In Looking at Art by Alice Elizabeth Chase, an artist must constrain himself to the limits of the canvas and thus he must limit the details of the landscape to his own interpretation. This interpretation significantly depends on the artist’s culture and background, his time period, and most importantly, the feelings on what he sees. Chase in Chapter 3 incompletely describes the evolution of art among different cultures throughout certain periods, and then in Chapter 4, she explains how artists from these periods tried to include as much information as possible in their paintings.
According to Chase in Chapter 3, landscapes from different cultures used their own standards of creating such works of art. Ancient Egyptian painting had simple shapes and symbols, rather than an accurate portrayal of the view. The rectangular-shaped pond drawn as a rectangle and the zigzag lines as the ripples portrays such simplicity. Roman landscapes featured scenes of nature coupled with legendary heroes or figures. On the other hand, the Chinese landscape suggested the moods of man and the concept of infinity to be most important. Chinese landscapes were meant to be read in episodes as in a book and their variation came from the shade of black ink and type of stroke.
Chase also mentions the conspicuous differences among the arts of the Flemish (northern) and Italian (southern) Renaissances and the medieval time period. The backgrounds in early medieval paintings were flat and gold, but as time progressed, artists grew interest in the secular world around them. In Italy, landscape was an accompaniment to the figures and story, while in Flanders, the landscape in the background was just as important as the story. The incredible “perfection of God’s world” had to be shown in Flemish paintings. The Dutch in fact adored the countryside and the sky.
Furthermore, the techniques of creating art greatly became more sophisticated over time. The modification of tones and the use of shadow evolved during the Renaissance, and as landscapes grew in popularity, artists developed a formula of light and dark areas to appeal to the eye. Such a formula led to the increased number of brownish landscapes in eighteenth-century Europe.
According to Chase, appeal and desire became major factors in determining popularity of different types of art in the nineteenth century. Englishmen ordered landscapes of real estates and pioneering artists, especially in the United States, painted the landscapes of the forgotten or unknown countryside. “Starry Sky” and “Mont Sainte-Victoire” were simply two paintings of landscapes characterized by the painter’s feelings and ideas that were flowing through his or her mind.
According to Chapter 4, artists of different periods used different methods to describe what is happening in the painting. Ancient Egyptians made the human figure into a map and accompanied their painting with hieroglyphics to describe the plot. In both ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, scenes created on walls often simplistically portrayed people, focusing more on the daily activities of man. At a palace wall in Nimrud, an artist suggested depth by overlapping and importance by size. The ancient Greeks also used a similar profile system on their pottery, but that later was replaced by a system in which bodies were drawn to indicate the third dimension. Chase further mentions that the modeling in light and shade can first be credited to the Greeks.
Afterwards, Alice Chase discusses perspective and how people in ancient times were not concerned with it, even though they must have observed it. It was not until the Middle Ages or Renaissance in which vanishing-point perspective was suggested. Artists then decided to look at perspective and vision scientifically. Albrecht Durer came up with a system of drawing lines for small objects at a comfortable distance. Other Renaissance innovators were amazed by perspective and foreshortening and thus tried many experiments. By the end of the seventeenth century, the art of perspective was mastered in Europe. However, the Chinese and the Japanese use isometric perspective, in which the parallel lines continue and do not come together at a vanishing point. In the isometric view, the viewer can see both the inside and outside of a structure.
There is no true way to represent space, according to Alice Chase. Vanishing-point perspective is what Western cultures are accustomed to and is more accurate in terms of what the eyes see. However, other systems more accurately show other features than vanishing point does.
Alice Elizabeth Chase has made essential points, worth mentioning, about art. However, she fails to mention other cultures around the world and how they have portrayed art. She focuses more on the art of Western civilization, and only briefly mentions the art of two ancient civilizations in the Middle East and two Oriental civilizations. Her knowledge is either incomplete or has purposely left these other civilizations out, such as African or even Native American civilizations. She overemphasizes space and only mentions art on a two-dimensional surface. Chase leaves out three-dimensional art, such as statues. Even vastly decorated edifices can be considered art to some. In her discussions, Alice Chase limits herself to only a few perspectives of art.

