Global Art History : Berger Response CommDe

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Nuntanat Rongkapan CommDe 22

Post  Nuntanat R. on Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:07 am

I agree with the responses above me (Aurabha, Tarin, Chatchanokm, etc..) that Berger said that each person sees each piece of art in different way (p.16). I always wonder that if, for example, there is a painting of person with the sad expression on his face, does everyone going to see it as a sad face and feel sad along with the person the painting or feel something different? I've got the answer from many people around me after I've been seeing art works with them. We do see art differently, according to our own understanding of that picture. Beliefs and cultures might be big answer for this. They affect our way of seeing things so much, more than we can imagine. "The image became a record of how X had seen Y" (p.10). This quote expresses that each X had seen Y in a different ways, because each piece of art has no exact answer in it.

I also agree with Chatchanokm and Berger that ”When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness if its image” (p.12) reproduction kills the original-ness of that piece of art. The message that the artist was trying to convey may change and destroy that piece of art. The copy right is also a problem, sometimes the reproduced ones look very alike to the original and people may get tricked by that and most of the times, it's illegal to reproduce the paint without permission to do so.

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

Nuntanat R.

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Panakorn CommDe26

Post  panakorn on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am

I agree with all of the above, especially Paphavee and Dhitiphan. That from the begining of the book "Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak." (p.7)
In my opinion, I think because of people come from difference places and culture, so we might think difference even we look at the same thing. And one thing can be more than a thousand meaning, especially in the painting. I believe that painting show the feeling and senses more than word. I agree the sentence "We are not saying original works of art are now useless" (p.30.) Every piece of painting are valuable,and they have their own meaning. We shouldn't think that the original work are now useless. Because if we don't have the original work we cannot develop and invent many thing like nowaday.

panakorn

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

PANCHIKA ASSAVASIRISLP

Post  panchika on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:46 am

I do agree with all above posts and all above posts are quite the same opinion of ‘way of seeing ‘. What we see and what we know are completely different things it’s surely because we are what we are. For me it’s depend on many thing for example it’s depend in the things around ourselves. We are look at the same thing but we’re think in the different way as always .We have our own ideas, we have different experience… so it’s not strange that we are always think different in everything what we have see. But I especially like Chanapak’ s post that she just said ‘ Some people may express the feeling positively towards the picture from the past that they have faced’ I totally agree because something that make we think in the different way it come from that thing that we have faced before. Like some people scare or some people love in the same thing it’s show that because the past what we have faced and the different opinion about the same thing.

And I also like and agree with the sentence ‘Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before’’ Have you ever heard the word “the time changed, people change” It’s in the same point of this sentence.

sincerely, Panchika Assavasirisilp

panchika

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response CommDe

Post  Pakapat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:21 am

“ We never look at just one thing ; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves. Our vision is continually active, continually moving, continually holding things in a circle around itself, constituting what is present to us as we are” (pg.9) I like Berger’s idea presented in Ways of Seeing. The quotation above is exactly the same as my idea. This saying reminds me of the idea that I should not look at the problems or things or people or ideas from only one side, on the other hand, I’d better look at them from many directions. By doing this my ideas will be more reasonable and good ideas will grow and come from many aspects. It also reduces problems which may follow, problems occur because people think differently and they don’t listen to other people’s ideas. The ideas or the visions can be changed all the times, in other words, the ideas keep moving around. It makes the individual be unique. I think of Berger’s saying , it’s true and I respect. If we are aware of this idea, we will understand the other’s thinking more and we will be happier to share ideas among people.


Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 2008.


I agree with Thanchanok on her quote that “ images are more precise and richer than literature” (pg.3) because when you see an image it can immediately tell you or give you the rough idea what it is rather than the literature can. To understand the literature, I have to spend some times reading the comments on the last page or the preface on the very first page. Looking at the images saves my time more than reading the literature. But the best way is to look at both for better and the best understanding.

Pakapat

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chavisa Rojratanadumrong

Post  chavisa on Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:42 pm

From reading those two chapters, I agree to John Berger's saying that, 'the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe'. I truly believe that the way one sees thing is always different to the way other people see as most people have been experienced in completely different situations. That makes people have different feeling from what they see even though they are seeing the exact same thing. I agree to Paphavee's response stated that 'what you think and what you see cannot be equally converted to letters'. I believe that the pictures we see have more effects in conveying feeling and communicating to people.

