Global Art History : Berger Response CommDe

Please reply below.

Yes I agree that what we see and what we know are completely different things. As shown in The Key of Dreams by Magritte there is always a gap between words and seeing. Because of this we have speechless moment and sayings like “This is beautiful beyond words”. The main reason for this is because not only does what we see depend our state of mind but also our individuality as a person. In this present time I agree that most classical art are under appreciated. It is true that people don’t really care about the depth and meaning behind the painting but the originally and value of it. I think that most people can’t really relate to the painting due to the gap in knowledge and religion. Like how a Buddhist person would have a harder time realating to a painting of Adam and Eve than a Christian.This was a very interesting chapter and it gave me a new perspective on how the changes of our culture and the way we live effect the way we see things and how we would describe it. There will never be an essay with the exact same words or a picture that has the exact same image unless it is reproduced.

Different people reflect an object differently. Some people may express the feeling positively towards the picture from the past that they have faced. It can be seen an excited picture if one’s background confront so many exiting time. On the other hand, the people who faced some violent experience, this picture may look desolate to them.

From the quote extracted from “Way of Seeing” on page 10, line 8-9.
“The photographer’s way of seeing is reflected in his choice of subject”. This expression is true. When I put on my effort towards a design, I always think it is the best for me. However, the evaluator always claimed on my precious effort.

Lastly, I want to say it out loud every time the evaluator had criticized me.
“Yet, although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing.”

"I think that most people can’t really relate to the painting due to the gap in knowledge and religion. Like how a Buddhist person would have a harder time realating to a painting of Adam and Eve than a Christian."

Does this mean that narrative art will always be more successful or beloved to a native audience? Following this logic nobody who was not born in a culture could understand a narrative or history painting, with the same complexity and appreciation, as someone not born into that culture. Is this really true?

Referencing the text is fine, but dig more into detail about the discussion of photography and the idea of selection. Don't just common on a line try to comment on the larger ideas and use multiple quotes.

Good start though. Cheers. Connelly

In my opinion narrative art is more appreaciated by the native of that culture ands those who have studied or had inform themselve about that culture.

will try better next time with the response.

I agree with both Amrita and Chanapak that people view things differently, because each person has different experience, knowledge, belief, society and such. The context involves much in this issue because it gives a person a personality.

As Magritte said in The Key of Dreams is also true. Word has its own limit. Even the languages cannot be translated from one to the other perfectly, but not the seeing. Seeing has no border, what you think and feel in what you see cannot be equally converted to letters. And also on the interesting idea about ‘I see you and you see me’ (p9), I have thought long ago if we cannot know the existence of each other by seeing, what the world would like to be? In my opinion, knowing by touching and hearing cannot compare to seeing, the power of seeing is beyond any other sensing.

For the other idea that attracted me is ‘Art is thought to be greater than commerce’ and ‘The market price is said to be a reflection of its spiritual value’ (p21).
The value of any object depends on the way people judge it. Why gold is more valuable than silver? The same way of people pay more attention to a religious painting than an ordinary painting, they see it in what they believe and appreciate with.

I totally agree with Paphavee in that the value of any object depends on the way people judge it, including paintings and arts. Nowadays, the value of famous paintings or any piece of art is determined by its market value. Such as “Leonardo’s cartoon The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist, It became famous because an American wanted to buy it for two and a half million pounds.” (p.23). It has gained it value not by the meaning portrayed in the painting but it has become more impressive and interesting because of its market value.

I also agree that “the invention of the camera changed the way men saw” (p.18). The ability to reproduce photos taken as many as desired has played a great role on how we see or admired any form of art. “Before the invention of camera any painting in the world has its own uniqueness in a way that it can not be present in multiple places at the same time, but when camera was in use, it reproduced the painting, therefore eliminating the value of its uniqueness that it once had”(p. 19, my emphasis). Even though reproducing paintings and other arts by using camera had bring people around the world closer to art itself because of the easier accessibility, it has lowered the values of that art work, and nevertheless change our ways of seeing art.