John Berger opens his book, “The Ways of Seeing,” by saying that seeing comes before words. It seems obviously true when we think about children looking around them growing up or speaking face-to-face with someone. However, once our seeing translates into thoughts, it is distorted for several reasons. First, the way we see is affected and altered by what we know from the past or believe in. Second, when we look, we are making the choice to see. Usually this choice revolves around us. What we see, we want to relate to ourself. Seeing an image, as opposed to an original, contributes to this distorted seeing. An image is a reproduced sight or appearance. It is completely detached from its original place in time and is placed somewhere it does not belong. When we see an image, assumptions we have learned in the past take over and we can draw fewer conclusions. Each person has a different perception of art, and this idea is captured in the phrase “eye of the beholder.” Many artists had the intention to address only one single spectator, in many early cases, a religiously observant one. With the invention of the camera, the viewer has less imagination and so does the artist (or photographer). In order to see what is there, the person has to physically be there, and though it is not necessarily accessible to everyone, photographs are not unique. Art is more imaginative and is an art form itself, being used as home decoration and acting as a way to show off possessions. Reproductions of artwork change the meaning of the art based on its context. The viewer incorporates what is seen around, before and after a piece of art into its meaning. Certain points of history are considered in the thought of pieces of art, making them timeless and showing that nothing has changes. However, this is clearly not the case. A loss of respect is evident because art of the past exists differently now.

A large part of art is the objectification of humans, and specifically women. When a woman is portrayed, it is her own attitude toward herself that is shown. Her presence shows what can and cannot be done to her. Everything contributes to this- the background, her gestures, the brushstrokes. On the other hand, a man’s presence in a painting is established by his promise of power. He says what he is capable of doing for you or to you. Though his presence could be somewhat superficial, it still sends the masculine message across. In general, Berger claims that women “appear” and men “act” in their paintings. A woman is seen as a subject by a spectator, and that ideal spectator is a man. This subject has one of the most influential effects on perception. Women appear in paintings without clothes, but Berger also claims there is a difference between them being naked and nude. Naked simply means they are not clothed, they are bare and not in any disguise. Therefore they are exposed to others. However, it is also familiar because there is no mystery or hidden anything. Nude is the true art form, though, and has been conventionalized.

As mentioned earlier, painting in some periods of time represented wealth and were a way to show off possessions. Oil paintings expressed a view of life. They were put in homes the same way furniture decorates an apartment and displays unique objects. However, these oil paintings represented the interests of the ruling class at the time. Though this dominates over lower classes and those lacking commodities, the value of these oil paintings creates an equality of objects as it used as a commodity. It is real, tangible and represents the visible possessions one might have. Berger refers to the oil painting as an “imaginary window open to the real world.” Created to view the real world again, it shows we are obsessed with the material world.

Finally, Berger discusses the publicity of images. We tend to thing of these as advertisements but a lot of images in paintings all send a message that try to change our thoughts or actions. This sounds like propaganda. Public images are continuously made up-to-date to accommodate changing peoples and times. Though they are changing, they do not speak of the present, but rather either refer to the past or speak of the future. They are explained as benefitting the public and therefore the economy and therefore our society, offering free choice, though it is not very free when the choice is offered within a limited realm of one thing. Public images show transformations in other people who aren’t real, but show real situations that the artist wants to instill in the viewer. Public images are meant to change the consumer society to envy the people featured in the art, change them in a way that they think their life will be improved, they will earn more money and become happier and more popular and more beautiful. It is different from the oil painting because the viewers are buyers, not simply spectators. The message sent is to become the person in the advertisement in the future (not in the present).

Alice Elizabeth Chase discusses the art techniques that different cultures have used over time to send a specific message across, where Berger mainly discusses the perceiver and what they see in a painting. While they both agree that the artist has intention, Chase discusses how this intention comes across in the painting or image.

Chase, agreeing with Berger, says that the camera records the way things look. In other words, it is what it is. However, she says an artist is representing something and so they have to make choices to depict subjects if they want to make it seem like reality. Tools like coloring, shading and perspective help contribute toward or take away from the realism of a piece of art.

