Ways of Seeing by John Berger – Entry by Natalie Embrey

In “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, the author discusses the nature of sight. Every day we analyze our surroundings and ourselves in the physical world. Berger makes the argument that dialogue is an attempt to verbalize what we think about what we see and how others see things.
Berger defines images as “a sight which has been recreated or reproduced.” (pg. 9) He makes a general statement regarding images being inspired by real life sights. But not all artists pull their inspiration from sights found in the physical world. Berger points out that photographs are not images devoid of influence. The photographer crafts an image by editing out the details they deem unnecessary. “…(E)very image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our way of seeing.” (pg 10) Essentially every viewer brings to a piece of art their history and preferences learned throughout their lifetime.
Berger points out that images were used to display how people/things once looked. During the Renaissance the artist role was considered more closely. The artist was not a historian but a creator that captured a scene from a specific point of view. Berger continues to claim that “images are more precise and richer than literature.” (pg 10) But images are not fact. They are biased invention of the individual.
Berger continues critiquing the issues he sees with art criticism. The main focus being the mystification of art history by the elite and educated. He then moves to the discussion of perspective in art. The use of perspective was a uniquely European for a time. “Perspective makes the single eye the center of the visible world.” (pg.16) When the camera was introduced it caused many painters to lose interest in meticulously copying the world as we see it. The impressionists and cubists took creative liberty with the world that they saw.
Berger theorizes that the camera diminishes the experience of viewing an original piece of work because copies are available. The availability of art anywhere takes it out of context of its original commission. The painting was once a part of the place it was created to hang in. While the copy image of the painting does end the uniqueness of the images content, the photograph of the painting will never replace the experience of seeing the canvas. And perhaps for some viewers the mass proliferation of an image can add to the epic nature of the original when it is ultimately viewed. This of course would depend on the viewer buying into the hype that the art establishment puts into particular works, such as the Mona Lisa.
Berger continues by discussing how in our culture today the importance of a piece of work seems influenced by the cost it will fetch at auction. Also, a great deal of effort is put into the authentication that an image is genuinely categorized. He makes the point that most of society doesn’t care about the concerns of the art elite. The percentage of people who visit museums is highly linked to the amount of education received. The idea of art as a luxury is directly linked to affluence. If a person has to work 3 jobs to keep food on the table, they probably won’t have much time to incorporate art into their lives.
Continuing with reproduction, Berger refers to the crop as a means of distorting the original intention of the artist. Motion picture with narration can pervert the viewers reading of a piece of work by defining the areas and order in which they view details. When in front of the original piece the viewer would have the freedom to view the piece as they see fit. Berger closes by discussing how the inclusion of text affects the viewers opinion of a piece. Which brings us back to the fact that each viewer brings with them their own history when viewing art. If the viewer becomes more informed of the history of a piece, their opinion of it can be swayed.