John Berger discusses Art, it's value, context, meaning, and the ways reproduction abilities/technologies have affected those aspects, in the video Ways of Seeing; Psychological Aspects.
The habit and conventions used by master artists, convention of perspective, centers everything on the eye of the beholder. This is having the beholder in mind observing by being physically in the space because, of course, at the time of these works' production, this was the only way of seeing them.
The invention and advances in technology of the camera has changed not only what we see, but how we see it. This has changed what see of art that was created even before the camera- artworks of the Renaissance era, particularly.
Alters, places in churches, chapels- the paintings in these sites are specific to the space they are in. They are the memory of the place in which they reside. Everything around the image is part of its meaning and purpose. An extreme example, is the icon. The context is indicative of the space it resides.
Now, with reproduction capabilities and technology, these art works or details of them, can be viewed anywhere and everywhere- simultaneously- but with different surroundings and contexts. This greatly effects the way in which these images are perceived and observed. Now the images come to you, you do not need to go to them. As John Berger states in the video, "the days of pilgrimage are over."
Paintings have become transmittable- information of a sort.
Berger looks to a DaVinci drawing. He discusses the preservation and attitude towards this work because of its market value. The drawing's market value depends upon it's authenticity. Reproductions are sold by these museums that house the original artwork and great measures are taken to stake claim on original works by master artists.
What meaning does the same image represent when hung or pinned to a wall? How are these meanings or sentiments different from DaVinci's when he produced it?
How has art lost and how has it gained from reproduction being possible?
A gain is that the images created can now reach a much wider audience than ever before. Images of the works are transmittable, changed, transformed, manipulated.
When reproduced, the artworks become a form of information- which has to compete with it's environment, however. Also, the reproduction makes the original's meaning ambiguous.
If the reproductions can be used by anyone for any purpose, it should make it easier to connect our experience with art with other experiences. We can illustrate our words easier. Reproductions can be used for describing or recreating an experience. Scholars give much critical analysis as well as mystification to master artworks. This can create a barrier between the work and the common observer.
We look for contexts and additional information often when we experience art. This affects our understanding and does interpreting for us, leaving out possible associations or ideas that we could conclude ourselves. Berger illustrates many examples of presented context dictating an observer's impression of a given artwork.
He suggests we take some lead from children. Look to how children interpret images. Observe pictures like words rather than holy relics
Berger acknowledges, he too, uses these reproductive and technological means to communicate his ideas, questions, and images. However, he asks the viewer to consider his presentation but be skeptical, as it is not a dialogue, rather, a presentation of information, audio, and visuals.
http://www.ubu.com/film/berger_seeing1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment