Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Admin on Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:11 am

Please reply

Admin
Admin

Posts : 17
Join date : 2011-08-17

View user profile http://globalarthistory.forumth.com

Back to top Go down

ch 1-2 response

Post  Patmala Boondej on Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:34 pm

At the very first sentence in his book, Berger says that "Seeing comes before words..." (7). It is agreeable because sometimes it is easier to understand things through a diagram than written sentences. For example most people look at the diagram when they assemble something rather than go through written statements for directions. Like diagrams, pictures themselves carry messages. However, people can be misled by their own interpretation. Berger suggests that words can "mystify rather than clarify" things(11). In the book pg.27 Van Gogh's wheatfeild with crows painting changes its meaning when someone, supposedly the author, wrote "This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself" underneath it(28). I do agree on the idea, which people choose to think what they like and ignore what they don't. It is the matter of preference. Therefore the way of seeing things depends upon each individual and there won't be any problems as long as some other people have the same mind.

Patmala Boondej

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Wasita on Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:56 am

I agree with the passage that all people see things differently and I think of course it is. Each people have different perspectives maybe because of comes different background, society, religion, or even a field of studies that make people think differently. However, not only the personal thinking factor but also the writing can cause affects in way we see things too. As it is stated in the passage about the Van Gogh last artwork that, “It is hard to define exactly how the words have changed the image but undoubtedly they have”, on page28. But also the reproductive of pictures from painting or photo also happen without using any of the old piece meaning, as it is also mention that, “In this essay each image reproduced has become part of an argument which had little or nothing to go with the painting’s original independent meaning”page28, and some example of pictures on page 38 and 39. As also related to the technology of photographing, making it possible for people to see many pictures painting and use it as an idea to reproducing it. However, I think it’s good though, to reproduce old paintings and artwork to inspired ourselves to new meaning of the picture even though the picture look just alike.

John Berg. "1 & 2." Way of Seeing. 35 Marylebone High Srteet, London: Britsh Broadcasting Cop., 1972.

Wasita

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Reading Response

Post  Chittranuch Napawan on Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:24 am

From the book, Ways of Seeing by John Berger, I agree with the idea of how people see and judge things differently depending on their experiences, cultures, beliefs, knowledge, etc. “… Our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing.” (page 10) Since everyone is different, it results a great variety of perspective towards every single things in our environment and society, and of course, sometimes different perspectives can lead people into arguments. I think this is normal and this is what makes us human.

The idea about “the invention of camera” and “the uniqueness of a painting” also interested me. As Berger suggests “Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In its travels, it meaning is diversified.” (page 20) Cameras and reproduction change the way people appreciate the artworks. Nowadays, people seem to put more value on paintings’ reputation (from seeing through media repetitively) and the price rather than interested in the artists’ techniques, the meaning, or the background behind the original paintings. (This actually makes me realized why taking a photo in museum or in exhibition is often forbidden.) But why does reproduction of a painting makes some people believe that the painting is famous and expensive? I think this is when the relationship between seeing and knowing takes place. I believe when people see something repetitively, it automatically influence people’s mind to think that it is important. For example, ‘money’, we see it as small thin sheets with numbers on it, but we were raised to know and believe in its value. From time to time, we use money as a medium when trading with goods, so we put trust on these ‘sheets of paper’. Counterfeit money also makes genuine money become even more valuable. Same in artworks, with reproduction, an original painting become more valuable, not from how the painting is made or its meaning, but how people encourage each other to believe that the painting is precious.

