John Berger’s documentary Ways of Seeing raises questions
regarding Western cultural aesthetics and whether they have a hidden, or
specifically, ideologies in visual images. Seeing is the habit of convention.
Perspective makes the eye the center of the world. However, can the eye be wrong?
Part one discusses the invention of the
camera and how this simple device has revolutionized the world. Beforehand,
people from all walks of life would travel; take pilgrimages to journey to
churches and temples just to witness the magnificent holy relics and art they
housed. The revolutionary novelty behind cameras came from their ability to
commodify space and time. Images were now transmittable; they could be
reproduced and copied. This new technology, however, with ability to copy
images, has sparked a new trend in which an image’s market value is based on
its authenticity.
Later, Berger
discusses the idea that an image can be a source of information. Berger found
that an image could be interpretive.
 |
| Nice picture of Daughter helping Father. |
An image’s meaning could be manipulated if
one changed or cast aside certain elements (i.e. cropping) for it to restate a
new meaning.
 |
| Chaos |
Nevertheless, even if an image remains unaltered, to be a source
of information it must hold its own against other streams of information. It
can have its own character. Images can relate to other’s experiences and their
interpretation might be dissimilar.
Part two examines women, nudity, and the
roles they both serve in art and imagery. People have become increasingly
self-conscious about their bodies, most especially women. Centuries of being
the subject of idealized feminine beauty have taken their toll on the female
self-esteem. Women are painted nude, but they are not ‘naked’. Berger describes
nakedness and nudity as two distinct beasts. Nakedness is simply the state of
undress, Nudity, however, is a state of dress. Nudity must be seen as
objective, appealing to the male sexuality, while women’s are unimportant, or
as Berger states, “To plead an appetite, not to have any of their own.”
The ideal feminine beauty is the eye of
the beholder, however, women themselves have trouble identifying with painted
women. Berger interviewed a group of women and a couple of them expressed
dissatisfaction with how the gender has been portrayed in art. Women were
painted to satisfy the male appetite, and women have trouble identifying with
painted women because their bodies were painted with exaggerated features to
conform to the ideal female form. However, the women being interviewed
expressed no discontent towards photographs. Photographs are able to capture
women as they are, no exaggeration, just realism, which makes it easier for
them to identify with than they would with a painting.
Which sadly, in
hindsight, the sentiment was said in the 70s and is rendered moot in the advent
of Photoshop and eating disorders.
 |
| Before-After |
Part three expands on the idea that
images can be sources of information and their value. Art’s market value is
based both on their authenticity and uniqueness. They’re materialistic objects
that reflect highly of their owners. As art evolved over the years with
increasing emphasis on the real (the idea of real being something you can see
and touch), their owners thought of the idea of art reflecting what is real
about them. Images portraits were commissioned with the expressed purpose of
making a statement about their subjects, specifically flaunting statements
about their social status.
 |
| I'm not compensating for anyhing. |
Some portraits would feature ideas and icons from
classical mythology, specialized knowledge only the privileged minority knew;
portraits would be painted with oil paint, a medium favored to celebrate
private possessions and elegance. However, Berger pointed out that some images
can contradict their source material, using Mary of Magdalene as an example.
Mary of Magdalene was a biblical figure and a prostitute, believed to have
slept or at least, been associated with Jesus before his crucifixion. However,
the portraits Berger used portrayed Mary in a positive light, as a figure of
beauty and eligibility rather than an object of scorn. Berger surmised that the
reason behind the oil painting portraits is that people, in essence, are
narcissists.
 |
| I love me. |
We desire assurance of our own worth and identity that we use
luxurious things to vindicate it. Which is why we use oil paint, until
photography rolled around and became a better medium convey wealth.
Part four centers on human narcissism and
the impact it’s had on the twentieth century. Grace, elegance, and authority
were old ideas that were to be desired in the old days, until the idea of
glamour appeared. Glamour is the quality of attractiveness and excitability
that makes certain people or things seem more special and appealing. It’s an
idea that expanded when people commissioned glamorous portraits of themselves,
and it seems to have gained momentum in the advent of commercialized media and
publicity by feeding off a steady diet of our social envy, because without it,
it wouldn’t exist.
The media and publicity use images to
promote an item and entice you with promises that your life will be grander if
you buy and accept this product. It both promises and threatens. They play to
our fears of becoming a faceless being, someone who is undesirable, and we’re
threatened by that.
We’ve come to accept the pictures and imagination publicity
conjures up, in the hope that as we consumes their products, we would one day
experience the things they’ve promised. I’ve been guilty of this myself as I’ve
bought things and tried things in the past that I thought would improve my life
somehow, or at least entertain me a bit, but sadly, none of that has happened.
I still feel empty, and there’s a hole in my wallet.
Nonetheless, Berger notes
that we have reject reality; we have found it unrecognizable. Instead, it seems
we’ve accepted the new reality conjured up by consumption and publicity, and
for this reason, we are all mad.