John Berger's "Ways Of Seeing" Summary

John Bergers Ways of Seeing is a short commentary that seems to be about how different classes of people perceive art, how its meaning has changed through the ages, and how the introduction of technology has affected it. Berger seems to be an extremely controversial art critic, based off opinions of him that range from stimulating to preposterous. He has been praised numerous times, yet condemned just as much. His writings can seem extremely complex and difficult, even cryptic at times; but trudging through his works can yield many fascinating nuggets of truth. My first reading of Ways of Seeing barely provided me with any information, but subsequent readings finally gave up some of Bergers most interesting points, such as his idea that the meaning of great works of art no longer send out the message of the original creator. He speculates that this is because of the inaccessibility of art along with the widespread popularity of copies. I believe that ultimately, Bergers argument of original pieces of art losing their value is solid. Berger starts out by establishing how sight is arguably our most important sense. He then makes us question if we can truly believe our eyes, if what we see is actually reality. Even pictures, according to him, cannot be taken for face value because one must consider the intent of the photographer and other factors that may have skewed the message. Regents of the Old Mens Alms House by Frans Hals is cited as an example to show us that the viewpoint of the painter affects the tone of the painting. He suggests that instead of painting the subjects as stoic government officials, they are portrayed as drunkards. He continues by presenting the concept of how a picture may look the same to many different people that view it, it may carry a different message to each viewer. The same concept applies to copies of great art, says Berger; because there are so many copies of great works of art, the original may have lost its meaning ' instead of conveying the message that the painter intended, it now only exudes feelings of rarity and exclusiveness. The essay closes with a commentary on art in politics, and encourages more people to appreciate the arts.

A large portion of the essay is devoted to making the reader question his or her perception of the things they see and the true meaning behind it. One particularly remarkable example used is Leonardo Da Vincis Virgin of the Rocks. The gist of what the essay had to say about that painting is how the painting was once unique, never to be seen in two places at once, but after the invention of the camera and television, Virgin of the Rocks is capable of being seen by millions of people at once from the comfort of their own homes. At a glance, one may think that this is an argument against his own point, the concept of millions being able to see this work of art from their own homes seems like a great development for the progression of great artwork. However, Bergers explanation shows how this is not true. It is because one has already seen this work of art, we already have a perception of it in our mind, and nothing can change this because it has already been imprinted on the mind. After the replica of the painting is in memory, the original ceases to be Virgin of the Rocks, it becomes the original version of the replica. While this may seem redundant at first, it is the qualities that we search for in the painting that sets it apart from the impression we would have received if we ONLY saw the original painting. Someone seeing the original version of the replica would look for qualities of the painting that express how it is the real thing, rather than the meaning the painting is intended to have. Berger sums up his point by describing the meaning of a widely copied painting as no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is. A disagreement the opponents of this argument will likely bring up is the apparent faultiness of the logic used to deduce that the mass production of art copies actually takes away from the true meaning of art. One could say that without the millions of copies of any given painting, no one would know about it except the most privileged of art patrons. Is this really the case though? In a world where copies of great art are NOT widely distributed, would any painting carry the prestige that great art carries nowadays? Why are some paintings as hyped-up as they are now? Perhaps it is because since birth, we have been exposed to copies of these creations and trained by modern society to simply accept them as holy relics as Berger would say (Berger 119). Items only have as much value as society decides it to have, and we as a society have decided that great art is worth countless millions, too valuable to have the originals accessible to laymen.

In an alternate universe, perhaps one could look at the Mona Lisa without staring through bulletproof glass and guards, and bask in the meaning of it like Leonardo Da Vinci intended. It seems like the way to get art to the masses is to cut down the hype. The reasoning behind this was hard for me to grasp at first, because it is difficult to admit that once you have seen something, it leaves an impression on the mind, no matter how insignificant. While I have not visited many famous works of art, I have been to a various small art exhibitions, where the artists walk freely among their fans and the paintings lack any bulletproof glass. While the technique and dedication invested into the paintings were impressive, the meanings of the paintings were self-evident a majority of the time, perhaps because I was not looking at the qualities that made it genuine. Would I be able to say the same if I were looking at a famous work of art such as Virgin of the Rocks? It is difficult to guess just sitting here in front of a computer screen, but I would have to wager that indeed, I would be thinking about how the real painting I am standing in front of is likely worth more than an average persons house. The ridiculous value of the vast majority of artwork is a truly a testament to the fact that the rarity of the painting has super ceded the vision of the original artist. While I have only touched on a few points of Bergers, I feel that I have covered the essence of his essay. His arguments were made with solid reasoning, and are convincing, although hard to grasp. The solution I believe that he is pushing towards is definitely sounds absurd at first, upon further reflection it seems valid to me. Getting art out to the public is not a matter of making as many replications as possible, rather it is about making the originals more accessible to interested patrons of art.