Chittranuch Napawan

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

RESPONSE ch 1-2

Post  manussanan subvara on Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:46 pm

From the early sentence of the book, Way of seeing by John Barger, He said that “Seeing comes before words.” (p. 7) and “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (p.8 ). I totally agree with those sentences because John Barger said that “The reciprocal nature of vision is more fundamental than that of spoken dialogue” (p.9). A vision always comes before dialogue and different people come from different background so there is always a distinction between what we see and what we know from many perspectives. In my opinion the ways we see things determined by what we believe or what we know. He gives an example in the book that nowadays people would see fire different from people in the Middle Age who believe in the physical existence of fire that time the fire must meant something different from today. “When we ‘see’ a landscape, we situate ourselves in it” (p.11) when we see the pieces of art from the part we will locate ourselves in the history and if the painter attempts to prevent us from seeing the real situation we will never know the truth because we are being deprived of the history. “When a camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its images” and “Sometimes the painting was transportable but it could never be seen in two places at the same time” (p.19) the camera destroys the unique of the painting. John Barger gives an example of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonado da Vinci which located in 2 places at the same time its values seem to be decrease.

manussanan subvara

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Global Art Hist. (Chapter 1-2)

Post  Banyaporn on Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:46 pm

“The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (p. 8 ). This phrase in a book, Way of seeing by John Berger, supports the idea of market value (pp. 23-24). I totally agree on this part where people look at the Leonardo’s painting of its market value, not the quality and style of product that he made. Here, the social status is affected on people. The evident of American wanted to buy the cartoon painting from Leonardo for two and a half millions pounds are created a perspective of how value the painting is, in a money value. How many people actually know what the painting means? I think this is the point of mysteriousness happen in each painting. This starts up the trend and this is the turning point of how people value thing because now they value the painting wrongly.

For example, the Mona Lisa in Louvre Museum has a great reputation. Once before I went to Paris, I thought that picture must look so impressive and beautiful as people are talking about for all centuries. However, when I was in front of that picture I start wondering what people are looking at, Is they really looking at the meaning etc., and many other questions were coming in to my mind. It was not the picture was not beautiful but they were a very long queue looking only that picture.

Banyaporn

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Reading Response (chapter 1-2)

Post  Nantawat on Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:01 pm

I agree with the previous post by Banyaporn that we’re often mislead by the way other people react to certain paintings (such as The Mona Lisa) that we’ve forgotten to think about the meaning of the painting itself and what it means specifically to us. I think following a trend is almost a pointless thing to do because by doing this, the value of the object in your eyes, would depend on how others value it. This often lead us to over look the value or meaning of the object itself.

In the book “Way of seeing” by John Berger when he stated “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe”(p.8 ) Our way of interpreting paintings depends on our individual’s backgrounds, education, culture, taste etc. However I think that this does not always mean that a person with a different background or culture will appreciate a particular painting any less, in the case of Manet and his interest in Japanese prints, it shows that sometimes us human are attracted to the mystery of the unknown and is fascinated by it. I believe that it’s impossible to truly understand the actual meaning of the painting because “When we ‘see’ a landscape, we situate ourselves in it”(p.11). Our thought will always have some influences in the way we see that painting , hence,“… Our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing.”(p.10). Even the simplest painting will still be distorted by the artist who would automatically inserts a piece of himself into the work, “it allows us to share the artist’s experience of the visible.” (p.10). I agree that "Seeing comes before words" (p.7), despite this, words also influence us in the way we see. Our original thought of the painting on the "Wheatfield With Crows" by Van Gogh is altered when we see the text "This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself" (p.28). Thus, when there are words, our way of seeing becomes more restricted.

The invention of camera allows us to reproduce the original painting, which made it easier for people to relate to, as the painting can now be seen in various places beside the museum, "The majority take it as axiomatic that the museums are full of holy relics that excludes them." (p.24) It may seems as if the value of the original painting decreases with the births of multiple reproductions but I believe that it is the value of the reproduction that is decreased, “even a reproduction hung on a wall is not comparable in this respect for in the original the silence and stillness permeate the actual material, the paint, in which one follows the traces of the painter’s immediate gestures.”(p.31). Having “copies” of itself makes the original painting much more exclusive and more interesting in my eyes because now, besides the context of the painting and what it means, we’re also interested by the differences between the original and reproduction, in terms of the texture, the essence of the artist and the impact it has on the viewers.


