To me, art appears in odd ways. I tend to find it in the things I love, such as film, television and literature. However, I find it incredibly difficult to appreciate the other forms of visual arts that I have no passion for. Although my thoughts remain, in all, the same, John Berger’s Ways of Seeing and Sylvan Barnet’s A Short Guide to Writing About Art have given me insight as to the significance of art, whether that is based on assumptions gained by looking at the painting or conclusions drawn by examining the context of the painting and its artist.
In Berger’s Ways of Seeing, the idea of perception is explored through the eyes the average spectator. In other words, our view of art is a creation of our own speculation, or as Berger puts it, “mystification” (Berger 11). We all assume that art always has a set of attributes which includes beauty, genius, taste etc. However, these assumptions “mystify rather than clarify” (Berger 11). This “mystification” obscures the art from being seen as it truly is. These misconceptions romanticize paintings until they are at such a distance that the only thing we can do is admire, but not observe and think. Because of this, we are unable to acquire the full context of a piece of art. Instead, we create an image of it that is pruned to our expectations of what a piece of art is. Therefore, when I will go to the MOMA, or any art museum for that matter, I now have a sort of reasonable suspicion for paintings. I’ll hesitate before endowing the painting with set requirements that it may or may not have. Instead, I will look at the history, and insert a certain context that will clarify rather than mystify.
Berger further discusses historical context in his book, but through the method and art form of oil painting. This portion of the book is quite similar to the aforementioned chapter, but it specifically analyzes the time period of the 1500s to the 1900s, when oil painting was most prominent. Berger uses oil painting because “it reduced everything to the equality of objects. Everything became exchangeable because everything became a commodity”. Here, Berger links oil painting with the possession of art. When looking at these pieces of art, many will notice the extravagance and dismiss it as mere beauty. However, Berger places that quality under scrutiny and suggests that extravagance being a common trait in many oil paintings, excluding a few rare exceptions, is to allow for their owners to boast about their wealth and power. Knowing this, the painting seems less beautiful and more of a medium for self-admiration and boasting. Those without this feature I will examine more closely because that might indicate a deeper and more personal meaning that the painter wanted to convey, like Rembrandt’s self portraits.
Barnet also discusses the context of context of paintings in his A Short Guide to Writing About Art. He asks the ever-relevant question, “What is Art?” In answering this question, Barnet draws upon the view of its spectators while ignoring the historical and social context of the art. This is coined as the Institutional Theory of Art. This perspective forces me to examine the authority of art institutions that seem to have the right to choose what we see as art. Barnet also looks at the other side of the coin. What is called the reception theory suggests that art is not the painting or work itself, but the activity of a spectator making sense of the work. I like this idea more because it places the burden of responsibility onto the observer. Otherwise, what is art if it cannot be observed? By having institutions choose for us what art is and isn’t, it takes away the point of observing a piece of artwork. When you observe art, you evaluate it. If you already know the end result, what is the point then?
Both Sylvan Barnet and John Berger have prompted me to be more analytical when it comes to forms of art that I am not quite interested in. Whether or not I find immediate pleasure in it, art is important and meaningful. To deny that would be to deny the existence of the art itself.
