|
It teaches nothing concerning "seeing" except seeing through anti-capitalistic eyes--the same system that provides for crazy art and fortunately keeps the good quality art floating to the top like cream on milk. This book teaches nothing concerning seeing, art or aesthetics.
Why do people praise this work. My copy goes in the trash.
What a farce. I think the author would revel in the artistic freedom now available now on www.youporn.com.
It reminds me of the writings of Timothy Leary, who was irrelevant then and always. As a photography instructor, just a quick glance through this book shows me the author either did too many drugs in the 60s or was overdosed by 70's Soviet propaganda or both.
I was amazed that after the first couple of incoherent chapters, the samples are almost entirely comprised of seductive naked women.
If it doesn't show it is surely being repressed." So for him this couple standing in their garden must necessarily be interested in property. Marx himself would be astonished.But the author's methods are not just questionable, they are also partly dishonest. It would anyway be futile because he shares Freud's irrefutability that "Every man suffers from Oedipus complex. He doesn't stop for a moment to think that cows, or people or myths or whatever the subject of the capitalistic paintings he interprets, have been pictured elsewhere for a long time. Philosopher Mario Bunge once told the story of a muslim physicist who affirmed, nonchalantly, that "Quantum Mechanics can be inferred from The Holy Coran -conveniently interpreted." Such is the way of interpretation: once you know where you want to get at, you can start anywhere.So does Mr Berger.
The selection bias is well smuggled and in any case, his chain of reasoning runs backwards.Well, maybe I'm also resisting, or acting as an unconscious agent of the Bourgeoisie. So it is not about "Publicity" in general. Is it that Capitalism already existed 4000 years ago to inspire the representation of Egyptian furniture-cows. Trying to sell a cream might be a questionable activity, but how else if not by promising beauty or the advantages of it. He quotes, and dismisses by an argument of "unconscious resistance", the position of another critic that only sees in the painting of the couple "enjoyment of nature." Of course both are unsubstantiated interpretations. How can the author fit this into his theory of Publicity as something that "makes me envious of myself in the future." The trick lies in isolating very specific products, such as those related to beauty or fashion. The same can be said about this cow: we are informed that it's not the representation of an animal but of a "piece of furniture with four legs". Right now I'm watching a TV commercial trying to convince me that this gel cleaner is a better product for my kitchen and bathroom than the old abrasive type.
Obedient to the article of faith that everything in the Western World during the last centuries has one way or the other to do with Capitalism, he set out to prove that Oil Painting and like manifestations are unconscious epiphenomenons of class struggle and property relations.To this end he doesn't bother to investigate the true motivation of painters and patrons. The last chapter pretends to be a proof that Publicity as a whole is a contemporary form of that same Capitalistic Unconscious. But I'm not alone: I've been told that Walt Disney did worse with Donald Duck. How could it be otherwise. What is untenable is playing down the rival as someone possessed by unconscious class prejudices.The author condemns the European exploitation of the rest of the world yet his vision remains profoundly eurocentric.
I use it in my high school Theory of Knowledge class and in Art History too. This is a great book. The kids "get" Berger's ideas (outdated though they've been called) and it's always a great discussion starter. Sure, it was written in the 1970's, sure it's full of Marxist theory, sure it's over-confident in its theorizing. But so what.
yes its a used book but i think they could have selected a better looking book. but i give it a C for the quality of the book. over all B this product was delieved in a short time. A+ for that.
On the other hand, here was art criticism first presented on what was then a new media, television. (Burger only excepts the work of a few artists, like Rembrandt, from this view). The pictures used to demonstrate the points are small and in black and white.The book is based on the theory that the interpretation of western art evolved out of the power and finance structure of western civilization. Even the book format, such as using a bold-faced font throughout the book, appealed to the avant-garde.Burger would substitute art, not as a tool to help preserve an economic and power system, but rather as a way for the consumer of art to enrich his own life.I suspect that artists other then post-modernists may not benefit very much in their work from reading "Ways of Seeing". The theme developed is that the way people view art is strongly affected by the power structure of the society.I must confess that the three chapters that were solely illustrated were difficult for me to engage, both because of the size of the images as well as the difficulty of following the thread which I felt ran through the pictures even though I was not able to decode the message.The first chapter is based on and explicates the work of the critic Walter Benjamin in his essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". Even though "Ways of Seeing" is a flawed book in many ways, it is so seminal in the development of post-modern image making that it must be considered essential reading in critical theory.The book is based on a television series.
The authors are quick to claim that the book was made, not written. The final chapter is based upon the use of images for marketing.This work is important because, if it did not shape the outlook of post-modern art, it was at least in the vanguard of recognizing the roles of the art that preceded post-modernism, and led to the rejectionist point of view.Berger is clear in emphasizing that the way we view art is filtered through the prism of culture in the sociological sense, although that certainly was not ground breaking in critical theory, even at the time of first publication. The book itself is only 176 pages. Unlike Benjamin, who sometimes seems torn between the loss of the aura of the original and the benefit of mass accessibility, Berger seems to believe that real benefits will derive from the reproduced work of art, if the viewer can sweep away the lenses of the past through which he might view the work.The third chapter deals with the role of art in the commodification of women and the fifth chapter examines the role of oil painting in the reduction of people's world view to a matter of money. On the other hand, if you have a serious interest in critical theory, even though you may reject Berger's thesis, you must read this book. The print is all in a bold, sans-serif font.
Inevitably books that describe the world primarily in economic terms, as an arena of conflict and a battle by the rich for dominance of the poor, are referred to by some as Marxist and I have no doubt this book has been so described.The book has seven chapters, four of which are written and three of which are reproductions of art works without words.
|