Last edited by Nantawat on Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nantawat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

GlobalArtHistory (reading respond)

Post  patrattakorn on Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:45 pm

“Seeing comes before words…,” I, like earlier responds, totally agree with this statement in the beginning of the book, Ways of Seeing by John Berger. We, people, can’t describe or interpret something, unless we see and examine it first, not until then we can describe it into words (p.7). I also agree with what John Berger have stated in the beginning of the following page, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.”, because we people come from difference background—difference culture, education, society, and religious—so even though we are looking at the same thing we might look at it differently and interpret it differently (p.8 ). “Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before.”, this statement is also true, because as time change thing change (p.16).
One of the greatest impacts on this issue would be the invention of camera, photography, and movie making as stated in the book, which I agree, because it relate to the way and what we see. Berger suggested that the camera destroy the idea that the images were timeless and also it uniqueness and memories—which is true, because when we use (movie) camera to record, it create a specific time of the image or scene we recorded. The camera destroy it uniqueness and memories because it reproduce the image of the painting and it bring out the painting from its original place when it should be, which contain traces of how the paint was made (p.18-19). He, Berger, also suggested that the reproduce of the painting change how people look at the original piece of work, which I agree with him. Like what Berger have stated, now a day most people think that the painting is beautiful was because what other people have said (words and what other people said also change how people look at the painting [p.28]) and because of it value, instead of it meaning of the past and what the artist what to tell to the audience.
In the end of chapters 1, Berger have stated that “…art of the past has now become a political issue.”, which is so true, because now it is the thing that show how wealthy the country was because of it enormous price.

patrattakorn

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Pitchanee S on Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:41 pm

Yes, I agree with all previous replies. The first sentence in the book named “Way Of Seeing” by John Berger says “Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognize before it can speak” (p.7). For myself, pictures, maps and diagrams are always help me understand things better. When I have an examination, I draw map first and then read. I think that human brain work out perfectly with the picture not the words but both is the best. Like we can that parents give their babies picture book for learning.

In another hand, Thailand also have this kind of proverb. It is “a picture is worth a thousand word.” It mean that we should not believe other people’s words before we see by ourselves. Images show the feeling and senses more than word. The words from artists that pass through their works to us may be different for each person. That is depended on one’s imagination. When my friend and I look in the same art work, we might think different.

Pitchanee S

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Napat Neampinij on Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:07 pm

"Seeing comes before words. The child looks and reconizes before it can speak ." (p.7). The author is very thoughtful to use a child as a comparison for this passage. by this I've notice that all human being will have their first impression by seeing, To know more about the things that i'm looking at, I have to either read or talk to someone for more infomation after my first impression which is 'Seeing'. "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe."(p.Cool . In real life everyone will have different thought, ideas and feels. Just by looking at one object. Then people will start to believe in whatever they saw and change after something new came into their sight. "Paintings arae often reproduced with words around them." (p.27). When it comes to painting, I believe that every painting have meaning in it. For an artist to draw up something there must be something like inspiration, which makes them want to paints. Then it will start to change and develop to something else as time goes and what we see.

John Berg. "1/2." Way of Seeing. 35 Marylebone High Srteet, London: Britsh Broadcasting Cop., 1972.

Napat Neampinij

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Reply with quote Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Sirada on Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:16 pm

Looking at the same thing, people have dissimilar ways of seeing it. Difference people have difference thoughts; they see things differently. As stated in the passage, ‘the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe’ (p.Cool; therefore, I think the way of seeing thing depend on the way we have been brought up.

In addition, I agree with the statement that ‘the invention of camera changed the way men saw.’(p.18) A camera produces a replica of the painting in another media which help us widen our perception.Because we these artworks are set in unique and special places, places where adds to the preciousness of the artwork. This is because, in the old days, for example, the Mona Lisa is set at a single place, a museum, where people must travel, get in line for tickets and finally have a moment with the artwork. People now have more opportunity to access to these paintings and learn more from them.

Cameras make many paintings become worldwide.The travel for such an artwork makes it more precious as to how we must struggle and become exhausted, in some cases, to view such beauty. With cameras, everything is at our hand, we do not need to walk or drove for miles just to see such an artwork since we can see them either on newspaper or from postcards.