I agree with all the above replies that people view things differently. It’s because we are different. We have different minds, ideas, beliefs, experience, and so on just like Paphavee said in the earlier reply. In the book “Ways of Seeings”, we learnt that the invention of camera has made a huge effect on how we view things. Back in the time before the invention of camera, the paintings were only one of its kinds, but due to the ability of reproduction from camera, we were able to see those paintings everywhere especially nowadays those pictures of paintings are floating everywhere in the internet. I agree with what John Berger said in the book that, “When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings.” (p.12). The reproduced paintings can never be the same as the original especially in the past where the technology was not that great compare to today. The camera might make the change in color, shadow, and we also can’t see and feel the real texture and detail that the original painting has. And due to that, the meaning of the paintings varies.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 2008. Print. 19 August 2011.

I agree on the fact that the book, Ways of Seeing, stated that our version of interpretations of past arts are now not as prized as, say, a century ago. Due to the invention of the cameras, the book says that each original painting is less valued because the deeper meanings of that duplicate picture/painting can communicate. We, as human beings, don’t look at only the painting but also how it was displayed. “The invention of camera changed the way men saw” (p.18). True, as it “destroy the uniqueness of the image” (p. 19). Paintings in Christian churches before the cameras were invented are in fact one of the highest form of entertainment. Pictures telling stories of legendary epics can remind people and make them revisit the feelings that they had when they hear the story. After the invention of camera and motion pictures the general public’s now have access to these entertainments. Nowadays we are spoiled with a wide range of media. We can take a picture in a snap and file shearing is now easy as clicking a button. However this is a big drawback, as looking trough a small rectangular box does not give you the same ‘experience’ as being in the place of the photographer. I once read somewhere that “a human mind can only comprehend what the individual have personally experienced.” That means that the deeper meanings of an image could never be understood by a replication of a certain image.

Commenting on titirat’s earlier post, taking pictures of paintings does not “lowered the values of that art work”, they let other people experience the minimal amount of that certain painting. Thus increasing the individual interested or appreciate that said painting. The at trade would be less worldwide without the help of photographic aid and thus less people will prized for a certain painting which in turn lower the bidding prize of that said work. And if we are discussing in the aspect of the abstract values, we can also say that that picture will give the person viewing it gain a different experience.

I do agree with all of the above posts, that every people has different experience, thoughts and different points of view. Because we're from different places and cultures. Not only the places and experience that effects people nowadays but technologies too. As it's stated in the book, Ways of seeing, "The invention of the camera also changed the way in which men saw paintings long before the camera was invented"(p.19). Not only cameras but medias like television. Now we can see things and access to it easily, even if we're at home eating chips in the sofa. As it said "The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided"(p.19), I feel that if the painting is in the museum it would creates more value and interest to the viewers, more than in our T.V. at home. Because when it's shown on T.V. you can't see the texture, the feel of the painting wouldn't be the same as we see it real. Also "When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image."(p.19), because we can take the photo as much as we want or even uploaded it on the internet whenever we want. Due to the easiness by the medias and technologies that we can access the painting too easily, that it decreases the interest and eagerness to see the paintings, and especially its uniqueness. But in another hand like Titirat's post has stated that it also helps to promote the picture world widely and bring people around the world to see the painting.

I agree with Harn that not many people would acknowledge about the presence of those great paintings if camera or other inventions that capture what we see are not invented. Adding on to that, paintings would not be widely known if globalization did not take place. Could you imagine how many copies of a painting and how long we would have to make to make the globe realize those great paintings?

Agreeing with John Berger that camera destroys paintings' uniqueness, "When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness if its image" (pg. 12). The uniqueness of paintings' is not that it "could never be at seen in two places at the same time" (pg. 12), but it is that original paintings themselves are unique. No replica could capture the original's presence yet we could still understand the meaning of the painting without seeing the real one. This proves that the presence is not essential to understanding the meaning, but what we see as a picture is. Emotions are recorded in reproductions, and we understand the painting by just looking at its copy. Otherwise, we would have to travel the globe just to comprehend these works. So, the invention of photography does really spoiled the uniqueness. But on the other hand, it makes more people understand its meaning without seeing the original. The meaning of the painting is also unique, every copy shares the same meaning as the original and links back to the root. Thus, making what that destroyed the "uniqueness" unlocked the "uniqueness" itself.

