Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Nutcha Somboonthanasarn on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:07 pm

Since we’re not the same person, we have many different ways to see things. According to that reason, I totally agree with “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” (p.8 ) There’re lots of things that can affect our vision. To see from different perspective or to see by different spectator the outcome of what we saw might be occur in various ways. “What you saw depended upon where you were when. What you saw was relative to your position in time and space.” (p.18) After the invention of the camera, it’s completely affected to the way how we see things. It also makes our life more convenient because we need no painters to keep our memory into a painting. We can make it ourselves. We just have to capture it by using a camera. But it’s not that easy to create some great pictures, it have to happen in the right place at the right time and also have to use lots of skills. But if we use a camera in the wrong way, it can devalue on what we capture. “When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image.” (p.19)

From Wheatfield with Crowns by Van Gogh which is a landscape picture of a cornfield with birds flying out of it. If we look at this painting without having a description on it, we won’t be able to know that this is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he kill himself. Just only a description can make a great impact to our perspective to the picture. Not only words but also sources can affect our vision. “One might argue that all reproductions more or less distort, and that therefore the original painting is still in a sense unique.” (p.20) A reproduction can be produce in a large number as you want, but the original painting always have only one. Every painting have a story of its own, it can tell us millions different stories. It depends on our imagination, our attitude and what we want to see. “Original paintings are silent and still in a sense that information never is.” (p.31)

Berger, John. "1&2." Ways of seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.

Nutcha Somboonthanasarn

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Nattaphat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:27 pm

I believe it is true that "the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe".(Berger, 1972, p.8 ). The way we think or feel towards the same object may not necessary be the same. For example, we look at the same picture, one might think that the picture is very beautiful, but another people might think it is not so good. We might even think of different feelings and meanings the artist expressed through the picture.

I also like John Berger's statement that "because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting."(1972, p.20). Invention of cameras made replication of paintings possible. It may lessen the uniqueness and value of the paintings, since everyone can have it, as Berger pointed that "when the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image"(1972, p.19), but it unlocks the accessibility to the paintings, which enable more people to really study and appreciate their beauty.

Nattaphat

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Reply chapter 1- 2

Post  Vaiwit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:00 pm

I do agree with the idea that “seeing come before words” (7), and the ways different people interpret the same painting in different ways. “Our ways of seeing things are affected by what we know and what we believe”, because different people come from different background - different culture, region, education and religion. For instance the Middle age people believe in the physical existence of Hell, and their idea of hell owed a lot of dust and ashes but they did not know the actual images of Hell.
Regarding to Nattakritta Lertpunyaroj’s response I do agree with her that “After the invention of the camera the uniqueness of its image are destroyed” (19). In my opinion I think that paintings had lost its important, worse is that the meaning of the image changed. Now it can be seen in different places at different time. Even though these reproductions may be produced in the large amount but only the real painting would show the painter’s point of view about the real meaning of the painting, but it depend upon us “what we make of that painting when it is before our eyes and it depend on how we have already experienced the meaning of painting through reproduction”.

Vaiwit

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

CHAPTER 1-2 WAYS OF SEEING

Post  Punnarungsi Temswaenglert on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:18 pm

“Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak”(p.7) and “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.”(p.Cool Both statements are the early of the book, ways of seeing by John Berger. I totally agree with both statements base on my own experience. For example, both statements are so simple but meaningful because all human being would understand and easily to describe anything when first they see.

“Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting.” (p.20) Since human develop the technology of the camera, which make the qualities of the picture close to the original and people go to the art gallery once just for a good picture, not looking to the detail or technical of the painter.

People think it so easy to find a copy of any famous painting online or stole anyone ideas just one click. This action makes the valuable of the painting lest and low price and if now a day people not start protecting the benefit of the artist the next generation might know only the copy of the original picture but they won’t know the highest quality of
unique.

Punnarungsi Temswaenglert

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  David Wilcox on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:19 pm

Everyone has interesting points made.

I see the book, Ways of Seeing, as a way of people percieving the things in their lives. It all depends on how they percieve these things. In John Berger's Book, he defines the way we see things as being dependent on how we are, our social status, our beliefs, our environment, etc. These factors contribute to the meaning of what we are trying to see. A really good example of this is where he describes how a picture is shown to an audience accross television, reaching many different people in many different siutuations - before, a picture would have defined it's own meaning, but instead, the painting is delivered to your home and becomes visible through your television. It's this moment where the "..meaning was diversified." (pg.20) because now, the painting enters your life and you, yourself, decide how you're going to percieve it, no matter what background the painting came from.