The realistic pieces of art each have different purposes. In many cases, it is illustrating a story or poem. Some times, even a writing accompaniment is supplied to fulfill the prose. Together, they give the viewer a perception. Different cultures consider different subjects more important for different reasons. Landscapes were popular and were portrayed in many different manners to portray a message or culture or heritage. In medieval times, artists wanted viewers to see the presence of God and religion.

The painting techniques Chase discusses make the reader and viewer consider the importance or insignificance of certain objects and certain ideas. For example, the position of objects and people either in the center of the frame or near the edge show their importance. Small figures versus large figures also send the clear message of dominance or lack thereof. Intimate views show love, dramatic colors are used to emphasize something or a theme, modification of times create illusions that send messages of continuation or exemplify something. Paintings of houses using color in the nineteen century were shown to possibly display possession, ownership and wealth. Patriotism is a theme that can come across in artwork using these techniques. The things people want to see are reinforced art-wise and therefore reinforce patriotic values of that country.

Artists recording what they see requires incorporation of their emotions and thoughts. These are shown through the brushstrokes and other artistic techniques. The techniques used to emphasize objects can be historical or patriotic but also can show what the artist thinks is important to his or herself. They send their messages of personal feelings on a topic through their artwork as well.

As time went on, artists realized that the realistic portrayal of certain scenes was not accurate and was difficult to attain. However, alteration of color and disproportions shown in profile views of people changed over time. Artists first began using space representation to make an emphasis or exaggeration, as well as light and shade. The main development was in perspective, as artists began to use more diagonal lines and convergent lines to make their images appear more closely to what the human eye sees. Study of this art makes the images more accurate more recently. The distortion is unconscious if not intense because our minds just fix it and make the proper adjustments. However, a camera’s photographs can still distort our image based on depth and angle.

Analysis of Ways of Seeing

In four groundbreaking episodes, John Berger’s Ways of Seeing traversed several centuries of European painting history in an attempt to challenge the traditional conceptions of artistic meaning, expression, and value.  While the majority of the episodes focus on detailed Renaissance-era paintings, Berger’s ideas are hardly archaic.  He challenges the common notion that art is inherently valuable regardless of when, or how, it is viewed.  Berger asserts that while art can portray numerous ideas and meanings, ultimately, it has lost its original intended meaning.  The greatest cause of this reduction in artistic meaning is a seemingly unlikely culprit, the camera.

While used for a plethora of purposes, many of which carry artistic implications of their own, the camera ultimately has a greater affect on the art that came before it, than the art that has come after it.  The ability of the camera to instantly copy an image, mass produce it, and transport it around the globe in a matter of seconds has, in Berger’s view, degraded the beauty, meaning, and value of said images.  As technology continues to progress, the process of artistic replication increases in scale, and does so at a more rapid pace.  Television, a direct offspring of the camera, now allows millions of people to view the same image at exactly the same time.  This happens regardless of their physical proximity to the other viewers, and to the original image itself.  The benefits of such technology are obvious; increased knowledge, awareness of certain events, and the ability of people around the world to share their common interest in art.  But the reproduction of artistic works has one detrimental effect.  Artwork, especially Renaissance paintings, is created with specific attention towards the manner, and the physical location, in which it will be viewed.  To exemplify this, Berger demonstrates how the iconoclastic paintings inside of religious temples acted as a way of recording the “memory” of the building.  These paintings could only be viewed within the context of the sacred building in which they were displayed.  This added a certain reverent connotation to each painting, and they became a respected, even integral, part of the religious experience.

There was a point in history, when the entirety of Vincent van Gogh’s artwork could be viewed in only one location. Now, getting your hands on a copy of Starry Night, or any of van Gogh’s lesser-known work, is only a click away.   It can be purchased at countless museums, seen on television, or viewed online whenever a consumer desires.  Of course, there still remains only one original painting, but replications of this famous piece are readily available in a variety of formats, textures, and locations.  This means that what is arguably the most famous painting in the world is rarely viewed by two people in an identical context.  This, Berger laments, is because “perspective centers everything on the eyes of the beholder”.