I also agree to what the book says that, 'when camera reproduces a painting, It destroys the uniqueness of its image,' and that, 'reproduction isolates a detail of a painting from a whole'. It means to me that by photographing, the painting becomes less in value and have changed in its meaning.

chavisa

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Pornsima Duangratana

Post  Pornsima on Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:52 pm

I accept the earlier responses, therefore I agree to fact that people see things differently. Painters paint things due to their point of view in the same time audience try to understand the painting from their own experience. Similar in the case where Frans Hals painted the Regent with the tipped slouch hat, where he was offended that the Regent looked drunk but by all means he only wanted to convey the fashion statement back then. Having limits in painting what the painter saw back then gives mystification to history and possibility of wrong assumptions we make now a days. Furthermore with the invention of camera and video recorder, recording over the painting, it is even harder to distinguish what the painter is trying to proclaim in the first place. With camera it is more accessible towards a larger group of people and a larger range of appreciation towards the painting in different observations. As a result of reproduction the original loses its uniqueness and people are more concern about the price value of each painting more than the meaning.

Pornsima

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tan Ketudat commde 16

Post  Tan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:52 pm

According to Magritte, "the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe." (page Cool For an example, as said earlier in Amrita's post, "Buddhist person would have a harder time relating to a painting of Adam and Eve than a Christian." In addition to her quote, I agree that believe has an effect in what you see.
What is good if you can not express what you see? As people say "word has its own limit, but seeing has no border." On the other hand, for me paintings and even photographs is another form of language; just like word. From page 18 " The invention of the camera also changed the way in which men saw paintings." I agree with this quote; however, only to an extent. This is because, paintings does contain certain emotions conveyed by the painter, and it is also true that photographs take away parts of the emotions; nevertheless, to me, photography a kind of advert, being the medium for us to gain knowledge of the existence of each painting; therefore I agree with the earlier post by Harn about; how paintings accessibility nowadays are easier.
From the sentence, "Art is thought to be greater than commerce. The market price is said to be a reflection of its spiritual value." In my opinion, this is true; however, to an extend that the value may increase due to the market price, but increasing the value has nothing to do with the meaning and emotion each work contains; therefore, I don't consider the painting's spiritual value to increase, if the market price increases. What a Face





Tan

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response

Post  Surasin on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:56 pm

The fact that people will feel the things depend on their experience is so true.When we look at the picture we can feel it some pictures give the feeling of happiness and some
give the feeling of hurt and pain.Seeing is beyond reading.In the book Ways of seeing their is one text that i totally agree is"Images are more precise and richer than literature"from the 3rd page.
“The camera isolated momentary appearance and in so doing destroyed the idea that image were timeless”from page 18 makes me agree with Tarin that the painting is very unique in it self but nowadays you can see many famous pictures like Mona lisa,The last supper,Starry night etc.
in the internet but you can’t really feel what is the artist wants you to feel.The camera distort the picture feeling and uniqueness.The sentence that I think it’s the best is“we are not saying original works of art are now useless”from page 30, I totally agree with it.When you see the real one the feeling you will get from the color,texture,size is totally difference.

Surasin

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response

Post  nataporn on Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:36 pm

In my opinion, “Way of Seeing” is a very influential book which presents many interesting aspects of how we, people, are seeing things in different ways, I agree with the author that “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” (p.8 )

I totally love author’s quote, says “No other kind of relic or text from the past can offer such a direct testimony about the world which surrounded other people at other time.”(p.10) I think photograph can say something more than text can, it can show us feelings and tiny details that text can not do, maybe it’s because that I’m not a good reader.

I also agree with Chanapak that “… although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing,”(my emphasis) because there are different elements that could constitute our way of seeing; experiences, mood, surrounding, belief, idea, etc.