Another example that was given by Berger was an image that portrays birds and a field, a rather nice picture, but as you turn the page, the picture is given an entirely different meaning even though it is still the same picture. The words below the picture on the 2nd page determines how we percieve it, drastically changing our original perception because "The image now illustrates the sentence." (pg.27-28)

However, Berger again tries to establish that art has lost its true meaning. He explains that in our current generation, replications have now destroyed the true meaning of the originals. Because we now are able to percieve images in an entirely unique way compared to everyone else, because of who we are and other various reasons. A minority would consider art to be meaningful, but now we, the masses, are "uninterested and scepitical" (pg.33). It's very interesting how we have our own perceptions for the things we see, even though their originally intended meanings become lost and then recreated by ourselves.

Berger does explain the way complex process of how and why we see things as they are, it's very interesting indeed.

David Wilcox

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response

Post  Kritchanat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:21 pm

As in the book “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger starts with “Seeing comes before words”, this sentence explains how human recognize and interpreted there surrounding. Human see, recognize, and memorize things before they learn to define it. The book then further on describe how people have different perspective, it changes upon the person surrounding and decision making as the book said “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe”(p.8 ) and “We only see what we look at. To look is an act of choice.”(p.8 ). this brings people to their limitation of knowledge and I agree with the book. With the different perspective, image that human has in mind is different; the way they present and look at it will be different.

Kritchanat

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Chanya on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:41 pm

The book Ways of Seeing by John Berger, presented the idea of how “seeing comes before words”(p.7). I agree with the idea and have notice that every individual view things different. This refers to Berger’s quote of “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe”(p.8 ). We are effected by our backgrounds such as culture, family, and community. Different culture have different aspect of things should be or seen. For example some culture accept the ideas of nudity and some don't.

The invention of camera leads to a major change in art. It revolutionizes how people view art. Art is easier to access and learn from but with camera and technology, Berger further comments that “the majority of the populations do not visit art museums”(p.24).
Berger states that, “when the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of it images”(p.19). One example is the famous painting Woman Pouring Mild by Vermeer. The original painting have the essence of silent and stillness and Berger further explains that a “reproduction hung on a wall is not comparable …”(p. 31). I personally agree with the idea of the original painting over a reproduction. The original image contains the beauty in its medium and the painting itself.

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


Last edited by Chanya on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:47 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : miss spell)

Chanya

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  pannathorn e on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:50 pm

Ways of seeing or perspectives are what differentiate and characterise people. It is agreeable that they are dependent on one’s knowledge, belief, status, personal assumptions etc. This is apparent in photos, in the photographer’s 'selection of sight' out of the infinity of other possibilities available. In the same way, an artist's mark makings on paintings are expressive of his/her 'experience of the visible' (10). Thus I agree with Berger that “the compositional unity of a painting contributes fundamentally to the power of its image” (13).
However, after the invention of cameras there has been a significant change in our ways of seeing. The camera’s ability to reproduce images and make replications of paintings has unfortunately led to the lost in fundamental power and meaning of those paintings, as Berger has mentioned that “what you saw was relative to your position in time and space” (18). I strongly agree with him at this point because if the same painting can be placed at different times and places, and for different purposes, there will certainly be many diverse interpretations of this same painting. It is not only time and space that alters our ways of seeing, words act similarly. This is evident from the two distinct feelings I had when I saw painting Wheat field with crows by Van Gogh and its replica with the passage ‘this is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself’ attached to it (28). This is also supportive to the idea of the ‘always-present gap between words and seeing’ expressed in the painting The Key of Dreams by the Surrealist painter Magritte (7).

pannathorn e

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter 1-2, Way of Seeing response

Post  Napone on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:59 pm

After reading chapter 1&2 of “Way of Seeing by John Berger”, I agree with “Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak” (p.7) the most. People like to observe rather than to read. Pictures can tell things that words can’t. This makes people more comfortable with seeing. This can be proved with the number of advertisement you see every day. “…The child looks and recognizes before it can speak” (p.7) also supports the quote.
I also agreed with “The invention of the camera also changed the way in which men saw paintings long before the camera was invented” (p.19). If people from when cameras were not invented saw scenery or a portrait, they won’t know what will that scenery or the person on the portrait really looked. But people now will know what the actual scenery or person will look like with the help of cameras. Photos taken from camera will look exactly the same with the original thing with the nearest quality.


