The Society of The Spectacle

The Society of The Spectacle outlines essentially the current state of affairs of our world. Basically, the idea espoused is saying that the state of “spectacle” is all that we do now. Spectacle is the state we are stuck in which envelops our everyday lives, sets social norms, and promotes wants, desires, and structure for those things in our society i.e. celebrities, movies, video games, styles, fashions, icons, and entertainment. This state of spectacle is maintained through media, which is controlled, by production, or our capitalistic/consumerist society. The spectacle, as I understand it, is a means to numb, hypnotize, and control the masses to keep those who control the means of production in control and at the top of the social/economic pecking order. I feel there is a large degree of truth to what this article is saying, however it is not as pervasive or urgent (at this point) as the essay claims. This is not to say that the current trend is moving in a positive direction, though. With the every increasing, exponential rate of technology and its influence on media, production, networking, and social structures, it is imperative that people pay as much attention to what is going on around them and the forces, which are being focused on us as well. In a more esoteric and relative sense, there have been, and for the foreseeable future, will be, an elite group of those who use some measure of control weather it be media, religion, law, etc. to control the majority of the masses. This is the way humans have got along from the beginning of recorded history, and I do not see prolific turning point in that system occurring anytime soon. The end.

-Robert Wilkins

Reading Response to "Ways of Seeing" 1971

The theme of this class has been developing a new perception of the world we live in today. Each reading and discussion we have had has pushed the walls of my understanding further and further apart, almost like the opening of the flood gates - any moment, I'll be drowning in overwhelming enlightenment.

"Ways of Seeing" by John Burger is an essay about how perception has be broadened by human discovery, the eventual adoption into popular belief, and the freedom of education. This is a circular action, that has speed up dramatically with the advent of a press, media, and in our lifetime, the internet.

The essay starts with perception of art in the middle ages, where staged realistic paints were scrutinized for small facial inflections. My 21st century mind regards this reading into basically nothing as a desire to get more from art but the society had not advance far enough to translate deeper meaning with a brush. That, and art was made for and controlled by only those that could afford it. Then with the advent of the camera which could accurately record time, and condense events down to a single frame, art was freed to explore perspective. Reversely, people looked back at early styles of painting with less reverie. The once awe inspiring curl of Mona Lisa's lip has been diminished in importance as the generations see world perception expand.

Works of art, fiction, and opinion that were once confined to one origin, and were reserved only to the upper class, have been reproduced and shared with anyone that has the ability to reach out and grasp it. For better or worse, we are now in an age where the computer savvy have access to infinite pictorial and textual resources. If one was to measure the internet from its beginnings as a long anticipated bang in 1991, and the rate that content is uploaded, would it be similar to the expansion of our universe? Is this act of freedom of choice by search and sharing making us more literate and enlightened? What we have been confronted with is the issue of authority. Anyone can share their uneducated opinion. This act of quick and senseless review and retort, though distorted and misleading, is yet another expansion perception.

“The Society of Spectacle” by Guy Debord response by Natalie Embrey

In The Society of the Spectacle, author Guy Debord points out that the society of production presents the image as a spectacle. This frozen image contradicts the way life was prior to its use because it presents spectacle to the viewer without them being involved. In Debord’s view this destroys the ”former unity of life.” (par.2) He continues claiming that the collection of images are no the spectacle but the spectacle is the ”social relationship between people that is mediated by images.” (par.4) The spectacle evolves into a means of unification among the society because we have all adopted images into our daily communication and visual consumption. The spectacle is a world view “that has been actualized, translated into the material realm.” (par. 5) The spectacle is referred to as “both the outcome and the goal of the dominant mode of production.” (par. 6) The goal of the dominant mode of production is to saturate our society with image based media and the result of the goal is the understanding of image based media by the society. “The spectacle epitomizes the prevailing model of social life.” (par. 6) Debord goes into a discussion of reality versus the image. The spectacle is invented but it is the “product of real activity.” (par.8) Debord speak s of the spectacle having positivity. “All it says is: ‘Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear.’” (par. 12) I have trouble believing that our society deems all images to be inherently good. Some images are made to be artful and yet hold a message and a subject matter that are decidedly not good. Is Debord saying that we assume it is good to make the image regardless of subject matter? He says that the spectacle is redundant. Essentially that the goal of perpetuating the creation of imagery is the continued perpetuation of more imagery or as he puts it; “basking in the perpetual warmth of its own glory.” (par. 13) “For the spectacle, … ends are nothing and development is all.” (par. 14) The cycle of perpetual creation is the driving force. The creators of images have no reason to cease creating in a world driven by the image. He closes by saying that “the spectacle is the chief product of present-day society.” (par. 15) While not all jobs are directly involves in the making of images, most modern fields will rely on image based content at some point in their marketing.

