Response to “Ways of Seeing” - Alejandro Lee

In a nutshell, Berger argues that we the masses should drop the scholarly pretenses, as presented to us, on past works of art and instead interpret those works as we see fit. But there’s more to it: while Berger’s essay specifically targets the analysis of cultural elites as faulty, one must press on. One has to say: no one analysis is truly correct, nor is it wrong if only on an individual level.

Experiencing a work of art, each individual will form an opinion that is entirely unique to them. Indeed, each individual can be subject to alternating opinions about one single work of art, depending on their mood or what they’ve come to believe in. The meaning behind an image is and always shall be ephemeral because we are ephemeral. When we pass on, we each take with us that unique experience and it falls on the next generation (or era) to form its own opinions.

That element of human mortality is the basic dynamic at play in our understanding of images. The X factor, though, is technology. The invention of the printing press, photography, and other measures of mass reproduction propelled social considerations beyond the older models of thought.

It is worth noting the speed of these technological advancements. While initially some innovations such as the press took centuries to become socially significant movers and shakers, the newer innovations came about at a faster and faster pace. The key is they began to occur within a given individual’s lifespan. Now, technological progress supersedes the social “reset button” that is inherent in our mortality. Instead of each generation (or era) having one set context with which to view the world, it is now almost a single, amalgamated generation with new world views that are constantly being generated.

Within this loosely defined multi-generation, we can now see what Berger was saying about the fluidity of meaning in an image. As well, McLuhan’s point that the medium is more significant than the content is also validated. The content and, indeed the physical manifestation, of a work of art cannot be frozen in time but will inevitably and always be in a state of flux when up against the forces of technology and mortality.