Napone

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Berger Response (INDA)

Post  Soraya on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:01 pm

In my opinion, “Seeing comes before words”(p. 7) means to see and to feel. A picture is direct and we can feel right away. Different people coming from different background have different point of view. The quote “The ways we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe”(p. 8 ) suggest that we can be influence to view things in a certain way. The invention of camera changes the ways of how people use to view art. It reproduce the painting in a form of image and Berger also said that “When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its images”(p. 19). Even though some part of texture can be shown in the reproduction, the texture and feeling is still lost in a reproduction. Some brush strokes may not be capture in a image and it may effect the image to be distorted from the original image.
Berger , John . Ways of Seeing . London : British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972. Print.

Soraya

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Global Art History : Berger Response INDA Ch 1-2

Post  Jitrin Rojanai on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:06 pm

I agree to the passage that people see things differently from each other. Each people have different perspectives that come from different background, cultivation, belief, or even education that make people decision for judging things in a different way. However, people can be relying on their own understanding. Berger suggests that words can "mystify rather than clarify" things (11). In the book pg.27 Van Gogh's Wheatfield 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). Nowadays, people seem to put more value on paintings’ reputation by according to public and society, which link to price or either money more than interested in the artists’ methods, meaning, or the origin of painting. This action is because, we use money as middle for trading, so we trust on these more than anything.

After judging carefully with my opinion and response to text “Ways of seeing or perspectives” 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 judging at objects or the subjects are different and that make each person different from others, other word unique. That is the reason why the world has different view of idea created the options which create society.

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

Jitrin Rojanai

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

ch. 1-2 responce

Post  Wish Vitayathanagorn on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:21 pm

As I read this book. From the beginning “Seeing comes before words …“(7). This sentence hits my mind that most people usually decide something by seeing because they know what the truth is; that’s true. When you see something, you can learn those things or situation clearly. And I strongly agree with sentences that say “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (Cool and “We only see what we look at” (Cool. Most people only see what they know; on the other hand, they never see what they do not know. They limit their knowledge and their perspective. All people have different perspective knowledge that comes from images in their mind which is different. That’s why the book emphasizes “You see things” and “He sees things” (9). If people focus on different part or you have different knowledge, they will be made to know different.

Wish Vitayathanagorn

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Prapasri Khunakridatikarn on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:38 pm

Berger suggests "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe."(Cool And according to Wish “Most people only see what they know; on the other hand, they never see what they do not know. They limit their knowledge and their perspective.” It is agreeable that knowledge and belief change the way people look at things because they limit their perspective.
For instance, if a person who doesn’t have any knowledge about the creation of the world sees the painting “Adam and Eve” by Titan, he might have thought that it is a painting of two naked people who are taking an apple down from a tree. That man might not appreciate of the painting. But if another person who is a faithful Christian sees the same painting. This person won’t just think it is a painting of two naked people. Instead, he will think it is the painting of first two people who are about to commit the first sin of the world.
The author also suggests that “Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We actually perceive it in a different way.” (16) . Today society is now a digital world. People don’t have to go to library to search for information. All they have to do is turn on their computer and type key words of information they want. This method also works with art work. Google will just show them tons of artworks they want to take a look.


Prapasri Khunakridatikarn

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter 1-2

Post  Natthakit Kangsadansenano on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:40 pm

Seeing comes before words(p.7)
I am totally admit with this phrase.
Seeing is about receiving experience that have more accurate than by the word. For example,If you looking at a tree you will see that it is green with a lot of leaf and branch. Then if you explain the charactristic of the tree to your friend . When you say a lot of leaf to your friend. A lot in your mind won't be the same as your friend.So seeing is something that you understand before you try to translate into the words.
The way we see thing is affected by what we know or believed(p.Cool.
Of course it true. When i was young ,I wonder why we can not walking on the cloud. Because it look like we can walk on it. Then my science teacher give me some answers that make my view of the cloud to just one kind of stream.
When the camera reproduces a painting,it destroys the uniqueness of it image'(p.12)
This book was written in 1972.So i assume that time camera would not be comparable to nowadays camera. The technology of today camera function special tool and CS5 will give the uniqueness that you want.

