#ways_of_seeing

But there is a paradox here. We reject the art expert’s take due to generalization and added mysticism and conclude that art is akin to words. But we cannot fully accept pictures and art in general as a language. Art is vague, subjective and hence innately mystified. The innate mysticism helps different perspectives connect with it, because they can be subjective. The added mysticism that we rejected from “art experts”, I believe, is an effect of the innate mysticism; when a painting can have so many meanings, it allows taking a specific one to the extreme and generalizing it. A solo un-mystified analysis is only possible if we could fathom the uncertainty in our views, but we can’t. Therefore, we can only remove uncertainty with discussions with multiple perspectives. However, we don’t need discussion to un-mystify what “tree” means in the English language.

I was intrigued by the ideas and discussions presented in the first episode of Ways of Seeing and how they provoked me to think about art, its reproduction and its value differently. I found myself agreeing with Burger on how value of art is often determined by its reproducibility, making an "original" painting much more valuable than a reproduced artwork. To me this definition of value feels artificial, as it steals the spotlight from the art itself to its uniqueness. I personally find the value of an artpiece proportional to its "art" and not its uniqueness. This way, an artwork can reach a much greater audience and live in many different forms than to be restricted to only one vessel. More so, I believe that with reproduction comes collaboration. Artists can share their own vision on a reproduced artpiece whereas a unique artwork will remain as is forever. Apart from that, I enjoyed is how Burger also sheds light on the irreplaceability of the experience; how the environment where an artwork is presented alters audience's perception of it. While I agree with Burger that one now can alter the meaning of art by changing the environment where and how its presented, I find this to do more good than bad. Once again, this freedom allows other artists, even the audience, to view art in a different light, which I find inspiring.

I particularly enjoyed the scene of Ways of Seeing where the children reviewed Caravaggio’s work. Without any knowledge of this artist’s life, they picked up on the ambiguity of the central figure’s sexuality, which was purposefully not obvious. The kids had other thoughts that perhaps the food was stolen or the middle person was Jesus or a woman about to be kissed by the other men in the painting. Each viewer had their own unique opinions, showing that art can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, whether that be the intention of the artist or not. 

John Berger also mentions the reproducibility of images with cameras. He claims that paintings and sculptures are now “forms of information” because of the context they are placed in and the meaning of the art is altered. He is not a fan of the change in meaning and the people who claim reproductions as their own. I agree with the fact that the ability to share pictures of art decreases its uniqueness. However, I am not too sure that it decreases the value. I think pictures as a “form of information” is also valuable and alterations like photoshop and editing are also forms of creative art. The editor is inputting their style and increasing value by making it relevant in different settings. 

Concerning "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger, I found the clip with the collage of the childrens' art next to replicas impactful. Often times society places more value (monetary and cultural) on paintings by talented/experiences/successful artists - like Leonardo and Monet. Yet, when childrens' art is placed right next to reproductions, the placement questions the viewer to decide which has more value. Should the viewer prioritize 'lesser quality' originals or 'higher quality' reproductions? Both are symbolizing the human experience in their own way. Yet, the difference is in seeing the exact brush/crayon/pencil strokes and seeing a copy of it. One is unique and the other is not. But I don't believe the reproduction's lack of uniqueness diminishes its meaning. In fact, it can create a larger meaning and a greater piece of art. For example, the world is now a collage of the re-contextualized piece of art: the artwork is now a repeated nuance of the world. Since the piece of art has been re-contextualized so much, it now helps tell the story of humanity - and humanity is now inside of the artwork. In this way, the piece of art can now live many more lives. A reproduction may not have the history the original does, but it has the opportunity to create its own in a way the original cannot.

At the same time, I cannot help but think about what it does to the value of the art. Are oil paintings more valuable than photographs just because they cannot be replicated? Given the difference in price for which paintings are sold in comparison to photos, it does seem to be the case somewhat.

"Ways of Seeing" raised a number of points on the modern perception of art as it relates to the idea of recontextualization. The digital age has enabled the unprecedented reproduction of images originally intended to be static; these copies now roam the internet to be viewed anywhere. The act of seeing paintings outside of the religious or museum contxts for which they were intended has altered the fundamental relationship between art and subject. Personally, I thought that the discourse on demystifying art was quite interesting, as it's true that we are encouraged to perceive art as something wholly other than our everyday experience, although it often depicts things familiar to us. The idea that seeing a reproduction of a work is significantally inferior to seeing the real ting is also of interest; while sometimes I feel that a sense of depth and immediacy is lost in reproducing an image, often (especially for works produced in antiquity) I am just as satisfied looking at a reproduction as I am in looking at the original. It is true that the artistry is often easier to recognize when one is able to see the individual brushstrokes, or examine the texture the goauche leaves on the paper. I think that the inclusion of the discussion with the children at the end also highlighted an aspect of art that we are persuaded to leave behind as we age, which is the joy that can be found in relating art to our personal experiences. Through the lens of school and academia, we are pushed towards the assumption that all art has one specific and correct interpretation, even though that kind of thinking makes art feel much more inaccessible. Just as much pleasure can be derived just simply from freely associating the work with whatever your brain conjures; after all, art is an incredibly individual experience.

Lastly, my personal favorite quote from the episode was when Berger described the quality of certain works as being that of a "corridor," connecting the moment the painting describes to the moment that you, the viewer, is currently in. I think it captures what I like most about many of my favorite paintings.