According to the book Ways of Seeing “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe”. (Pg.8)I agree with every comment that people has different perspective. By different perspective, I could say that people are having different perspective because of their childhood, background, and environment or how they were grow up, so we don’t have the same vision as well.
“The invention of the camera changed the way men saw. The visible came to mean something different to them. This was immediately reflected in painting”. As the same idea with Thtirat . In the old day the painting it is taking more time to create one by one and there was the only one in the world, and cannot be plagiarize in to exactly the same as the original painting. When camera was invented the new technology can a camera could capture the picture and manipulated it in to several of picture in the same time. That makes the uniqueness of painting image change. However, both camera and painting has the same occupation is that they can capture the memory to last long.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 2008. Print. 19 August 2011.

I agree with Paphavee that we can understand the meaning by seeing. The seeing helps us to know and understand what the painter’s opinion, what were they thinking when they painted the picture. Just like it said that “the reciprocal nature of vision is more fundamental than that of spoken dialogue” (p.9, line 11-13). I think it is true because when we see the painting, we can feel the spiritual and feeling from it and I agree with both of Paphavee and Titirat comments that the value of any objects, including the original art works, are depending upon the price that were estimated and then sale on the market by people.

In my opinion, I totally like the sentence that “we are not saying original works of art are now useless” (p.30, line 24-25). I think it is true that the original works have their owns meaning, why the painters are doing like this and I think if you look a little deeper inside the works, you maybe see more reasons why the painters created all this works such as the feeling from the gesture when the painter was stoking color on it. If you can look truly inside it and then you will get more information or details from the original works of art.

I agree with Worakit that the camera does destroy the painting's uniqueness. However, from what i understand, "an image is a sight which has been recreated and reproduced" (pg.2) so that means the camera was meant to capture the original painting into an image which could outlast what the painting represented. "The image then showed how something or somebody had once looked - thus by implication how the painting had once been seen by other people" (pg.3).

I also agree with John Berger that "images are more precise and richer than literature" (pg.3). By saying this, i mean that words wouldn't represent the painting as good as the image does, this is not to underestimate the expressive quality work of art but just saying that "the more imaginative the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the artist's experience of the visible" (pg.3)

Anyhow, "Our appreciation of an image or an art work depends upon our own way of seeing" (pg.3)

In the book Ways of seeing, in the first paragraph “The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled” (Pg.7) make me agree with Kunyapat and “ The way we see things is affected by what we know or we believe” (Pg.8 ) Every people have different though and idea because of how they have been raise, Where they live, or What are they have faith in. and it true that people look at the same picture and they can have plenty of different idea from each person. “our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing” (Pg.10)
“The camera isolated momentary appearance and in so doing destroyed the idea that image were timeless” (Pg.18) make me thinking and agree with Thanchanok, before the camera invented, every painting are unique. People that want to see the painting have to travel and find it but nowadays we can see many famous painting in front of us in our home, but it not look like the original painting because of you can’t see the real texture, the color, the vehicle that arties try to say, and the environment around the painting are totally different when you see the painting from camera.

From the beginning of the passage, I agree that images are more precise and richer than literature. The images could express feelings better than using letters. I also agree with Chanapak that people may express feelings toward the pictures from the past.
After they had invented the camera, the paintings are less valuable. Like they said in the passage, 'When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of it's image' (p.19)
For me, camera makes paintings travel around the world. We could see paintings anywhere by not standing in front of the original one. But the camera could not collect all the details in the picture.
I also agree with Paphavee as she said that 'The value of any object depends on the way people judge it'. People are different in thoughts and belief, and they usually appreciate only in what they believe in.

From the beginning of the book it said "Seeing comes before words"(pg.7). That made me agree with how seeing is comes before words because from word we can know the meaning of it like what Paphavee had commented "Word has its own limit" but sometime by seeing we can not find word to describe what we have seen. I think that image can express feeling. Sometimes we just visualize and understand the meaning and feeling of it without words.