Lastly, I have a strong belief that we, human, never do, say, think of things without any influence.

nataporn

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response CommDe

Post  TAENTAI on Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:53 pm

From the book and all posts I read above, I also agree with Nattakarn and the quote that” When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness if its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings.” (pg.12). Every pieces of painting has its detail and feeling. Camera can’t express all of details in painting so it destroys the uniqueness of painting and that change feeling of painting. I also like the quote from Berger that "Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak." (pg. 7). It is true that human develop more by remembering what they are seeing than speaking. So human only express what they see in words. I do also agree with Thanchanok that "images are more precise and richer than literature" (pg.3). As you can see, words are expression of what human see. Everyone have their own thought and feeling. So words can express only one thought and feeling. We see in different ways and what images do express the feeling that is more precise than words.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 2008.

TAENTAI

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Nicha Boonyawairote

Post  Nicha on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:12 pm

In my opinion, I totally agree with Berger that seeing and recognition come before words. Seeing establishes our place in the world, but we use words to explain this world. And the fact is that there is no exactly word which can be used to really express what we see. All images, including photographs, have their meaning in themselves by the person who has created the image. So we can understand the artists’ feelings, emotions, and their perspective to the world. However, our understanding of it can depend on our way of seeing. Like other people have said above, it depends on what we believe, our own experiences or what we have been through to see and understand the images.
Another topic that has been argued is that does camera really ruin the uniqueness of images? Berger stated that, “The invention of the camera changed the way men saw.” (Page 18, line 18-19). It does change the meaning of the original painting. The original ones can express what artists were thinking at the time they painted by the characters, colors, brush stroke, etc. which create a closeness between the painter and the viewer. On the other hand, I agree with Prangkwan that the camera can snap a shot of the painting for the people who don’t get a chance to see the original one and I think that’s the reason why one painting can become an epic because no matter where you are, you can also see the painting and even though this invention breaks up the meaning, it creates another way of seeing the paintings.

Nicha

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Pin Phianpattanawit Commde 30

Post  Pin Phianpattanawit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:14 pm

In my opinion, even though the camera destroys the feeling, the idea and the uniqueness of the painting, it brings lots of other values. Suppose you are a child living far up in the mountain in Chian Rai province . You love art and really want to see Monalisa painting. Would you be able to go to France to appreciate this painting? You know the answer. With the invention of camera, you could see not only Monalisa painting but also thousand more paintings from all over the world without taking any trip.

There are two sides of every coin. Camera is in my opinion a wonderful invention. Together with the wireless internet technology and smartphone, now we can appreciate art on the palm of our hand.
Very Happy

Pin Phianpattanawit

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Panatchakorn Viratmalee commde 27

Post  Panatchakornv. on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:01 pm

As I read the first two chapters and also watch the original bbc program of Ways of Seeing in youtube makes me understand quite clearly about the context of the book which Berger tried to explain. According to this quote from page 8 “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” I think this is absolutely true. When we saw a painting without a former knowledge about the painter or the painting itself, this would change the way we see it or appreciate it. Take a rather simple example of the difference way to appreciate art between the art experts and the ordinary person. When the art expert appreciate one particular painting It is based on the deeper knowledge they have on the subject contrary to the other person who would based their appreciation on their own idea of beauty. Mona Lisa or La joconde can be an ugly old lady in the eye of an ordinary person.


My opinion on another topic is quite different. I didn't see how camera will destroy the values of the paintings. Indeed It may destroy the true experience of sensing the genuine piece in it's original place of the painting but it also create a chance for people to acknowledge the significant of the painting. Without the technology of camera, some of the old masters works would be lost and forgotten in time.

Panatchakornv.

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Khachonyot Yaempradit

Post  KHACHONYOT on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:22 pm

I agree with the all of the responses, according to the text "images are more precise and richer than literature" (pg.3). This is absolutely true that images can express more the details than words. And when you see an image it can obviously tell or give the idea what it is rather than the literature can. Berger noted from the beginning of the book that said "Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak." (Page 7, line 1-2)." It’s the fact that people have been learning from pictures before they learn to understand words. “When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image” (p.19). I don’t truly agree with this quotation because in my attitude It’s like two side of the coin, It’s true when we are looking at the real painting we are not going to have the same feeling with the one that the camera reproduce it. In the other hand, I think the camera help artworks to be known or promote to worldwide and the painting still have the uniqueness of its.

