place with a world ahead of them and with those shoes, they took the first step.

Campus Center:
I have mixed feelings about the campus center. Its the place where I can go and have a meal with my friends, and make even more friends, but it also makes me feel pretty clausterphobic at times. It's so busy all the time, it can be overwhelming just dealing with all the activity. Yet, it is also a place of true safety and where one can engage in the throngs of culture and activity this campus can offer. It is surely the most significant marker of campus activity and vivacity.

Coffee House:
This place is pretty cool. I like the idea that it was kind of a counter-cultural spot for the colonists. As was noted, it is far away from the church and statehouse, so its quieter and a little more free. I can easily imagine myself there, with all the smells and sounds and people hanging out and enjoying a little luxury during a life of labor and religious tightness.

Justin Bates' Grave:
This is a place of real magic to me. To be honest, I admire Justin's memorial. It is so simple, and so wonderful. To have your final mark on the world to be a place of comfort, a place where the weary may find respite and the grieving may reflect. A place that sponsors more life. Now that's a great way to give back to the world! Such simplicity and such calm, when I sit there I feel certain Justin is there, about my age, and just hanging out there with me. Certainly, that is how to spend an afterlife.

Saint Mary's Hall:
This place is much like the ARC to me, but for a different sense of utility. It is a theater, not an arena. A place where actors, singers, dancers, musicians, and all those in the arts come to be heard. It is a home of expression and discussion, a place of true human experience. It is only in Saint Mary's Hall that one can absorb the most of what others have to say. Though, when empty, it is simply a quiet room, it can be transformed just by your very presence. Just by moving and speaking and contemplating you decorate it with the art of your own soul. By attending events you give strength to the people on and off the stage, and it becomes a melting pot.

6 PLACES BLOG POST

Please post your Blog posts about the 6 places we (you) visited this week. Remember to consider how we construe meaning through ritual, use and design. Don't use comments, but instead create a separate post, ok?

six places

GYM!
The gym (ARC, whatevs) is the most strikingly and largely artificial of our six places. It’s a large boxy space we’ve carved out of the natural landscape; empty on its own, occupied only with the intangible buzz of fluorescent lights and the scents of hard plastic and grime, but its role is to be filled. At the right time, in no other place on campus will you find a thicker concentration of humanity, of humans delighting in the innate joys of competition. But for all the frenzied activity contained in the gym, there is still a lingering artificiality, ascribable to the rigidity of sports, of teams, of fatigue, and of dutied participation. I leave you with this as a final, provocative thought.

SHOE TREE!
On our return visit to the six places, we stood here longest, not because there was more to take in, but because we were searching out organic details of the scene. While I’m sure there were undiscovered empty bottles of Monster, etc. strewn around the gym’s bleachers, the hidden possibilities at the Shoe Tree are so much more intriguing. There are fallen shoes trailing off into the woods, there is a single solitary pair draped on a nearby bush, and of course the shoes themselves, up in the tree, each embody individual stories of emotion and humor and traditional obligation. The ARC shrugs off history with each new team that stamps around on its floors; the shoe tree embraces history, while subjecting it to the harshness of nature, as a sort of eternal embodiment of the struggle between present and past. We also kind of stayed around because we were trying to figure out how some people got their flip flops up there.

CAMPUS CENTER!
Similar to the ARC in its modernity, the Campus Center is even more acutely keeping up with the present moment. It is in constant motion, a celebration of consumption in all its forms. There are no long expanses of silence here. Somehow, this very fact makes it so difficult to describe; it is perhaps the most detailed of all the six places, yet its very nature is so transient. My brain almost refuses to accept it as anything besides a between-point, a place for rushing through unless you're waiting for a smoothie. It is only when we are in a place from which activity has dispersed, a place with a strong sense of detectable history like the Shoe Tree or Coffee House, that we feel an urge to ponder the place's significance. When a place is filled with bustling activity as the Center is, we are distracted by the activity and we come to ignore its containing environment. An empty place, meanwhile, can carry the memory of activity, and thus location garners meaning.

COFFEE HOUSE!
If all of these six places differ in terms of temporal roles, then this is the most ancient, and the most abandoned. It is nearly devoid of social activity and its original purpose has vanished with time, leaving behind only a quirky wooden relic. Standing in front of it feels like trespassing, as though it still belongs to the people who once used it as a place of activity and entertainment. It is strange to think that those people are still alive: their descendants have merely migrated to the Daily Grind across the street. Thus the building stays standing as a solitary reminder of the fact that the world turns.