Although I do agree with John Berger who said, ‘When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image’ (pg. 12), I don’t think a camera could ruin the value of the original paintings; they still maintain their values though they have become less unique.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. 35 Marylebone High Srteet, London: Britsh Broadcasting Cop, 1972


Last edited by Sirada on Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:37 pm; edited 3 times in total

Sirada

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

way of seeing,john berger chp1

Post  Penpannin Nakages on Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:52 am

"The way of seeing" by John Berger, tell us a lot about our perspective. As mentioned in the book "the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe"( 8 ). There are many factors that make people see things variously such as thier religion, education , background, personality etc. When we combine these all factors of each person together , then we could get thier perspective.Because of this, there is a gab between people. It's why present people seeing the paintings of people in the past and think of nothing(shallower thought).

The perspective or the way we seeing thing can be represent by many things. Image is one way of representing and expressing our perspective. To use image as a representative of your point of view is more acurate than using the words or the literature to explaining. It's more understandable when we show the picture of something to someone more than just talk to them without the picture.

After the invention if the camera, the major chage has begun to the paintings. The painting's details and uniqueness is destroy by the birth of the camera. On the other hand, the birth of the camera gave us the new kind of art and the camera also us to see the image at home.

Penpannin Nakages

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response on Ways of Seeing: Agreements & Disagreements

Post  Khim Pisessith INDA on Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:00 am

According to Ways of Seeing by John Berger, what we see and what we know are different. Believing or knowing certain things will have an effect on, not what we see, but how we see it. Ways of seeing can also be expressed and determined through several mediums, like how photographers choose what they want to capture within their frames, or how painters make marks and do brushstrokes of their choice on their canvases (p. 10).

Words can also alter the way we see things. For example, the landscape painting of “a cornfield with birds flying out of it (Wheatfield With Crows)” painted by Vincent Van Gogh will seem normal to us without the text mentioning that he painted this before he committed a suicide (p. 27-28).

Referring to what Penpannin Nakages has mentioned on the previous post, I agree that the invention of camera has played a major role on how human view paintings. "Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting." (p. 20). With the use of cameras, multiples of reproductions were distributed as well as copies of the original painting; it became possible for people to see the painting without going to where it is being located. The fact that the painting is no longer “the only one” has made it less unique since it can now be seen anywhere.

This is why I disagree with Nantawat on how he claimed that a painting with several “reproductions” would make the original painting itself more exclusive. True, the original and its reproduction can be compared to see the differences, but that would be like focusing on “the differences between the original painting and its imitation” rather than what the original painting itself conveys; I think the value of a painting relies on both its context and what it means, and I believe that having a reproduction will result in people overlooking the “exclusiveness” of the original painting itself. It’s like how people went to see the real Mona Lisa painting just because it is the real Mona Lisa painting. “…in either case the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. It is no longer what its image shows that strikes one as unique; its first meaning is no longer to be found in what is says, but in what it is.” (p. 21). Here, Berger mentioned the same thing. Having a reproduction of itself, a painting shifts from being “the only painting” into being “an original painting”. To me, “the original painting out of all reproductions which can be found anywhere” is not exclusive at all. The texture could be different and that would make a difference, but I doubt that the impact it has on the audience would be on what the painting conveys. People might get too caught up on the fact that it is the original painting and, regrettably, couldn’t see what the painting is really about.

Khim Pisessith INDA

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Berger response INDA

Post  Paritat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:02 am

Oh! Well, I can't agree more on " Seeing comes before words." (p.7), by seeing, it gives better understanding than words as it provides the overview image while words give information gradually. Nevertheless, as people have miscellaneous knowledge, thought and imagination, misinterpretation may occur while words retain the specific information instead.

How touch to hear that "Art is thought to be greater than commerce - its market price is said to be a reflection of its spiritual value." (p.21). If you have ever drawn or created a work with all your blood and your soul, you will know how much you love it and how precious it is and you will never sell it no matter how much you are offered. That is how the spiritual value is reflected to the price of the art work.