KHACHONYOT

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response

Post  Pornchanok on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:34 pm

I believe that every man does have a different perspective. We all see things differently. It depends on the different situations each man has been through. As it is mentioned in the book Ways of Seeing “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.”(p.8 ). It means, supposing you and I are looking at the same picture at this time, our feeling to it might not be the same.
Yes, when a photographer wants to photograph something, he does choose selectively where he will be standing when he makes the shot, as it is also mentioned on page ten that “Every time we look at a photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the photographer selecting that sight from an infinity of other possible sights.” But for my opinion, I don’t think that the photographer can always successfully, through his photograph, shows the world what he would like to present, because we all have the different perspective, don’t we? We don’t always think the same even with something very obvious.
People grow up from the different places, different countries and different environments, we cannot expect them to see the world as we see, and we cannot expect them to believe in everything we believe, we have to listen to them too, because when things come out from only ones perspective, it’s not always right.

Pornchanok

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Global Art History : Berger Response CommDe

Post  Nuanlphan on Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:15 am

After I read those 2 chapters,sorry that I really interesting in differrent way,the concept about word in this book.

First is "Seeing come before word. The child looks and recognize before it can speak "(P.7)
It's fact,we first learn by seeing and we know what we saw but don't know what to call then the word will help us to name it.
(So...if anyone teach babies like a card of 'Key of dream',they will call it as what we give the name to them to call? )

But in my opinion, words can't help us perfectly.the weak-point of word in my opinion is ' we have very very few word to explain what we want to present.' like Paphavee said 'Word has its own limit'. I really agree with her sentence.

For exsample to more detail why I told that ' we have very very few word to explain what we want to present' ,if we saw a beautiful pic. We just told everyone that 'It's beautiful !' but that present our impressive less than a half of what we want to tell.

But at all,it just my opinion.



Next is about "The word have change the image" (P.28)
I think the comment or essay each artist's work make a special effect! Since I saw a landscape picture of the bird flying out of it in (P.27). I feel nothing than I just a landscape picture.But when you turn the next page that have a same pic but it add the sentence ' This is the last pic that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself '.

The feeling was changed immediately! By words!

Nuanlphan

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

response

Post  Arachapon on Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:29 am

I agree with Nicha and Kachonyot about the camera invention.
I pretty much agree with the author of “Ways of seeing”. People feel individually different base on their experiences , culture , surrounding , routine , living style , and how they were implanted. Those who live in the same society may have the similar responses on the way of seeing objects. Time also does have effect on man, as said on page 10.
“No other kind of relic or text from the past can offer such a direct testimony about the world which surrounded other people at other time”

One main course that makes people see the same thing in variously ways is perspective. For example, If one stands in front of a door in the dark room, he says the door is blue. Another stands in front of the same door on the other side and says it is dark green. Neither of them is wrong , it is as simple as how we see things in reality. We just have not realized every single second. And yes I believe seeing comes before words.

After reading this, I somehow thought of relation between visualness and phobia. It is fascinating to me that people can be scared of some regular things irrationally. They just happened to scare by only seeing or even hearing ,and most of them have phobia without having any bad direct experience.

Arachapon

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tan Ketudat commde 16

Post  Tan on Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:36 pm

What are the ideal men and women? The majority depicts the ideal men and women according to the sex; if you are a man, you have to be muscular, you have to have be popular, etc; on the other hand, if you are a woman, you will need to care more about you're appearance, your body shape, your personality, etc. As this is also mentioned by Burger, "A women must continually watch herself" and "Consequently how a women appears to a man can determine how she will be treated." As Worakit mentioned earlier "we are animals"; this factor is what gives us the desire to find our mate; to put it simple, I believe what we call the the ideal man or the ideal woman is none other than an individual who is good at finding mates.

Naked and Nude. In my opinion, they are almost alike; however, its always the small things that matters, Burger states that "Naked is simply without cloths, whereas nude is a form of art." for example an individual may see a piece of painting as rubbish, whereas another individual may fall in love with the beauty of the exact same painting; however, as burger mentioned about how naked is the term referring to being without clothes privately, I agree with the earlier post by Arachapon about how most artist in the past were men, this may be a major factor how most paintings that show purity and beauty were paintings of women.

Tan

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top


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