John Berger is an art critic, novelist, painter and educator who has written many influential books of fiction and non-fiction, collaborated on many films and has exhibited worldwide. In 1972, his book Ways of Seeing was adapted into a television series by the BBC, and collectively are now considered to be a seminal text for current studies of visual culture and art history.
Please watch all three parts of the first episode and think critically about the concepts discussed. Do you accept or reject them? Does this reveal anything about society? Do you think they have any relevance to your work? Will this affect the way in which you create work in the future? How do you think this applies to our work in creating a portfolio site for our work?
Again! Think critically and contribute to the conversation by leaving a comment on this post. Please read all the other comments as well and reply to any which you feel deserve further consideration. We will discuss this in class on Thursday
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Roll
About DMA 250
This blog is maintained for the students enrolled in MCCC's Digital Media Art's Digital Portfolio class. All posts on this blog are written by the instructor, Meg McGrath, but all are invited to participate in active discussion through the comments.
2d action amateur art history artists audience bbc blogs brainstorming brand brand identity careers collaboration comments communication company connections conversation corporate cover letter creativity critical thinking critique darwin defining terms design documentation education email employers ethics flickr font fonts goals HTML images industry interaction interests introduction jobs john berger language linkedin links logo media mind mapping networking open thread organization photography planning portfolio portfolios preparation problem solving process professioanl professional qualifications resume review rhizome rss site map size skills social networking society sow statement of work target technology television thing-a-day twitter type faces typography UI usability values victor papanek ways of seeing web 2.0 web design
15 comments:
It looks as though I'm the first comment, so unfortunately I cannot relate to anyone else's responses. I understood what John Berger was saying especially when in the 2nd video, he shows the pieces of artwork without any sounds ..I felt like I was able to take in the artwork and actually look at it; rather than glance and move on, as if it were on a website. I will defenitly take this into consideration when making my portfolio; meaning, when someone clicks on a piece of artwork, ill make sure there arent any distracting sounds; so that they can really take in what i've made.
He reminds me of a professor I had who claimed photography was permanently tarnished with the introduction of the megapixel. Honestly, I thought his entire logic was that of a relatively simple idea, yes I realize that the image my tv screen gives me might differ from what I see before my eyes in reality. He never comes out and fully states his opinion on the subject. He takes a neutral position, playing devils advocate and asking us to consider what is being presented to us when considering artwork being portrayed digitally. Yes it would be great if I could see every famous artwork ever created in person, but I can't without traveling the world over. His I realize my interpretation may vary viewing something on screen from that of someone isolated with the painting in a gallery. The children debating over the sex of the Caravaggio painting was interesting. It was nearly a 50/50 vote. Humorous how he whispered in the presence of the Leonardo in part 1, almost as if he was going to wake it up, or disturb it. I think he did it to further illustrate his point that what he was seeing was so impressive that it could only be experienced in person. He's not the first to touch on this subject. There are many people who firmly believe film is better than digital photos, vinyl records are better than cd's, etc. A debate over analog vs. digital really. 6 one, half dozen other.
I found this very interesting. The introduction of a camera or ways of digital reproduction has lessen the meaning of the original paintings. the image on screen changes how we see it depending on what is surrounding it, like music or the camera movements. By being infront of a painting we can see the brushstrokes and details but on screen we see the same image but we cannot see the brushstrokes thin or thickness. When viewing a painting at a gallery we see the whole painting while a image on screen can crop it and changes the original meaning to someone that could be completely opposite.
When he show the painting with the birds I thought of a happy feeling of birds flying in a meadow but when he added music to the painting and said that this was the last painting before the artist die and put the sad music, I thought of a sad feeling. Silence helps the viewer interpret the painting close to what the painter wanted, so adding distracting things like music changes the meaning. Other things can change the meaning of the image like text, color and images surrounding it.
Years ago people had to travel to see the paintings whereas now we can just look it up on the internet without traveling. digital images made see works of art easier and faster. I personally would not want to travel far distances just to see one painting because of the cost and time to get there. We could now find almost any image on the internet and more with a simple search.
I find it interesting that the children had mix result of the sex of the person in the painting. When I look at it I thought of a feminine male because of the smooth face.
there was some good points in this episode that is related to a digital portfolio like how we display our images in relation to its surroundings. By adding music it changes the meaning so I will try to limit or do not have any sound playing. The text surrounding the image also changes the meaning and color too.
This episode made me think of something I was going to do with my portfolio. I was going to have detail shots of my 3D models but from this video by being close up it can change the meaning of the image so i have to think of a way to be close up and not have the meaning change. Dunno if this is going to be a big problem for me since the the detail shots are for showing the detail of the model.
I agree with John Berger, when he says that music and TV changes the way that a picture can be interpreted. I liked the example that he gave with the birds flying in the field. You feel like your looking at a painting that is meant to represent a natural occurrence of nature. But when he tells you that this was the last picture the artist painted before killing himself, you feel a sense of sorrow when you think about the fact that this was the last moment of natures beauty, that the artist saw fit to make into a painting before taking his life. It also helped that he put music behind the painting. The story behind the painting made you feel a different emotion from what you did originally. I have seen films where the directors will play music that would give you the opposite emotion of how a scene is supposed to make you feel, in an effort to mess with the audiences head. The music tells the audience how they are supposed to feel about the content that they see. This is a good way to get viewers in the mood that you want them to be when looking at your work.
This is very interesting. At one time he points out the only context we cold ever see or experience these paintings was the museum they were hanging in, but with the invention of cameras these images cold be reproduced and available anywhere and used in many different contexts. People can use the image to foster a message that was not the original message of the panting in a different context. An camera can zoom in on a painting and take something out of it witch is viewed much differently when you view the picture in a whole. How we perceive something in very much haw the people feeding us the images want us to perceive them.
I still think this video lacks the logic for it to qualify as influential. You've got to be a moron to show up to an art gallery with a printout of starry night, and then ask visitor services how come they don't match up? A real appreciator of these masterpiece works knows the boundaries that technologies create. Did we really need this entire installment of videos to explain to us how many ways our opinions and decisions can be persuaded? Sure he can do it all in the name of passing along information so we can "think" on his discoveries, and credit his insights. His last line is the best line in the entire video.
I found this video to be very insightful. His approach was excellent in that he did not force anything upon the viewer. He presented his ideas and asked us to question them and to think for freely. He may have repeated what he was saying many times but that is because these ideas were still relatively new at the time and it was for all to appreciate not just for academics. Everyone seems to think it was drawn out and pointless but that is because as an artist you are told to question things and to think differently and apparently everyone in the class has already done this. There are many that would gain from this knowledge.
I thought it was interesting that if you really think about it, this was made for public television. When's the last time anyone saw something this intelligent on tv?
As I was taking notes while watching Berger's program, the first thing I wrote down was the idea that a painting's cash value is a substitute for what the painting's lost when the camera made them reproducible. Everytime the painting was copied, the original went up in value. I know that this is true with almost anything, an antique car, a vintage guitar, a master recording, the list goes on. Preservation of our artwork should be as important as creating it.
The second point I thought was interesting was how the artist's meaning can be totally different then that of the consumer's meaning. That is not a bad thing, but it shows how the art we create can be used for things other than it's original intention. Sort of like taking words from a speech out of context and giving it the opposite meaning than the original speech. It's crazy and there's nothing you can do about it once your art is out there, just be aware that it's happening.
The last point I took note of was the way different sounds evoke different meaning to the same picture. Sounds can be just as powerful at conveying meaning as the image itself. So if I want the image alone to give meaning, I would keep it silent.
In response to blackpixi's comment on analog vs. digital, I've been involved in that debate for over 20 yrs in the music business and my opinion in the early part of the debate was that analog was truly superior because at the time the digital technology was not good enough to reproduce it faithfully. But now my view has changed, as technology has progressed, digital is so good and economical that it has become the standard and analog is used more as an effect or a texture. Each has it's place in the world and it's use should be left to the artist. Sorry for being off topic.
Far be it from me to question eminent art critic, novelist, painter and educator John Berger but what he fails to acknowledge in his discussion of the Renaissance and pre-Renaissance paintings examined is that they were intended for a largely illiterate audience. For the past 150 years or so, we’ve take literacy for granted – but that simply wasn’t the case in pre-19th century society. The ability to read was the privilege of the educated elite – i.e. the clergy. So the dilemma for the Church was how to educate peasants in matters parochial? By the only means at their disposal: images.
The so-called illiterate masses of the time actually possessed a sophisticated degree of visual literacy lacking in contemporary culture.
I especially took exception to Berger’s dissection of Bruegel’s, “Road to Calvary”.
He breaks the painting into a multitude of little pieces and concludes there’s too much information being presented simultaneously for the viewer to take in all at once. Well, of course there is, because we’re approaching it from a 20th century perspective! But for a 16th century audience, the composition read as a ‘film’; each piece of the painting (the landscape, the mourners, the crucifixion, etc) was intended to be intuitively spliced together by the audience to form a concurrent whole, spooling out (as it were) simultaneously. We, in the 20th century, have largely lost this ability to differentiate layers of message present in one container; we’re fluent in back-to-back images (i.e. electronic billboards in Times Square or Super Bowl commercials) but when it comes to ‘reading’ complex, static narratives, some of us come up empty-handed.
OK, now that that rant’s out of my system: Yes, of course, I agree with Berger, the camera changed the way we see art and experience life in general… don’t have to travel thousands of miles to see the great masterpieces of western civilization and that convenience has robbed said masterpieces of their original meaning and potency. Cropping, editing and adding background music has only added insult to injury.
Armed with these insights, when it comes to creating a portfolio site featuring my work I will bear in mind that the images appearing on the screen are merely 2-D facsimiles of the originals which exist in a three-dimensional space. For instance, some of my portfolio pieces fold and insert into each other; others are more authentically experienced as a series of pages to be ‘flipped’ through. A screen-captured jpg just popping up on the website not only renders an injustice to the original but also can mislead or confuse my target audience (potential employers.)
I think this segment produced the most passionate and insightful commentary!=) I agree with Suha that it is ironic that the amount of times something is reproduced drives it's market value. My interpretation of the section about silence seems different from everyone else. When he began showing pictures without music, my mind created a sound. I think that everyone's experience with art is different whether you are there in person or viewing a reproduction. Omar's point about being able to recognize the artist's brush strokes is very true, but the depth of his or her strokes is also up for interpretation. This is the first time I ever thought about how what I create is no longer mine once I put it out in the world. Also, on a side note, I hate the words art experts. I have never agreed that anyone can be considered such. Maybe an art historian, but I have always thought art is what the viewer perceives it as. Maybe Meg can enlighten me if she disagrees.=)
Very interesting. It's funny in a sad kind of way that technology that has given birth to new forms of art has simultaneously damaged the art of classical paintings. It's sad that works of art can be so easily manipulated to fit the opinions of people who might not fully understand or appreciate the art itself. The sad fact is that art has become a commercial enterprise that cares about money above the beauty of the art.
This was a very new and interesting thing he was talking about. One part I found very interesting was when he added music to Van Gogh's last painting before he died. I knew this before he said it and when I saw it I saw the painting as it was, a great wonderful work of art. However when he added the music, that very sad music made me think of it in a different like, almost sad because of the event that happen after this painting. Also the way we look at a painting on a screen and how many ways you can edit or cut to give it a different look or feel. The part were he showed the painting to some kids made me see thing that I may not have caught before, which made me think because I know about the painter life and how he lived did that blur my interpretation of this piece or enhance it. Also his part on painting in book which what I got it was that the one who wrote the book tells you what to think of the image instead of you thinking up you own.
What a different way to put things into perspective. I believe the way how music and the way the camera works can relate to our portfolio very well. For example the way we present our work shows our audience a different perspective instead of just letting the work speak for itself. The second we add camera movement or any kind of music can make the audience interpret ones work different then how it was intended. A possible example would be the different way I am going to present my apparel designs to my logo designs. Both are similar medias but the best way the apparel design are presented are when they are actually printed on the shirts. I found these videos very helpful and hopefully I can put the advice or knowledge to use when preparing my final portfolio.
I agree with what John Berger is saying. I believe that the camera can change the meaning of a work of art in many many different ways! Adding different kinds of music in the presentation of an art of work it gives different meaning to this art of work. Another example is the three different reproductions of the Elvis Presley's song that our professor, Meg put for us to listen. We all felt different listening to the original song and different listening to each reproduction. Camera though, despite the disadvantages,has helped art a lot too. I will consider the different aspects that Berger talked about because i think it is very important to know how to present your work. I'll make sure that details of my work will be available to my audience and I will consider what kind of music I will use!
These videos, I had trouble with. Some things I agreed with, others I thought were complete crap. For example, reproduction of art, I think didn't really change our physical perception of a painting. It only made it more accessible. The guy kept talking about the false mystique put on art. I think some of that mystique used to be because only those who could afford to travel the world to look at paintings were able to do so. Then the camera was invented and now it's not such an elitest thing. Anybody could buy a print and appreciate it. And now the internet...I can access a masterpiece without ever leaving my seat. Yes, this takes a bit away from the experience of the painting being surrounded by other paintings. But it also it to be isolated and looked at as the children did; however you want. Google a painting and the only way to know what comes up is hanging in some prestigious museum is to look it up. This allows you to see the painting for what it is, and try to figure it out for ourselves. And if the concept is like that of the children's concept of the painting shown to them, then so be it. Art is meant to be interpreted in many different ways. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be as interesting.
I do agree, though, that there is some aura an actual painting has, being hand done. You get a better sense of the effort and time when looking at the real thing as apposed to it's reproduction.
I did like the idea brought up that the painting, now able to be in many new environments at the same time. This relates to a portfolio site. When we present our portfolios, we can't control where it's being looked at. So our portfolio presentation has to be able to hold it's own against whatever surroundings it's shown in.
Post a Comment