In the age of technology, visiting museums and art galleries can seem redundant, even unnecessary. After all, when you can easily search the Internet for thousands upon thousands of reproductions of Starry, Starry Night (or what have you), why bother to trek to whichever museum holds the original piece?

Yet, in John Berger’s Ways of Seeing, he argues that the reproductions we are so accustomed to seeing today take the originals out of their intended context. Before cameras were widely used, works of art could not physically be in two or more places at once, and many were unique to their locations. But as Berger alleges, “the painting travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting” (20). Reproductions of an original no longer make you think of the original as being unique: it is now the original of the reproduction. This, in turn, changes all meaning of the original piece — and the reproductions as well.

Visiting the Museum of Modern Art with Berger’s words in mind certainly changed the way I viewed the works of art on display. Before, I would simply look at a piece, read any captions, maybe make a mental note if I really liked anything about the piece, then move on to the next thing five feet over. Rinse and repeat. No thought required, really.

But with Berger and Ways of Seeing fresh in my mind, I began to see every piece of art from a different perspective. Aside from his commentary on reproductions, he also brings to light what the captions in museums can do to alter a viewer’s perception on a piece: in a way, it can pigeonhole the way viewers see a work of art. Captions, for all the information they give, can undermine free interpretation of art; when you give your perspective, you may also question yourself if it’s not something that it’s in line with what’s on the plaque.

Thus, when walking through the MoMA’s different exhibitions, I not only tried to look at every work without feeling restricted by any side commentary, but also imagined each piece as it was in its original location — perhaps, not in a museum, hung up on a wall or behind a glass case. Maybe not even as a work of art to be viewed publicly and scrutinized, at all. And this new “lens” through which I saw the MoMA and its collections has given me a new appreciation for art. Art cannot simply viewed as just that: art, in a museum, on display for millions of people, who take another photograph (and another, and another) and stroll right on by. Being able to imagine how each piece was intended to be viewed, and recognizing the importance of an original and the difference between viewing a reproduction and “the real thing”, has reshaped the way I see, and enjoy, art.

            In his book Ways of Seeing, John Berger brings up several interesting points regarding the perception of art. According to Berger, we no longer perceive visual images as merely what see in front of us. Rather, our view of them is obscured by that which we already know – the image’s reputation and value, the artist’s other works, the context of the art, and the many reproductions created of the image. This, Berger argues, distorts the concept of art; it is virtually impossible for adults to restore the “innocence” with which a child looks at a visual image.

Berger’s theories can be applied to any type of visual images, including modern art. When visiting the Museum of Modern Art, one should keep in mind that a piece of art is meant to be looked at and analyzed with no preconceived views. Even if a painting is extremely famous, seeing it “live” is equivalent to seeing it for the first time. The experience of being a museum-goer isn’t about the value of the art one is looking it nor is it about the meaning the painting is “supposed” to have. One should walk into any museum, especially the progressive MoMA, with an extremely open mind and a willingness to feel. One must be comfortable enough to trust his/her own judgment and go with his/her gut regarding feelings towards a certain piece. This is the only way to truly appreciate and enjoy art.

Discuss how you feel one can apply the concepts presented by Berger in looking at the Modern Art exhibition at MOMA?  Post by Sunday 12 pm.

For our Macaulay Honors arts seminar, we were given an assignment to go to the MoMA to visit a particular art movement. John Berger’s Ways of Seeing provides meaningful insight to my topic in modern art. The topic I was studying was Pop Art, a movement that took place mainly in the 1960’s. Prior to my visit to the Museum of Modern Art, I researched the subject to get a better idea of what Pop Art is. The art form takes images popular at the time, such as Marilyn Monroe’s face or an advertisement for a vacation, and changes the context to completely alter the content. By changing the image through selecting a different color or a way the art is shown, meaning can be given to the art.

John Berger’s Ways of Seeing allowed me to explore the meaning of using an image in a different context. He explains that an artist intends to have their work displayed in a certain setting, but when the image is reproduced or moved, that setting and original meaning can be lost. Instead, for reproduced work, there is a holiness attributed to the original. The different situations may cause a conflict of interests between the artist’s intent and the viewer’s reality.

In Pop Art, artists spin this idea around. For example, Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe paintings used an image of Monroe and changed the color to send a message about her true beauty to the public. He mass-produces these images, so that there was no control over who saw the paintings, and thus they spread. On the other hand, that was viewed right after her death, when she was fresh in the minds of society. In today’s world, the paintings would be viewed in much the same way that John Berger spoke, as high art. This is a sad truth, as that was the opposite of what Andy Warhol seemed to have wanted.