The invention of camera, though it allows people reproduce paintings and it takes away the original's uniqueness as countless of them are spread out worldwide but the only thing that camera can never capture is the authenticity of the painting as John Berger says " I am in front of it. I can see it. This painting by Leonardo is unlike the other in the world.The National Gallery has the real one. If i look at this painting hard enough, I should somehow be able to feel its authenticity." (p.21). That's where the uniqueness is.

Berger, J.(1972). "Way of Seeing". 35 Marylebone High Street, London: British Broadcasting Corporation.

Paritat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter 1-2 response

Post  Thanyaporn Janma on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:35 am

I agree with the statement that people see things differently. In the beginning of the book “Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.”(Berger.1972.7) it shows the flexibility of our perception and idea when they see the surrounding things. For Example, children who never see any ancient picture will have different idea compared to others because they base on their first sight which they could say that is just pictures. On the other hand, others may think that those pictures are meaningful.

According from what I said in the first paragraph, it also means that “the way people look at the art works is affected by a whole series of learnt assumptions about art.”(Berger.1972.11) In the other words, people base their idea on what they have taught. For people who learnt about arts, they could tell and explain those pictures very clearly and correctly. Moreover, they would have different perception than people who have no those knowledge about art.

As the pictures change over time, many people start make a copy of it and put it in the museum or buy it as they want, these action could change the important of the meaning of the pictures. For example, the artist of “the original of reproduction”(Berger.1972.21) may feel the different between in the past and the present because making a copy of those pictures is decreased the meaning of the picture and people would feel that it just a normal picture because they already see so many times.

Thanyaporn Janma

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

RESPONSE

Post  Satakhun on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:58 am

"Seeing comes before words..." (p. 7)
I agree with other respond
Because you need to see things before you can tell, compare or describe about it. Thinking you describe something without seeing it .same as when you playing Guess Game. Who ever played this game have known that was very hard to describe thing that your friend were hinting. Something cannot or hard to describe in to words even you have seen that thing. I also agree with “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe“ (p.Cool We have seen lot of people saw the same thing but thing they see and think are different because of believe and knowledge .
In the past time people thought that lighting , disease , and other natural disaster happened
because of god. Present we can proved it with scientific process. Some picture contain two pictures in one and that picture can made two person or more who is seeing the picture confused if they didn’t have the same thinking because they did see different image . This picture can be found in psychology test. These show how the way of thinking affected people vision.

Satakhun

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

response to ch.1-2

Post  winida mahachaiwanit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:27 am

From the book “Way of seeing – by John Berger” Mostly pictures, diagram, or anything that can be seen help a person to understand something better than speech but it will be even better if both comes together. Having no idea of how things look or the information about it will just give you nothing on what to tell about the particular object or image. Knowing or seeing the object will help people to describe and compare things easier. Images play a big role to describe the past, the scenery, etc. It have helped people in the present to know more about people in the past on how they look and what they mostly do, like their paintings, but also as time pass, the meaning of the image may change. Example from “Wheatfield with crows- by Van Gogh 1853-1890” at the first image caption said “ This is a landscape of a cornfield with birds flying out of it” and then the second image caption said “ This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself”. The image is the same but the caption is different this can gives different kind of feeling and mood when looked at the picture, and this can make people argue because one may feel this and another may feel that.

winida mahachaiwanit

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Ways of Seeing Chapter 1-2 response

Post  Chanapa on Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:15 pm

After I have read chapter one and chapter two. I agree with many ideas which John Berger wrote in the book, Ways of Seeing. The first is ‘Seeing comes before words’ (P.7), I really agree with it. And also ‘The way we see thing is affected by what we know or what we believe’ (P.8 ). I think when we see something we look at it and translate it into words that we know in our head. If we don’t know it, we will try to translate it into the words that we know until we know a new word that can describe it. Words can change our seeing as well. The picture, Wheat Field with Crows by Van Gogh (P.27-28), is a very good example. When I saw it without any words and when I saw it after knowing words. My perspective was changed. After I know that it is the last painting before he killed himself. There are many thought come into my mind- what he was thinking when he drew this picture, Is there any clue in the picture that he was depressed.