Until relatively recently, human perspective has always been limited to what the eye could view at a single moment in time.  With the advent of cameras, television, and video, humans can now see, view, and hear things that took place at a different time.  Perspective is no longer confined to time.  Paintings are no longer confined to a single physical location.  This causes distortion in the perspective of the viewer.  Now seen in a new context, perhaps accompanied in a book by text and advertisements, paintings carry a different meaning.   They have been distorted by their surroundings.  Sometimes this amplifies certain aspects of the painting, but often it nullifies its original message.

Berger is not solely obsessed with the concept of art reproduction.  His insight into artistic perspective branch off from the general to the very specific.  He delves into complex discussions of specific aspects of Renaissance oil paintings.  He continues his discussion of perspective, by introducing nude paintings as an example of how perspective is often deceiving.  Initially, paintings of females in the nude appear to be pictures of women in their most natural form.  But Berger argues that nudity itself is another mask beneath which humans can hide.  He asserts that being nude is “to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized by oneself”.  Nude artwork revealed a male dominated culture in which women’s sexuality was pacified so that the sexuality of the male viewer would appear larger in contrast. Nude artwork demonstrated the sexual structure of European society, and juxtaposed the supposed innocence of being naked with the true intentions of the painters, which were often selfish and sexual.

Ultimately, Berger finds that even the expert commentaries of art historians can muddle the meaning of a work.  This affects the ability of the viewer to appreciate the work in his own context.  The context of the critic is forced upon the viewer. The viewer’s thoughts and emotions are cancelled out by the perspective of the critic.  Berger found that even young children are able to recognize complex details in a painting, and the aid of a trained art historian is unnecessary.  But still, this same critic can lend valuable insight towards a painting.  Information about the painter’s lifestyle, income, sexuality, childhood, and death can all enhance a viewer’s appreciation of art.  Berger is not blind to these benefits. He admits an ambivalent stance towards the way perspective is being radically changed by new technology.  He best summarizes this view when he observes that, “the camera, by making a work of art transmittable, has multiplied its  possible meanings, and destroyed its unique original meaning.  Have works of arts gained anything from this?  They have both lost and gained”.

Looking vs. Seeing Art

         Art can be the expressway of one’s feelings through a canvas or the reciprocal image of what one may see from their vantage point reproduced. One individual’s viewpoint on art may vary vastly from another. However, no matter what one person may take from an artwork, art can be accepted as a universal language. Art allows people with different ideologies to strike up common ground when discussing their respective takes on something.

Two individuals who had contrasting viewpoints as to what constitutes an artwork were John Berger and Alice Elizabeth Chase. In both of their respective books, John Berger and Alice Elizabeth Chase emphasized the point that the first way in which an individual understands art is through looking. We see then we use words to describe what is present. However, the two differed in their views as to how the invention of the camera came to affect art as well as what makes an artwork unique.

In Ways of Seeing, John Berger was completely anti-camera in the sense that it took away the uniqueness of an original work. He felt as though the camera isolated “momentary appearances” and thereby rendered away an artwork’s true meaning. The camera enabled artworks to be taken out of the place it used to reside and where the work’s original meaning was best conveyed. People no longer traveled to works of art with high frequency when it become possible for it to come to them.

For example, since paintings were allowed to appear simultaneously on people’s television, depending on the area around the television, two different meanings could be derived. If a family saw an image of a flame on their TV and their house was cold; this image could mean heat and warmth. On the contrary, if a painting of a flame appeared on the TV in a family’s house that was already warm and very religious, such an image could remind them of hell and how people burn for their unrepented acts of immorality.

Berger essentially constituted art as being a work of authenticity. He emphasized on the importance of the little details such as the people and their expressions being paramount. When describing the difference between naked and nude, Berger didn’t focus on describing the background. Rather that in a nude artwork, there is a female on display, bearing herself and the hairs on her body with her attention directed at the viewer.