John Berger's: Ways of Seeing - Entry by Cesar Alvarado

It is interesting to read an article that dissects how human beings perceive a piece of artwork based on the context in which it has been placed in by different generations. John Berger taps into our unconscious to reevaluate the information that was been handed to use throughout the years. Not long ago, I took my friend to the museum to look at their contemporary collection. He was not impressed at all and like many that I’ve heard before, he said, “My little sister can do this!” It wasn’t long before I began to explain the value of some of these paintings. I chose my words wisely and explained the monetary benefactor behind these pieces. The monetary value of the paintings caught his attention and then I proceeded to explain how Pop Art had revolutionized the way we perceived art. For example, I explained to him the meaning behind Andy Warhol’s “Campell”s Soup Cans” set, and told him that he really had no intention to explain his art work, but left it to the eye of the beholder. For Warhol, it was not so much about creating a Renaissance painting, which followed a specific set of guidelines used by everyone during those times. In fact, it was the contrary, he wanted to impact the viewer and make them question the philosophy behind it. To go even further, you didn’t even have to question it if you didn’t want to, you didn’t have to even see it. Pop Art is a perfect example of what Berger has written about in this article, except he used glorious masterpieces that have become cultural phenomena’s. Artist such as Leonardo Davinci and Vincent Vangough are ultimately seen like gods in their own genres. In a sense they are just as much commercialized as any Warhol piece.

Here is where Berger shines, and he questions the reason behind our perception of the visual content, which has been implanted in our psyche. Since we were in our tender years, we learned that the Renaissance era was classified as the great rebirth of human society. Great scholars, philosophers and artists came out of this era. In a sense it has been presented to us in relation to that of the Bible’s philosophies, and I say this because the Renaissance was all, if not mostly based on religion. The television was far from its invention and the Internet was not even a thought. The paintings of Judgment Day actually made people very afraid. The fear allowed great powers to manipulate and distort reality. The art was used as a sort of propaganda for the Catholic Church and it worked for many years. Today, somehow or another we have came across a piece of art that represents centuries of history, whether it was taught to us in elementary school or exposed to us in a snippet on TV. These small historical visual presentations have accumulated in our minds to the point that we have created an assessment of that image. We have created value, respect and sometimes, even worship. It becomes our own reality. Our perception has been manipulated with years of research that was given to us in textbooks, classes and home. When my friend and I were looking though the vast collection of Modern artists, I noticed that he became somewhat humbled about the whole situation. The more I conveyed the historical information about the pieces of art, the more his perception shifted. The museum itself was intimidating and the securities and rich couple next to us describing what they felt when they were looking at the painting, also helped.

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.

"Ways of seeing" Paul Delmont's critical response

In is article "ways of seeing" John Burger discusses many ideas that are surprisingly relevant to modern times despite the fact that Burger wrote this article roughly thirty eight years ago.  one of the first interesting points that Burger brings up is the concept of perception being correlated to knowledge and belief.  To back up this intriguing idea Burger creates a strong foundational argument for this point by giving the example of how men from the middle ages viewed fire much differently than most people do today because of the fact that they "believed in the physical existence of hell".  Burger is very much so an advocate of perception and vision, but on the other hand he seems to speak against the credibility and reputation of written word, although he ironically has chosen to describe his point of view with words as well as pictures.   Burger later gets into questioning the credibility and importance of vision because as he explains vision and perception are more often then not affected by assumptions about art.  I found it interesting that the assumptions that Burger described were basic ideas that most people probably feel like they have a firm understanding of, but in reality, as Burger explains, most people have different ideas of what beauty or and truth really mean.  After establishing a firm basis of perception and the way that it fluctuates, Burger begins to transition into describing the way that viewing art affects the society and its members.  According to Burger, when a person sees art, what that person is really seeing is history.  This concept is important and extremely relatable to the art of photography for obvious reasons, especially when considering the modern trend of digital photograph, although this article obviously was written long before the invention of digital photography.

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.