Berger and Barnet Readings

The Berger and Barnet readings did not necessarily change how I look at art, but rather refocused my thoughts and reassured me of my beliefs. I have learned a lot from both readings, but the ideas were not new to me, rather, Barnet and Berger were able to put into words ideas that once seemed nebulous to me – almost like 2 pieces of art.

Of these two pieces of art however, I preferred the Barnet reading far more. It was the one that I was able to take coherent notes on. I believe Barnet followed her own advice in that she was able to present herself as a person who is fair, informed and worth listening to. She presented her points in a very clear, constructed way and backed them up with concrete examples. Following Berger’s writing, on the other hand, was like reading a philosophical text and more of a personal statement, I felt as if I was getting to know Berger more so than getting to know how to look at art.

Barnet begins by talking about the institutional theory of art, and then proceeds to mention “Fountain” by Duchamp – epitomizing the theory. It was the first time I fully understood the profundity of Duchamp’s work, and I have taken an art appreciation class. Art really is anything, although certain types of art aim for different goals.

Another thing I learned about art is that you can look at anything in a multitude of perspectives, a very many different ways of seeing. For example, I learned that different art has different goals, and different statements they are trying to make, while at the same time it is up to the viewer himself to come up with the “statement” the art piece is coming to make. I have learned that your natural reaction towards a painting has a lot of merit and within that reaction there are many things to be discovered, while on the other hand, the initial reaction to the art piece is not enough to fully appreciate it. I learned why I should write about art. “Until one tries to write about it, the work of art remains a sort of aesthetic blur … After seeing the work, write about it. You cannot be satisfied for very long in simply putting down what you felt. You have to go further.” Tangentially to this point, you should try to understand and think about the art using any “critical thinking” type approach, such as writing, but it could be drawing or just thinking about art, so long as the activity furthers your initial reactions and deepens your understanding in some way.

I learned that you have to be confident in your feelings, in the sense that your feelings are correct – or rather, they aren’t incorrect, they can’t be incorrect. You are having a particular response or thought to a particular painting precisely because it is what you think. You don’t even have to do any work, or any more work – you have already put in the work over the course of your life, it is the you that has been built over the entirety of your life, the subconscious you that provides you with that initial gut feeling.

To touch upon the ‘multitude of perspectives’ again, you have to have both the perspective of being confident in your emotions and unconfident in your emotions; you have to be willing to say that you didn’t understand everything at once because you most likely won’t, you most likely can’t. Picasso thought, “A painting is not thought out and settled beforehand. While it is being done it changes as one’s thoughts change. And when it is finished it still goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it”. If the painting itself is changing, your opinions should change with it – a certain reciprocity exists, both causing and resulting in the other’s existence.

The “subconscious you” gives you the gut feeling. While it is true that the initial gut feeling is there, it is not enough to simply “feel” the feeling, not because the book says so but because the reasoning the book gives is very poignant, and I have already quoted it – “Until one tries to write (critically think) about it the work of art remains a sort of aesthetic blur …you have to go further.” And you have to go further because there is so much further to go. There is a wealth of discovery about yourself, your culture, your thoughts, the thoughts of those around you, about the way people interact with one another, about the way people interact with you, about anything and everything. And the most amazing part is it all comes back to one centralized point – usually – and usually that centralized point is you. You are the focal point of all art – and that is not said with any hubris or self-satisfaction, all people are the focal point of art, in their own way of seeing, and yet nobody is at the focal point of art – and now we are back to the idea that there is always a different perspective to have.

I learned that even though I am not a trained art historian that does not mean that I cannot appreciate the art and that I can’t come to conclusions of my own about the art piece that, at the very least, carry weight to myself.

I also learned about a bunch of other stuff, stuff that probably carries equal importance, and when seen in the right way, might carry more importance than what I have chosen to write about. Stuff such as how the oil paintings of the 15-19th century were really a way for the rich to possess the world around them; stuff such as the large gap between the masters and novices in oil painting – signifying that oil painting requires a very high level of mastery; stuff like reproduction and the advent of cameras – changing the landscape and perspective of the art world forever. But this stuff was not memorable enough to write about. I suppose that is my way of seeing, looking at things as they relate to me.