JUSTIN BATES'S GRAVE.
The more I try to think of something to say about this site, the more I realize how similar it is to the Shoe Tree. I am ignorant of Justin Bates and his death at the Point, which inspires a sense of alienation. But, like at the Shoe Tree, students both past and present are reaching out through artistic means - shoes and shells - in a gesture that one may choose to either be a passive viewer of or an active participant in. To feel alienated is a choice. The other option is to join in the creation of the work of art - we may not know the specifics, but the death of a student and a friend is a universal to which we can all relate, and in relating mourn as well as celebrate his life. At Justin Bates' grave, as well as the Tree, boundaries of time and history are chaotically washed away in the constant hub and ebb of modern life, joining in.

ST. MARY'S HALL!
I doubt many of us have had any proper experience with this building, so I'm mostly working off what I've heard of it. The building is so reminiscent of the past, with its solemn atmosphere and its strikingly old-fashioned architecture; simultaneously, however, it houses performances, comedy, music - current outlets of human creativity. Since I've found that, in discussing these various places, I keep revisiting time and its role in the shaping of a place, it is nice to end here, where an archaic and stiff past mingles seamlessly with present life on campus. I can only imagine how quickly that intimidating and silent darkness that currently floats across the Hall stage is transformed into a more colorful and exciting air, as voices and music fly out to the audience. I'm sure I'll be returning soon.

six places

The first place we went to was the ARC. I could tell it was an athletic building because of the trophies, the volleyball net, and many other things. The building smelled like chlorine, which told me that it had a pool. The building is very large, and has a lot of room. There were not too many people there at the times that I went. The room that our art class went into was one I had a specific memory of, since it was where my high school graduation was held.



The second place we went to was the shoe tree. It was somewhat distant from the main part of campus. I had not been by it much before the walk for class. It is something that has symbollic meaning to it. It has somewhat of a connection to the ARC because many of the shoes in the tree were athletic ones.



The third place we went to was the campus center. When I went there on the class walk, I took little interest in it. The reason for this is that I am so familiar with the building, since I have gone there often. There were many tables and chairs, along with a tv, implying it was a place people stay at for a while. It has a very calm, relaxing atmoshere. Many people felt calm right away, paying attention to familiar things, like the tv.

The forth place we went to was the old coffeehouse at St. Mary's City. It was small, which would probably mean there were not too many people there at a time. It was far from the old church, because people dissaproved of coffee drinking in the past. It was very plain on the outside, like the reconstructed historical buildings nearby. There were very few people other than our classs around.

The fifth place we went to was the graveyard. It was very quiet, except for natural sounds like birds. Everyone seemed to have a more serious, respectful mood there. Some of the gravestones were more noticeable than others, because of things like size and how they were decorated. The one gravestone we stopped at was interesting because it had been decorated with seashells, which had been placed around the edges. It is located very close to the church, so the church may own the graveyard.

The final place we had gone to was St. Mary's Hall. It was very quiet and deserted at the time we went. Many people felt very casual approaching it, jumping over a fence to get to it. Afew peole also sat on the stage once we were inside. It was extremely quiet inside, probably the quietest place we went. I could tell from the interior that it is a building used for guest speakers or performers, since there was a stage.

6 Places

Arc- It was somewhat unusual passing through the arc gymnasium in its barren state. Every time I’ve been in a gym its always been full of voices and action. Since the arc is ritually used as a large gathering place for sporting and sometimes other events, it is meant to be full of people and noise. Without it, it feels lonely, barren, and stripped. Both times I visited the arc it was in this stripped state; however, I remember the new student days from over the summer. The contrast is humongous. When considering this contrast, I realized something unusual: The place almost seems to come alive and then die with the rise and end of each sporting event or large group activity. The arc is meant for charisma, action, life, and without it, it just feels like an empty vessel, useless, waiting, sleeping.

The Shoe Tree- The shoe tree was our next stop on our first tour, and at the time I didn’t think much of it. However, after some thought I realized how different the two places were. Yeah, there is the obvious stuff, but I’m not talking about that. The Arc is a very public place: it’s created to accommodate lots of people and activity. Even though the shoe tree is in public view, its actual a very private place. Each pair of shoes that’s thrown up has its own story, its own little secrets. The tree is a sentimental place in a way, a symbol of stripping away the bounds of childhood to embrace the new freedoms of college and young adulthood. No longer are these people bound by the rules of their parents and household. They are now free to choose, whether that be to drink, to study, to have fun, to sail, and to have sex.

