Ways of Seeing by John Berger

> Seeing is different from an image. Images are tainted by opinion and perception, it is done with purpose and intention. Something separate from place and time.

> Thought: no one person will see you the same as it is malleable by nature and personality. How you are perceived reflects how you are seen. Crucial to the consciousness of the image-maker which alters the way in which history can be presented.

> ‘When we are prevented from seeing it we are being deprived of the history which belongs to us.’. History is influences by those who are the ‘ruling class’, they are able to skew how it perceived as we can not see it and thus there is no way of contradiction.

> Hals painting are skewed by his perception of his sitters. The faces are overtly characterised offering the illusion of familiarity. This is not necessarily due to the skill of the painter but instead the methods of understanding possessed within our own society. We are still ruled by comparable social relations and moral values, editing our image of the sitters.

> Drama of Hals painting is that he is attempting not to be skewed in his perception of his sitters despite his position as a pauper, socially bellow the regents who sit for him.

> We perceive the past in a different way through the art created in that time. Argument: perspective isn't always everything, the artists perspective can often be the most crucial element of misunderstanding the past.

> ‘The visible world is arranged for the spectator as the universe was once thought to be arranged for God.’

> “I’m an eye. A mechanical eye. I, the machine, show you a world the way only I can see it. I free myself for today and forever from human immobility… Freed from the boundaries of time and space, I coordinate any and all points of the universe, wherever I want them to be.” - Dziga Vertov 1923.

> The invention of the camera solidified the growing suspicion that images were not timeless. Time passing was inseparable from the experience of the visual. It was made apparent that the spectator was not the unique centre of the work, there was in fact no centre.

> The invention of the camera changed the way in which men saw painting. Paintings were seen as an integral part to a buildings history, while these could be transported, they could not be two places at once. The camera allowed these paintings to exist in separation from the building, arguably destroying the uniqueness of the painting while simultaneously creating fragmenting meanings.

> Copies of images highlight this as their meaning is shared with its surroundings as it enters different buildings and houses.

> The status of an original painting is therefore altered. It is no longer about finding something unique it is about accessing something rare. Value is affirmed and gauged by the price it fetched on the market. This is considered to be a reflection of its spiritual value.

> The Virgin of the Rocks entry in the National Gallery focuses on convincing the viewer to believe its authenticity, not understand the painting. Its price determines its value to the gallery, not the meaning. The painting achieves a sense of grandeur that would otherwise not be attributed to the piece. ‘Its function is nostalgic’.

> Art galleries exclude those who are not wealthy.

> Thought: reproducing art is invented by capitalism. Making art seemingly more accessible strips it of its value and results in wealth. The meaning is lost as it is stipped of its detail and made more maketable.

> Words are used to change the reception of the painting.

> Art is used to upholster the unequal social hierarchy that exists today, out dates morals are maintained and glorified.

> Thought: people post images of art that they see in a gallery. They may as well just google it but people want to prove that they are cultured and worthy of art. There is a sense of competition in terms of understanding art.

Research

Confirm copying