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

Natthakit Kangsadansenano

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

response ch.1-2

Post  kotchamon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:06 pm

After reading these 2 chapters of the book “Way of seeing” by John Berger. I think that the way of seeing is up to perspective of each person. Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We actually perceive it in a different way. “The convention of the perspective centres everything on the eye of the beholder. It is like a beam from lighthouse only instead of light travelling outwards, appearance travel in”. This passage clearly definite the word of seeing. From the first page it is concerning about the relation between what we see and what we know that it can not be settled. I agree with him because what we know is based on time and situation not the same with what we see just a while not the whole story. From this quote “After the invention of the camera it destroys the uniqueness of its image” I do agree with him that the paintings and those pictures would not be the same. It is not totally destroy the uniqueness of the image. It just lost the surrounding of that painting which creates another kind of art. Now we use another technique to represent the paintings. We use lens types, angle and shutter speed instead of using the composition, texture, shape and others. Nowadays we can see the picture everywhere we wanted through many different media such as television, magazine, internet, brochure, newspaper and so on just like what Berger said “ Painting now travels to the spector rather than the spector to the paint”.

kotchamon

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response

Post  Bunyapha on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:11 pm

According to the book “ Ways of seeing by John Berger ”, first paragraph “The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled.” (7) It is because people come from dissimilar place and cultures, so they properly believe in different things. For example, if a group of student is given to describe the painting, they may answer variously. Because unequal knowledge that each child had, just liked the book said that “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” (8 ) On the one hand, “We only see what we look at.” (8 ) Just because each person has they own perspective and choose to see what they wanted.
“The camera change the way man saw … this was immediately reflected in painting” (18) I agree that camera may help things easier but I still believe that people had their own thought doesn’t need a camera to change what they think. Just like the book said that everyone could see everything. But perspective organized the visual field as thought that was indeed the ideal.

Bunyapha

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response (Nitiwath Thipkkarayod)

Post  Nitiwath on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:11 pm

What was my thought after reading the book Ways or Seeing by John Berger? I am actually impressed by how it give me several new things to agree with. First of all I like the sentence where it says “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (Cool. On my point of view people usually think when they see things and those thinking are most likely to come from what we know, or even what they didn't see but on what they believe in - for example a black hole as a unending hole that sucks everything in greedily. Secondly I also like the sentences where it says “When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes” (19). This sentences remind me of how the internet actually changes the value of the paintings too. In the earlier time people need to go the way to the gallery in order to see the paintings, but on contrary nowadays all we need to do is see it from the internet. However, there is also a good point in having the internet; if we see it differently, it’s true the value of painting may be lesser, but I do believe that one goal of most artists was to make their paintings visible to the audiences around the world and the internet actually helps them accomplished one of their goal.

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


Last edited by Nitiwath on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nitiwath

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  onchanok on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:16 pm

I never question my process of learning things because I assume that all of the knowledge comes naturally. However, my 'ways of seeing' has changed after I read the first two chapters of this book. As Berger stated, “the relation between what we see and what we know is never settled” (7), I start to think deeply about my way of seeing things in life. One part of the book that strongly emphasizes this quote was the last painting of Van Gogh. At that point of reading, I clearly understand how my thoughts can change as fast as flipping a page of the book. The moment I see the first picture on page 27 was slightly before the page 28, but my feelings toward the picture changes instantaneously. With this idea in mind, as I look through chapter two, the images of women start to have more meaning than I expected. I see the contrast between periods of time of those images, including perspectives of the artists and cultural values. According to my point of view, nudity in painting from the past is fairly acceptable. On the other hand, we rarely see nudity explicitly shown in advertisement, especially in religious country such as Thailand, because it is less acceptable.

The discussion about the reproduction of paintings through the use of technology in the first chapter is also remarkable. Berger explained that “the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction" (20) and “the meaning of the original work no longer lies in what it uniquely says but what it uniquely is” (20). I partly agree with him because people now see famous paintings as collective items more than a piece of art. However, I also think this idea contradicts with the idea of “what you saw depended upon where you were when. What you saw was relative to your position in time and space" (Berger 18). Even the same original painting will have different meaning if viewed at different period of time. Therefore, I think the uniqueness of a painting depends on the viewer’s point of view more than just the painting itself.

onchanok

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Reading Response, Panitnaat Phuphatana

Post  Panitnaat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:33 pm

“Seeing comes before words”, as stated by Berger is truly an agreeable statement as people, since their childhood, commonly know what something looks like before knowing its name or function. This leads to different ways of how people think about something, The meaning of each color to each person can be one of the easiest examples to show this fact.

