Citation: Berger, John.
Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 1972. Print.
Summary: Ways of Seeing is a book by John Berger that explores how different influences affect the ways in which we perceive the world around us. These influences reside within us: our individual experiences and histories contribute to what we know and thus what consider to be truth: "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe" (8). These influences can also be words, captions that describe and thus determine for us what we are seeing. Making an example of Magritte's work, Berger explores how we are challenged when the words that are supposed to describe what we are seeing actually contradict what we are seeing or are deceptive to us as viewers.
Response:
1.)
Although Berger briefly expresses in the
beginning of chapter 2 that he is talking of conventional beliefs of women that
are finally being questioned (text written in 1972), he continues to state:
To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted
and confined space, into the keeping of men...A woman must continually watch herself…And
so she comes to consider the surveyor
and the surveyed within her as two
constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman…How a woman
appears to a man can determine how she will be treated…The surveyor of woman in
herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object—and
most particularly an object of vision: a sight.” (46-47).
I am curious to ask what the men in the room think of this
conclusion, and of course what do the women think? Yes, these conventions have
been questioned and women in western societies do have more freedom and
independence of thought and expectations, and it may be safe to say that
overall women care more about outer appearance than men do…but is the surveyor
in a woman really a male (if there is a surveyor at all)??
Do men have an inner
surveyor and if so, is it male or female?
(When I asked this question in class no one responded except for our teacher Joe. I was a little disappointed about this because I feel like it is an intriguing question, for males and females alike.)
Is it true that how a woman appears to a man is determinate of
how she will be treated? I believe that this assumption can apply to anyone of
any sex… one’s appearance does affect how anther will first perceive and treat
them, until further investigation into their personality—something that
although can appear on the surface actually exists on the inside.
2.)
Berger states, “When the camera reproduced a
painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning
changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many
meanings” (19).
Are these multiple meanings beneficial to the audience? To
the piece of art? In this way, are spectators allowed to revert to square one
and approach the image without any preconception of its context and without
being told what to think, like a child? Is this approach acceptable/desirable/beneficial/right/
or wrong, or does it depend on the context of the art piece? (as an example Ai
Weiwei’s art is heavily rooted in context).
3.)
I teach art lessons/classes to kids, and I absolutely
enjoy hearing what it is they have to say regarding famous works of art that I
share with them for inspiration… not because it is “cute” or “innocent”, but
because their opinions, observations, and judgments are so pure, uninhibited, and
automatic—untainted with terms or ideas from conventional art education or from
being told what to think beforehand, much like the children describing the
Caravaggio painting in the first episode of Ways
of Seeing. I guess my question is, is there any way for us to approach art in this
manner once again, or is all hope of this purity of thought lost the older we
get, the more we see, the more we are told what to think? Is it possible to “unlearn”
what we know? The answer might seem obvious, but it is a question worth
pitching.
How much is what we see affected by what we want to see?