Also, I do agree with all comment above about how different people have different point of view. "The way we see things is affected by what we know or we believe"(pg.8 ). It's a good sentence to describe it because every people have different life experience also different belief and knowledge so people view things differently.

Another interesting topic in this chapter is the original painting and the camera reproduces image. Like what it said in the book "when the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image"(pg. 19), I totally agree with this because I think that when we looking in to the real painting it will has a different feeling from camera reproduce one. We can't see the real details, textures and feeling from the reproduce image. Even I think that the camera is a good techonlogy but for the painting I prefer an original one than a reproduce one.

It is true that the ways people see things depends on their personal background and their way of life. Therefore, we can say that the paintings’ meaning could be varied through the eyes of different beholders or, as many people have said, the image would hold a different meaning if we have viewed it from a film rather than viewing it by standing in front of the original work itself. I personally reflect that nobody would ever grasp the real accurate intentions and thoughts of the artist himself, as the environment around itself always affects the paintings. Those so-called environments could be the text alongside the paintings, the atmosphere of the gallery, how they set up where the paintings are placed, and such. One of the examples that show clearly that the environment effects artworks is on page 27. It showed the work of Van Gough’s ‘Wheatfield with Crows.”

Moreover, as many people have claimed, commotion have been made about the fact that the actual meaning the artist puts forwards through with the paintings differs if viewed from the camera, as it says in the text:

“The invention of the camera changed the way men saw. The visible came to mean something different to them. This was immediately reflected in painting.” (pg.18)

Which brings us to the part where I agree with Worakit and Pinthita. I totally fall in with the fact that cameras do not destroy the uniqueness of the paintings and such, but it helps the painting to be known by much more people.

For me, i agree with Berger that images are more precise and richer then liturature. It might takes so many pages to explain the beauty or detail of something, but just one single image can make the audience see something instantly without explanation.

I agree with with what the context says "every images embodies ways of seeing, out perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing. These will state each person's identity. Perspective does change over time as Berger said "today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before". The translation from historical art to modern art explain it cleary and the perception in art will go to infinity.

First of all, this book gave a chance to think about the way I look at the pictures or art. In the beginning of the chaper one, it says "Yet the knowledge, the explanation, never quite fits the sight."(pg.7) In my opinion, it is saying that the art works we see are not exactly showing the fact or reality that every one can agree, and understand the meaning of a work because the artist added their own opinions and thoughts on it, and also people got a different point of view, as the book says "An image became a record of how X had seen Y. This was the result of increasing consciousness of individuality."(pg.10) Therefore, every people could have a different opinion about one work.
At middle of chapter one it talks about the invention of the camera, it says "The invention of the camera changed the way men saw."(pg.18) And I totally agree with this. By the invention of the camera the sight of the men got wider. Even today, technology can substitutes people because technology has better ability than men. Therefore, even that period time camera helped artists to try on different things. So I believe that the invention of the camera boosted the development of arts and gave more varities on men's work.
Lastly, it talks about the reproduction. It says "Reproduction isolates a detail of a painting from the whole."(pg.25) As I mentioned earlier, every art works contains the ideas and thoughts of the artist. In other words, to reproduce their works with perfection, people must see and think in the exactly same way as the original artist did.
In my opinion, these first two chapters are talking about the importants of way we look at other things. Because it can affect our ideas, our works, and also the future.

According to John Berger's “The ways of seeing", my favorite quote is "Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak." (Page 7, line 1-2). Human beings without disabilities normally come up with and share their thoughts with words after seeing. It is the world fact that all living things basically develop from the first stage of opening their eyes, feeling and expressing, respectively. Furthermore, I agree with this fact because people’s thinking is partly based on their culture.
From going through these chapters, the main issue of everyone’s perception is about the invention of the camera, which strongly affects the world of art. “The invention of the camera changed the way men saw.” (Page 18, line 18-19) The paintings are a part of the building’s interior life. They gave memories and real sensation of uniqueness that human beings will realize their values. This invention distorts the paintings’ uniqueness; the camera’s snaps duplicate the paintings’ pictures. The paintings could not be seen in two places at a time. However, the development makes the paintings come to the viewers instead of the viewers go to places where the paintings are. Meanwhile, this invention generally has its own interests that it could capture the snap of the paintings for those who don’t have chances of visiting the real places. People could acknowledge the presence of the places where the paintings exist from reproduction. The paintings’ pictures declare how valuable they are while they are just the reproductions that have been seen. “Original paintings are silent and still in a sense that information never is” (Page 31, line 1-2). Even though the invention destroys the uniqueness of realities, it enables people to visit the real places, visualize with their own eyes and sense the feeling of the paintings.