The value of ancient picture, now, changes by price due to its rarity. But I think the ancient art still has value of its unique and meaning even though reproduction makes it easier to see and to more numbers of spectators. The original art makes the spectator feel that he/she is standing in front of the same art that the artist drew in the old time

Chanapa

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

ch1-2 respon

Post  Praj on Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:57 pm

I agree of the idea that said "it is the seeing that establishes our place in the surrounding word"(p.7). Because I think the way of how people looked at object or the subject are different and that make each person different from others. So that, the world of our that have different view of idea created the options which create society. From the pictures in chapter 2,the feeling and the story that express from that image are might seem to be inappropriate to me but in another hand some people might see those as the artwork. However, the picture that we saw everyday some might have the text or sentence that come along with it those affect the way the picture show. Without the text the image that we looking at may not be clearly understand in that way it suppose to meaning about, so the text help us to understand more about way it try to express.Not just the text that affect the sight about as the list on page11 (beauty, truth, civilization, form, status, etc) are also so affect us in some way.
From the first 2 chaperters of the book “Way of seeing – by John Berger” I can conclude that the way of seeing of each person are diffidently depends on everything that relate to our life.

Praj

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter 1-2 Response

Post  Chayothorn on Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:25 pm

After I read the first two chapters in the book, Ways of Seeing by John Berger, I have to admit that there are many points that I really like and do agree with. First of all, when he said, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (7). I totally agree with this. I think that what we see now a day is based on what we believe even we do not know whether it’s true or not. Just like what Berger said, “hell owed a lot of sight of fire consuming and the ashes remaining” (Cool. We believe that fire symbolizes hell, but who set that idea up? Do they really have seen it? From what I think, they’re all personal belief in which we people choose to believe it. In these first two chapters, Berger also mentioned about how camera has change the way men view painting (18). He said, “when the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image – so its meaning changes” (19). I agree with what Berger said. After reproducing the painting, the meaning and uniqueness won’t be the same. The meaning will change. It won’t be as unique as before. And lastly, it will surely decrease its values.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972. Print.

Chayothorn

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Berger Response ch1-2

Post  Donrawat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:38 pm

I agree with John Berger about how people see thing. We can visually recognize things before we hear, touch, taste or feel them. When we see the object we usually can tell what the surface of the object will be like without touching it.
He also mentioned that people can see thing differently depend on their belief. In addition, Human believes come with their experiences. So they see thing differently and when they express or trying to show them, they do them differently. For example, the photographer capture his work in to a frame. Their work could become more or less different to how we see the real object or scenery, depend on how they capture it or apply techniques into it. The painters also use different brush strokes to produce their works. Different shapes, curves, texture, angle to present their work. These things are affected by the aspect that they have received from their surrounding on what they see.
The invention of the camera really change the way we see things because it widen our thought. The camera would print the shapes of the object directly how it looks but I disagree with the statement that he said ‘When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image’ (pg. 12). In my opinion, we can still create the uniqueness of the image because when we took the picture we can use different angle, tones, techniques , shutter speed, lens types etc. The result of the image would be different depend on what we see and what we try to express.
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972. Print.


Donrawat

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

RE: Response Ch.1-2

Post  kannawat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm

Before i read this chapter i always think that using an image of paintings won't effect the uniqueness of the paintings but then after i read chapter 1 ,i realize that it "destroy the uniqueness of its image"(19) and it does make paintings less meaningful. I do agree, and i have to admit that after reading this part it changes my perspective. From this quote "The art of the past no longer exists as it once did. Its authority is lost"(33). it is true, now a days people just can googled up an images of painting and use it for their own purpose, and this makes the meaning of paintings rely on the way they use the image. It won't be the same as when you see the original image, and this can change the way we see according to first page of ways of seeing "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe"(1), and as you all know people believe can changes.