Berger also explained that what people know can also affect the way they see things too which is also agreeable because after someone tells you what something is and what it does,whether it’s a lie or not, you’ll keep seeing it in the way you are told.
He gave out an example on Van Gogh’s “Wheatfield with Crows”, after you read what was written under it, you are affected by it because now you ‘know’ that this is his last painting before he commits suicide, you can assume a lot of things from that statement.

Berger mentioned that a painting can explain what an artist sees; this is however, arguable especially when it’s a work of a child or an abstract artist. They don’t exactly draw what they actually see which could be because of their style or their lack of artistic skill that made the painting comes out not exactly ‘real’ or what they’ve actually seen.

Berger stated that an invention of photography led to new ideas of an image. He explained that a painting, no matter when it was painted, is timeless but a ‘time’ in a photo depends on the instance it was taken which is true but not until the present where editing photos is very common can make the photos untrue at times too, just like a painting.

His ideas are mostly very agreeable, it's just that some of them are pretty 'old' that they could become arguable too.

Refernce:
Berger, J. et al., Ways of Seeing. London, England: British Broadcasting Corporation & Penguin Books Ltd, 1972.

Panitnaat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response to Ch.1-2

Post  Pichayut Sirawongprasert on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:36 pm

In the first two chapters of the book, Ways of Seeing by John Berger, the author unveils an idea that people have different ways of seeing and perceiving the same thing. It is totally true that “seeing comes before words” which tells us the significance of having vivid perspectives or way of looking into things, than saying it (7). As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. It is faster and more accurate to visualize a feeling or scenery than to process it through words. However, by choosing to see we are also open up to an almost infinite possibility of making conclusions and assumptions. As John Berger stated, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe", which illustrates the flexibility of human capabilities to perceive things (8 ). He goes on even more to explain the philosophical ways of seeing, which is quite interesting to read.

Berger’s next point was the differences between images and paintings. Back in the old days when cameras were not invented yet, artists spent long hard years of brushing every stroke to fulfill their intention. Nothing on a painting was an accident, but consists of hidden analogies and well thought out representations that give a painting its true value. Nevertheless, the efficiency of cameras proved paintings to be less appreciated and valued. “Images were first made to conjure up the appearances of something that was absent. Gradually it became evident that an image could outlast what it represented,” (10). Basically, images were starting to replace paintings. I couldn’t agree more to the fact that images and reproductions are lacking vital information and substance of that a painting possess.

From the reading, I have agreed on the fact that you can’t have a camera do an artist’s job. By making paintings and reproductions we are just being lazy. According to Berger, “the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting”, which reverses the way it is supposed to be (20).

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


Last edited by Pichayut Sirawongprasert on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:19 pm; edited 3 times in total

Pichayut Sirawongprasert

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response to 'Way of seeing' Chapter 1-2 by John Berger

Post  Felicia on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:37 pm


John Berger expressed that ‘ the way we see things is affected by what we know or what believe’ (p.Cool as it depends on our age, experience and knowledge. When we see an image, we will interpreted different meanings as ‘it upon our own way of seeing’(p.10). The location and surroundings will also affected the image as our eyes ‘ never look at just one thing; we always looking at the relation between things ourselves’ (p.9). If a painting were hang at our living room instead the museum, we will get a different feelings and therefore the meanings of the image will change.
I Strongly agree, that since the invention of the camera, it change the way men saw. The image can be reproduce. This make a painting can be seen millions places world wide whereas in the past they can only be seen one place at the time. Moreover, it can be use at anytime and any purpose. This makes the original image loses its uniqueness. and became less value because the images can be transmitted freely to you and this make the image no longer important as it is in the past. The reproduced image are ‘ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available , valueless and free’(p. 32). Lastly, I strongly feel that this should not happen to the paintings as each one has its meaning and value.

Berger, John . Ways of seeing. British Boardcasting Corporation and Penguin Books, 7-34. Print.