In my opinion,I do agree with Prair Arphapat that one image can make the audience see something instantly without explanation because in the context say "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe"(pg..This context show that the pictures can explain the feeling that the pictures express.And this text "Seeing comes before words.The child looks and recognizes before it can speak"(pg.7) support that the image can describe the text which the artist want to present.Furthermore I agree with Athikom Horkriengkrai that he said "seeing is comes before words because from word we can know the meaning of it ".This text show that the pictures can describe information,feeling and emotion more than the words can explain.In concluton the pictures can describe better than word because the pictures not only have explanation but also have emotion.

According to Barger, he states that” When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness if its image” (p.12) I agree with this point of view that the camera’s invention also causes some effects to the original painting. I also agree with, Worakit that although the uniqueness of the original painting has been destroyed by the camera but the original paintings themselves are still unique. No replica can be compared. Reproduced image doesn’t show the real texture and color as the original one. And it is the face that we known the reproduced image as a ‘substitute’ of the original one. Bager, himself confirm this statement by saying “we are not saying original works of art are now useless” (p.30) At this point I believe that the meaning and the value of the original painting are still remain. It is up to us whether we can find it or not.

For the painting’s reproductions, at some point of view, it might affect the original paintings. However I believe that it gains some advantages to the original paining as well. According to Bager “It is a question of reproduction making it possible, inevitable, that an image will be use for different purposes and that the reproduced image, unlike an original work can lend itself to them all” (p.25) I opine that even the purposes might be changed but those changes can still lead to its origin. The original can still be value as it used to be and it also gains new perspective of itself.

I agree with Paphavee’s and Titirat’s responses on the subject of the values of an object in the present days, which in this case we are talking about art. People give more value to objects depending on its rarity. As Berger stated “the meaning of the original work no longer lies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquely is” (p.21) In my opinion, people keep paying attention to the price and the popularity of the work until the original meaning fades away.

As for the subject of camera and how it “destroys the uniqueness of the image”(p. 19). I agree with what Berger stated in the books as well as almost all the previous comments. When a painting is reproduced either by photography or broadcasting, it loses its meaning, its uniqueness. The meaning multiplies and changes as more people see it (the replica/ reproduced version of the artwork) because those people are situated in a place where they are familiar with and therefore it becomes “their talking point” (p.20) “ it lends its meaning to their meaning” (p.20). Then, when they really get to see the original painting, their attitude or their meaning of the artwork remains the same as before when they saw the replica. But then, it’s a double-edged sword. Even though the camera may destroy the uniqueness of the artwork , it allows more people to appreciate art and for some, get educated, without having to travel so far.

I do agree with Kunyapat and most of the people saying above about the different view of perspective of art. According to Berger (p.16) he states that people views and perspective of art are different from another because we perceive them in different way. Moreover, Berger also said from the beginning that the view of our perspective throughout the work were different from our origin. This include religion as well. in my opinion religion does play a big important role of people perspective throughout the world.

Come to the fact of camera, i do agree with Nattakarn and Berger that when the image reproduces a painting it destroy the meaning and the uniqueness of the painting, however even though we can not see the real texture and that of master piece, but i prefer the painting to be published. The reason is that because the more it gets publish the more different idea creates. And i think that there is nothing wrong with the creation of ideas. In my opinion, painting were made to reflect something from there audience. Its creates for people to think and having different idea when they are watching it, because if you have to travel to the place where the painting is located which is very hard to get there sooner or later the painting will be forgotten. As i said before painting were made and suppose for their audience to put an ideas in them.