The Coffee House- I was actually surprised when we visited this place. When I heard we were going to Historic, I assumed we would visit some fancy decorated church or other ornate object, so when we visited an abandoned coffeehouse I didn’t even know what to think. During the day the place has more light than at dusk, but it’s still a very barren, empty place. It reminds me of the Arc when it was empty. The two are actually very similar in a way: they are meant to hold many people at once. Even though people did not play sports in the coffee house like they do in the Arc, it was still a large gathering place. It was meant for laughing, catching up with friends, and enjoying a break from a day of hard work. When it’s empty, it seems ancient, old, sentimental, past its time. Then, I thought to myself. What if our campus center was empty like the coffee house? It would also soon begin to seem old and sentimental because these types of places are rarely empty unless they are outdated. It’s interesting though how a once lively, energetic building can become so lonely and sentimental.

The Campus Center- Every time that I have visited the Campus Center it is full of life: people go to lunch, people chatting, people getting a smoothie, people checking their mail, the list goes on and on. It is the hub of the college. It’s a gathering place that serves most of our basic needs on campus. The setup of the chairs and tables on the first floor where we visited was very symbolic of the energy the place is meant to have. It is created as a meeting place, a place where you can run to before class and chat with someone for ten minutes. Like the Arc and historic coffeehouse, it is created to accommodate a hub of activity and people. Also, I’m glad that I haven’t seen the place empty yet; I don’t think I would enjoy the view.

St. Mary’s Hall- St. Mary’s Hall is another one of those meant to be public places. If it weren’t for the class, I do not think I would have ever visited that place when it was mostly empty. However, unlike the Arc and the Coffee House, it actually seemed really neat almost empty. That may have been due to my experience though, because the way we all sat down almost reminded me of sitting by a campfire telling stories. So, I ended up associating that positive experience with the place. I also remember the loud cricket noises when we were in there. They added to the empty feel. It actually almost felt like we were out in the middle of nowhere, even though we were in a large building. All I can say is that place now holds some interesting experiences for me.

The Justin Bates Memorial- Quite appropriately, this was the last place we visited. Actually, I can’t remember. It might just feel that way. To me, the memorial seems very much like the shoe tree: both are very private places displayed to the public. The memorial has a great deal of sentimental value, and much like the shoe tree it holds many stories and secrets. The shells along the rim are symbolically similar to the shoes on the shoe tree. Generally, it is kept secret who placed the objects, and each object has its own story and thoughts behind it. Basically, the more I thought about it, the more the two places seemed the same. Even though one was filled with life and the other death, they both reverberated the same message: new beginnings, new opportunity, a new life.

6 Places

The Coffee House in Historic

Regardless of the time of day the coffee house in historic St. Mary's City has a rustic beauty. The architecture of the coffee house is traditional. Though there is a evident classic element present, there is also a timeless aesthetic quality. Because this is an historic site it is obvious there is a connection with the past felt when present. Knowing that there is a record and display of the history of this land, brings forth feelings of intrigued and mystery, making this place appealing.

Justin Bates Memorial

The Justin Bates Memorial is truly remarkable. After gaining knowledge of the backstory, visiting the site is difficult. When there, you instantly feel a kinship with this person. You feel binded to him through a cultural connection. Because he once subscribed to the St. Mary's College culture that you currently subscribe to. Only those who subscribe to this culture can feel the connection and understand how distinct it is. The memorial itself is beautiful. The fact that members of the community have added a natural and creative element to the memorial says a lot about the culture of St. Mary's.

St. Mary's Hall

It is interesting that St. Mary’s Hall has a similar architectural foundation as the Coffee House in Historical St. Mary’s City. All of my prior encounters have been in the evening or night but visiting in the day gives the place a certain mystery. The darkness inside during the day makes this place mysterious. It seems as if the transformation possibilities are endless.

Campus Center → Daily Grind

The campus center is a gallery. It is a display of the SMCM students in action. The campus is the hub of all student activity and the central location for daily interaction. It serves as an entertainment vessel, study room, source of food, and comfortable place for students to interact. Though some times of day are more lively than others, overall there is always students around.

The Shoe Tree

The shoe tree is an odd part of St. Mary’s campus. But frankly speaking it is a true representation of SMCM as a whole. It has a creative element. It has a natural connection. It entertains the idea of connections between students. All of which is what St. Mary’s prides itself on. The shoe tree is also a natural piece of art because it is a display of life for viewing entertainment.

ARC Arena

The ARC Arena is a fairly new development on the SMCM campus but it houses so many memories. It is another place is based in tradition. There is never a time I walk past the ARC and recollect memorable moment.