Felicia

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

RESPONSE CHAPTER1-2

Post  Pawika on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:42 pm

From the book, ‘Way Of Seeing’ by John Berger. I totally agree with all the responses above as “Seeing comes before words.”(p.7) because picture are always easier to communicate to people more than words and it takes only a few second to understand, but words take a while. That’s why we can grab and recognize the whole idea from tv advertisements from a few second. I think vision is the beginning point of everything and it also creates pictures all around the world. Artists use their visions and experiences to create art works and many of them illustrate the stories and sentences. Some of masterpieces don't stun you at the first glance, but when you take time to look at it, you understand the value of it. That’s why people always say “Picture is the best way to speak.” And I also agree with “The way of see things is affected by what we know or what we believed.”(p.8 ) Everyone has different perspective, because we came from different backgrounds. So we have uncommon perceptions and visions and it’s hard to get into and alter other people thought. Moreover, I once read a book and was impressed by this sentence “Often, believing is seeing” by Dr. Robert Anthony. It’s true and based on my true story because I always believe on what I see than believe on other people’s words.

Berger, J. (1972). Way Of Seeing, 35 Marylebone High Street, London: British Broadcasting Cop.


Last edited by Pawika on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

Pawika

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response INDA

Post  Chakkraphob on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:46 pm

After reading the first two chapters of "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger, there are a few points that I do not agree with Berger. While I admit that "the invention of camera changed the way men saw" (p.18) and that "it also changed the way in which men saw paintings" (p.19), I do not agree that it "destroys the uniqueness of its image" when it "reproduces a painting". (p.19) True, when something gets reproduced, it loses its specialty of being the "only one", but this doesn't necessarily means that it will also lose its uniqueness. Same goes for paintings. The Mona Lisa is famous worldwide, is reproduced everywhere in many different forms, be it replicas, postcards, or even on t-shirts. Despite all this reproduction, I do not feel that it has loses its uniqueness at all as its true meaning is not exposed nor is it able to. I believe that each and every painting has a story behind it, and it is impossible to know for sure what the story behind each of them are unless the artist has stated clearly why he painted his painting the way it was painted.

The invention of camera may made it possible to reproduce paintings and allowed them to be seen worldwide through various forms of media, but does this necessarily means that it is no longer unique in its own way? Those who know the true value of these paintings will still cherish it for the exact way it was made, no matter how many t-shirts or wallpapers the painting is copied on to. The uniqueness is still there since it is the original (even though we can never be sure if those paintings are actually the real one nowadays) and there is evidence in this since people have traveled across the continent just to have the pleasure of witnessing the "original" piece of art. In my opinion, it is not just the beauty of the painting that made it so valuable, but also the significance of the story behind it and how it came to be. And this is why the original will always be unique in its own way no matter how many times it is reproduced through camera lens.


Chakkraphob

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Ways of Seeing: Chapter 1 - 2

Post  Pathawee on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:49 pm

According from the book, Ways of Seeing, the things we see and the things we think is different. Many people have different views and beliefs, and some of them might be sticking to what they trust, as this will alter their perspectives. I would agree with this idea. The book itself also uses a specific sentences that is quite true, as mentioned "the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe" ( Berger, 1972, pp.8 ). Moreover, this quote is kind of related to the phrase "seeing comes before words" ( Berger, 1972, pp.7 ).

About the invention of the camera, it is very true that "it destroys the uniqueness of its image" ( Berger, 1972, pp.19 ). It alters the way we see paintings, comparing to the photograph, the meaning changes. I would say that, when there are photographs, paintings would be less important. From this, I think technologies did not only affect uniqueness, meaning, importance but also the value of the paintings.

B. John. Ways of Seeing. the British Broadcasting Corporation. 35 Marylebone High Street. London. 1972.

Pathawee

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response Chapt. 1-2

Post  Thavisa on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:50 pm

"Seeing comes before words", this is something common in everyday life (p.7). We all
see before we speak of something related but, "The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled (p.7). Sometimes things we see are not the way they seem. People often judge someone the way they look, which sometimes they're right and sometimes seems to be different and unexpected. By seeing something, you often think you know about it and judge straight away, but when words come out everything might changed. From page 14, portraits can make us think we know the personality and how they are like. This is related to, "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe" (p.Cool. The portrait on page 15 suggests that things are not the way they seem. The portrait of the man made everybody think he was painted in a drunken state but, the fact that he had long hair and the way he was wearing his hat was a fashion.

I agreed on Pichyut's response on how the invention of camera effects painting. People became more lazy and does not appreciate much on paintings because painters cannot paint such details as cameras can take. In some homes are now hanging photos instead of paintings which i thought to be rather boring.

Thavisa

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top


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