On the other hand, in Looking at Art, Alice Elizabeth Chase reasoned that the camera didn’t take away from the original image; rather, it conveyed exactly the way things look. She reasoned it was easier for a camera to capture a view as compared to an artist who has to map out a way to illustrate the wide and distant elements from a given point of view since in a landscape everything isn’t necessarily on the same plane.

With a landscape, Alice Elizabeth Chase found that it was one of the most important subjects in art in its ability to reflect the moods of man and the infinity of God. For example, as described in the third chapter of her book, although the event of the Baptism of Christ is only incident of the forefront of the image as stated, such didn’t lessen the importance of the landscape in the backdrop. Through the landscape, one is able to see the presence of God through the nature in which he help made just as much as one is able to see Him through his son’s baptism.

Conversely, although photography has it pitfalls as stated in the fourth chapter of Looking At Art because certain elements can be blocked out by another one present in the view. Chase doesn’t look at this as a way to denounce photography but as a way to show how artists have more of an advantage in producing images in the way that they can use lighter and darker shades to contrast different objects. Then, to contrast different perspectives, they can simply make things increase in magnitude as the object comes towards the viewer.

In essence, Berger took the perspective of how a viewer of art would see something. Chase took the perspective of how an artist would look at something then reciprocate it. As a result, they each garnered different takes on different artistic elements not because they necessarily define art as two separate entities. Rather, both Chase and Berger just examine it from two opposite perspectives.

Andrew Zagelbaum

Professor Graff

The Arts in New York City

September 19^th 2012

Through Ways of Seeing, John Berger uses art to portray his inner thoughts and opinions of his surrounding world.  My take on the title of the book is that there is, in fact, multiple ways of seeing.  Yes, there’s the typical, using your vision to see what is directly happening in front of you, but there’s also so much more than that.  Art allows us to see not only what’s happening, but also what has already happened, or what will happen.  Art is both fiction and non-fiction.  We can see facts and true events, but you can also see opinions and feelings.  Only through art can you physically experience what another person may be thinking without being with that person.

In Ways of Seeing, you will find a chapter that consists of only pictures of women.  The first one, being a woman standing in a kitchen full of pots and pans.  This, I assume, is supposed to represent the over exaggerated view on what women are.  In the background of this, you can see pictures of other women who look to be more well off than the woman cooking, but it is assumed that the woman in the picture is a representation of most of the female population.

Next you’ll find a woman of class sitting in a car surrounded by people.  This picture, to me, represents the potential of a woman.  Where as in the last picture you see an average woman surrounded by those better off than her, here you can find a high end woman surrounded by those beneath her.  Just outside her car window, you can see two women just waiting to catch a glimpse of her.

Moving forward, we find two naked women with a very plastic sense to them.  I’m still unsure whether these women are real or mannequins, but regardless, this picture shows the potential beauty of an artist.  Behind the two women, a figure can be seen and while it is unclear what he/she may be doing, it seems as though he/she is painting something.  Perhaps he/she is trying to capture the beauty of these two women and represent it in a picture of his/her own.

Later, we have a woman in an exquisite dress, capturing the eyes of three high class men.  Here, we see not only the potential beauty of a woman, but the power behind this beauty that she holds.  Three men are distracted by the figure that lay in front of them, and yet this contradicts the first picture we explored.  The woman is no longer a figure of work and labor, but now she is above the men, capturing every last piece of their attention.

Lastly, we have two pictures of women side by side.  One of which is standing the rain, while the other sit there having her feet pampered.  To me, this shows two extremes of a female presence.  While in the first picture, we see a very natural, rough portrayal of a woman; the second picture shows us a woman beyond the elements.  Both are clearly beautiful women, but for different reasons.  In regard to the woman in the rain, she has natural beauty.  She can be seen as a self made woman, one who reaches a certain potential without the help of others.  The other woman, however, can be seen as a woman coming from riches.  The beauty she holds is more of a clean look.

Through out these various pictures, we were able to both compare and contrast different women in what they represent.  Without physically seeing these women in person, we were able to have a grasp on what their life styles are like.