6 places

Gym:
When walking through the gymnasium in the ARC, there are many different factors to consider about the gym. As we discussed in class, there are numerous events in and uses for the gym. For example, some may use the gym for athletic events, games, and matches, whatever they may be. At the same time it is used to present awards to athletes at the end of the year, show off SMPs, for meetings, etc. One thing that really stood out to me about this particular room was that “openness” environment. When you come into the gym there are seats all around three out of the four walls. The doors are also clear glass where one can see through to the events inside the gym without actually being a part of the events. Depending on the event that is occurring in the gymnasium (or even when there are no events going on) there is a general sense of openness and welcoming (however, I do understand that this particular opinion is biased based on the fact that I am an athlete and do use the gym). Overall, I do think that the gym is one of the places on campus that is considered a “symbol” or major place where students can come together. I believe the size of the room, the glass doors/windows, lights, shiny floors are all contributing factors to making the gym such a symbol for our school.

Shoe-tree:
The shoe-tree, to me is one of the most interesting places on campus. When walking by the shoe-tree, it brings up memories. Not that I have a pair of shoes up there but simply because I used to live on that side of campus. When I walk back to that tree, where I used to walk at least three times a day, 2 years ago, many memories of maturity, growth, and adventure, spring into my head. Though different things trigger memories for people, I believe the shoe tree may do that for most students on campus. Whether people have shoes hanging on the tree, I believe the tree in general can produce many memories, because of it’s placement on campus. This particular tree is not in a central location, not something that all students pass daily like the gym or campus center. Instead it is particular to underclassmen that typically live in the dorms. I believe this represents the initial growth and maturity that occurs as you move out of your parent’s home and onto campus. Also, a tree is a natural landmark on campus, unlike most other man-made ones. I believe this co insides with the fact that this growth and maturity just naturally happens as you reach a turning point in life like college.

Campus Center:
When I passed through the campus center, I had a different reaction than I did in the other locations. People were constantly passing through. Though there are tables for people to sit and study, talk, or watch t.v., in general, that room had a constant flow. When standing in the “hallwayish” room I realized how many different openings there were. There were 2 glass doors that lead to the outside patio, where there were many people, soaking up the nice weather. In another entrance the daily grind was filled with people getting some type of food. The other entrance lead to the campus bookstore which for me, usually causes a level of stress due to the fact that I am usually there to buy something I do not personally wish to spend money on. The other entrance is the hallway, which leads to the great room, one of the biggest common areas on campus. All these entrances and openings bring people that are passing by for different purposes. I believe this particular room/hallway brings a lot of people together, especially because it is not an official “place” on campus (i.e., does not have name like great room, cole cinema, etc.)

Coffee House:
When walking by the coffee house, many questions arise. First of all, I wonder to myself, “Why don’t I know more about this place?” After trying to get into the coffee house and it was locked (around 4 o’clock) I wondered why I was unable to get inside to find out more. Here I felt a level of shame for not taking advantage to the cool historic landmark, which I am within walking distance from. Many more questions arose as I turned toward the water. At glance of the true blue water, I naturally begin to ponder any thoughts that have been seemingly sitting in the back of my head through the day. I feel a sense of wonder of who lived here and enjoyed the coffee house, years ago, and what they would like me to take and appreciate from this amazing place.

Grave stone:
Though I did not know the student that died and marks this particular gravestone, it naturally brings up many questions and solemn thoughts. Within just a few days from walking to this point the first time, I noticed a few changes, I noticed some fake flowers sitting next to the stone, as if someone had been there to visit recently. Here I think about those affected by this death. How often do they visit? How do they cope with the death of a son, friend, boyfriend? I again, gain a feeling of shame. Not because I do not appreciate the landmark but because I have fun at the point, just yards away from this gravestone. I wonder, why do I get to live and enjoy this site and water and beauty when someone else comes to this point and feels sorrow, or even, while someone did not get to live long enough to enjoy it more. This particular place also makes me wonder what else has happened on this campus or what goes on that I do not know about, that I do not appreciate enough.

St. Mary's Hall:
St. Mary’s Hall was a very interesting to pass through. On our first visit, the building was very dark and very quiet. The building almost seemed blank, waiting to be used to represent an art or work but not quite used yet. However, upon return, I found two students setting up for a center of democracy event. The door was open and there were two tables set up on the stage. The room had a feeling of pre-operation to it. The room was no longer blank but now was being prepared for students to take advantage of the set up. I believe the event was in need of this kind of room for a particular reason, rather than a room like the gym.