Also like what Sathakun have said and before u can describe things u have to look and see the objects first because "seeing comes before words"(7). Just like when you're trying to describe something that u knew but it's not there in front of you, then it's is normal that we'll illustrate an image of this thing in our head before we describe it. So it is always true that "seeing comes before words". So far i think this book describe our ways of seeing or perspectives which we sees everyday but we do not mention it, and after reading this it changes the way we see.

kannawat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter 1-2 response

Post  Nattakritta Lertpunyaroj on Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:25 pm

After I read first two chapters of John Berger's “The ways of seeing", I agree that ‘seeing comes before words’ (Berger,1) and ‘the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe’ (Berger,2). From the same image, people might view and interpret its meaning different from others. This is because each person has different experiences, culture, society, believes and others. Also, it might relate to our position in time and space too.

After the invention of the camera, I agree that ‘it destroys the uniqueness of its image’ (Berger,19). I think most paintings are less important since there is a camera. Paintings are everywhere, we can see them easily through different media such as newspaper, Internet, magazines, television screen and others-no need effort to view them. ‘Painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting’ (Berger,20). From this, I think technologies could affect painting in different ways such as make it becomes less in value and also change its meanings.

Sometimes images are also important depend on its value, not because of the meanings and what it shows. For example, Leonardo’s cartoon of The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St.John the Baptist which American wanted it buy it for two and a half million pounds.

John Berg. "1 & 2." Way of Seeing. 35 Marylebone High Srteet, London: Britsh Broadcasting Cop., 1972.

Nattakritta Lertpunyaroj

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter 1&2 response

Post  Grape Nalintragoon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:11 pm

After finished the first chapter of the book, I totally agree with the word “Seeing come before words” (P.7), at the first sentence of the book. It makes me realized about the Advertising we see often from everywhere, it is a great example to support the idea that normally we usually look at the interesting picture first and think about what the image try to inform us or read its description later. It is a basic thing when looking at something and then analyzing what we just saw in order to understand it. In case if there is no description from the image, individual people would definitely thought and feel differently about it because there are many factors come up while considering it. Just like the Berger said, "The way we see thing is affected by what we know or what we believe."(P.8 ) Therefore, it became a gap between people and makes them varied. If people looking at the same matter together, some would think that it is a trash or useless thing but in other hand, the others one would think in the opposite way that it is a great artistically work.
Besides, I have ever thought the way in which Berger exemplified about Van Gogh’s painting (P.28) before when I have ever had a chance visiting National Gallery museum in London. At that time, I was young and know nothing about paintings. I saw many pictures in there. I have experienced its authenticity of the original pictures and felt exclusive to see rare pictures from world famous artists with my own sight but for me in those day, it all looks so common, nothing special just a regular pictures however, so far I have learned more about the painting, knowing what is the story behind it then I realize that the way I see the same painting changed completely different. It made me automatically increasing its value. Not only the way I see things but also how the artist see it. Likewise “…’you see things’, and attempt to discover how ‘he see things’.” (P.9) which mentioned in the book. Like a Star @ heaven

Grape Nalintragoon

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Phurich's Response

Post  Phurich on Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:40 pm

Way of Seeing(Perception) is the function of how humans and other animals used to perceive what are surrounding them. Brain is the manager of Perception, then obviously, different people have different way to perceive what they have seen. How people interpreting what they have seen are based on personal experiences, education, life styles and many other factors.

As Berger has showed the portrait of a girl which enlarged out to be a small part of the huge painting. He called this idea, the reproduction. This has somehow been reflected to the idea of limited perception and transformation of the meaning. I agree to some extent that if we isolated a small part of painting, it becomes a different story, however I think that from that isolated part, the story was somehow unfinished. We could feel the absence of mysterious assumption, somehow we could not perceive the whole story. However if we did, our knowledge on that isolated part is limited us from the whole story which somehow leads to misunderstanding.

The idea of reproduction has limited people from seeing the truth. However people somehow replace the truth with the elements which bring out the other meaning which entirely different from the original.

Phurich

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum