Ways of Seeing

1.) Berger often refers to the past and history in his essay “Ways of Seeing”, he describes history as something that belongs to us as human beings that acts as a “well of conclusions from which we draw in order to act.” This references the age-old theory of learning from past mistakes; change, which is necessary for the human condition, is impossible without knowledge of the past. Each painting is fixed in a point in history, each with its own background story and relevance. Works of art are capable of telling us what words can’t tell us. Words are limited and always lacking in emotion, descriptiveness, relevance, etc.; a text book can tell you about how bloody the Battle of Antietam was, but that knowledge would be consumed blindly as a historical fact. However, a painting that depicts the carnage of Antietam would effectively convey the sights and emotions of that static moment in time. Reproductions of paintings negate the uniqueness of this one-moment-in-time image. All the sudden, images are not rare captures of an instant but merely a nice thing to look at. This loss of authenticity changes the meaning of the image as well as its unique place in history. Berger resents any sort of “twisting” of the past, he portrays history as a constant element; the Battle of Antietam happened in 1862 and no other year besides 1862. Though the present world is in a constant state of change, it is still rooted in the invariable bed of the past. So the fact that Berger vehemently detests the mystifying of art (and therefore history) is not surprising considering how important he believes the past to be.

2.) The term “mystification” basically means bullshit (excuse the profanity). When an art history scholar analyzes the brush strokes of Rembrandt or Hals painting and describes their use of shading as “peaks of breadth and strength”, that is bullshit– or for the purpose of this essay, “mystification”. Berger views each image as unique and anchored in a specific moment in history. The over-explanation of art by “experts” nullifies the uniqueness of an image. For example, there is a lot of hype around the Mona Lisa. It is revered and heavily guarded in the Louvre. Art historians have analyzed it over and over again. However, someone uniformed of all the theories and analysis of the Mona Lisa might walk up to it and say “eh, no big deal” and walk away. This uninterested person actually has a more genuine experience than the scholar who has been exposed to mystification of the famous painting. The academically privileged think they have better understanding of art; they can distinguish good art from bad art, and bad art from something that is not art at all. However, these “experts” have eyes just like Joe Schmoe does. Any set of eyes, whether they belong to an educated or an uneducated person, can respect a painting for its emotion, its place in history, its revolutionary concept, its beauty, its strangeness, its undeniable uniqueness. Mystification, hype, hyper-analysis, bullshit– whatever you want to call it– obstruct the uniqueness of art, stripping both the art and the viewer of their sovereignty.