Meira

Discuss how you feel one can apply the concepts presented by Berger in looking at the Modern Art exhibition at MOMA?

John Berger, in “Ways of Seeing”, presents several points on perspective and its distinct characteristic of centering everything on the “eye of the beholder” (Berger 16). It is a concentrated beam of light that travels inward instead of out, making the eye the “vanishing point of infinity” (16). Although a little drastic, Berger is quite accurate in describing how the general masses perceive, or at least should perceive, art. In order to get the most out of a piece of art (a painting in this case), one has to focus in on the painting, and only the painting alone. Every brush stroke, blend of color, position of foreground and background has a meaning and it is our duty as art appreciators to try and determine what those meanings are. This is no easy feat, because everyone’s mind is on a different track, and so interpretations will differ on all levels.

My visit to the MOMA with my partner and fellow classmates proved Berger’s ideas above and the idea that people think and perceive differently. As we looked at paintings together, we found ourselves taking everything in, from the colors, to the subject matter, even to the random speck of paint on the bottom right corner that may or may not have been intentional. The paintings projected themselves into our vision as we did our best to come together and make sense of what we were seeing. I will apply Berger’s method on future visits to the MOMA and to other museums in general, but I will do it with others. I think learning about art as a collective group is easier because what starts out as random snippets of thought in the corners of my mind can become fruitful discussions when put together with the ideas of others.

Jana

Discuss how you feel one can apply the concepts presented by Berger in looking at the Modern Art exhibition at MOMA?

John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing” is a detailed look on how people view art. In this book, Berger discusses the different perspectives of art based on time period. He compares the perspectives of the past to the perspectives of the present and states that the change in these perspectives had to do with the “reproduction” of many paintings. Paintings in the past were viewed and prized highly because back then, paintings were the only way to capture an image. Most of the time, only the elite and high class could view it. In modern times however, new developments such as the camera made it so that paintings weren’t the only way view and capture an image.

The invention of the camera allowed for the reproduction of paintings. In the past, only the elite could view paintings, and now, anyone can see a painting which changes the way people view that painting. Reproductions of paitnings such as The Starry Night (Vincent van Gogh), Mona Lisa (Leonardo Da Vinci) andWater Lilies (Claude Monet) can be viewed anywhere, such as postcards, posters etc.

As I went to the Modern Museum of Art and viewed the paintings, there were times when i thought, “wow how is this considered art?” Berger’s book however, made me realize that I come from a different era than most of the artists and that back then, people had different views and values. Berger believes that reproductions sometimes makes a painting lose its value because it is appears everywhere, however I have seen reproductions many times and seeing paintings such as Van Gogh’s The Starry Night and Monet’s Water Lilies in real life still left me awe struck.

-Stella Chin

Discuss how you feel one can apply the concepts presented by Berger in looking at the Modern Art exhibition at MOMA?

I think one of the most interesting things in Berger’s book is that the writer suddenly shifts the spotlight on the painter. He talks about how many art historians usually attempt to give meaning to the way an artist portrays its subjects, interpreting every detail and imagining the reactions of the public to such details. Berger, though, gives the suggestion to picture that artist behind the canvas, its mood and feelings, and how they knew what their duty was-how they were supposed to paint the scene.

Another interesting point that Berger made was about time and space in which a piece of art is set into. This gives way to reflecting about reproductions but also original pieces, which have all been equally stripped of their original time and space dimensions. One might think how suddenly inappropriate would a Picasso’s masterpiece be on someone’s shirt, but then Berger claims that even museums deprive the pieces of their original location meaning and mood.

Now, going to MoMA with all of these new interesting concepts and ideas in mind, I closely looked at each painting with a different eye. I tried to look at the date of the art I was looking at, picturing it in the original location-a church, a private villa, a yard-and I could perceive a totally different tone and meaning out of the piece. Sometimes even the colors changed, and certain objects resonated with the original environment. Unfortunately, most of the pieces at MoMA did not include where they were supposed to be, or if I wasn’t familiar with the artist I just could not get a sense where it was even crafted. Definitely, knowing all of these things now make me acknowledge my ignorance in this sense and encourage me to research further into the time and space dimensions of a painting when I try to really get a meaning out of it.

Sara