In Ways of Seeing, John Berger starts off by saying that “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe in” (Berger 8), meaning that all art is relative to the person and their past experiences in life. The way one person may see a painting may be completely different from the way another sees it. According to Berger the way people look at art is also affected by “a whole series of learnt assumptions about art” (Berger 11). For example, people may go into a museum expecting to see works of beauty or truth and even though they may not see it in a painting at first, they may force themselves to formulate some type of interpretation that includes these assumptions rather than making their own interpretation. When visiting the MOMA, I found myself approaching most of the paintings with a mindset full of the assumptions Berger described. I felt that they greatly influenced my interpretations too. For example, there were some paintings that I really couldn’t understand and didn’t think were all that great but then I would consider the possibility of abstract beauty being displayed in the paintings or the fact that there must be a deeper meaning behind it. Berger also emphasizes how the authenticity of a painting plays an important role in how people view it. I understood and experienced what Berger meant when he says that “their historical moment is literally before our eyes”( Berger 31). In the MOMA seeing authentic paintings such as “Starry Night” made me feel like I could essentially see and feel what the artists did when they were creating the paintings.

Moreover, Barnet highlights how anything can be art if artists and the public say it is, this is called the Institutional Theory of Art. I found that I could apply this theory when viewing some of the more abstract paintings and sculptures. Sometimes I would ask myself, “How is this is art?” but then I would remember what Barnet said. I couldn’t really see the artistic value in some sculptures but I may just have not been able to see the art piece as other people do. Barnet also introduces the Reception Theory which states that art is not a body of works but is rather an activity of perceivers making sense of images. Thus art is a collaborative effort and I was able to see that when my friends and I worked together to interpret and figure out the meaning behind some paintings we viewed at the MOMA.

Many of the art pieces we looked at in the MoMA were abstract, often defying reality and instead adopting a dream-like, irrational quality that is characteristic of many surrealist paintings. As a result, attempting to interpret the images can be a bit difficult. However, it is possible to interpret art through context, as Berger states that art represented “the totality of possible views taken from points all round the object (or person) being depicted” (18). One of the paintings we observed contained familiar objects such as balloons, shooting stars, and kites despite the unusual context in which these objects were painted–these items were depicted with a gray, dark, and messy background, which makes it challenging to understand how these objects are connected to each other and the background. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that such objects, which in this case are often seen in childish, innocent contexts, can actually be shown through a variety of different perspectives and concepts.

Barnet emphasizes the importance of asking basic questions such as “What is my first response to the work,” “When, where, and why was the work made,” and “What is the title?” in order to formulate ideas and interpretations (57). Initial reactions towards especially shocking pieces of art can help to clarify an interpretation of an art piece, as it pushes us to go back and find the specific features of the work that elicited such a reaction in the first place. The background information of the work is also helpful. For example, for surrealist paintings, understanding the movement behind the work, as well as the place in which it was created can help us understand the abstractness of the painting. For example, although Salvador Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory” might be confusing to the viewer at first sight, knowing the purpose of the surrealist movement might help one to determine why or how the painting is surrealist.

Often times, many of us are afraid to interpret an art piece in fear of drawing the wrong conclusions, or more specifically, interpreting the art in a manner different from how the artist intended. This fear brings up Barnet’s question: “Does the artist’s intention limit the meaning of a work?” (23) It is important to remember that everyone views things, especially art, differently. According to Berger, what we see is “the relation between things and ourselves” (9). Naturally, how we relate to things, such as images, vary as we have different experiences. Therefore, it is often argued that “the creator of the work cannot comment definitively on it” because “the work belongs…to the perceivers, who of course interpret it variously” (Barnet 24). Our interpretations of art are valid, as it is perceived differently by everyone. This can be applied to surrealist paintings, as their abstract qualities magnify the variety of interpretations because they are meant to stimulate the imagination, which is boundless.

When I have previously visited museums, which mind you has been very rarely, I never knew quite what to look for and generally just cruised through the floors without paying much attention. This Friday, I went with a mind full of purpose. For one, I had to be very vigilant when it came to the paintings because our grade depends on it for our future essay. I also looked at the paintings differently however, in part because I wanted to recruit the new skills that I had read about in our weekly assignment. The first chapter in Ways of Seeing introduces the reader to the conception of relative perception, which I found very interesting because it intuitively made sense. To test this, I asked my friends what they thought of certain paintings and realizing that they looked at things differently than I did.

On the other side of observation, the online reading introduced a very objective way of thinking about art. The online reading promoted thinking about the time period that the art piece was created, as well as trying to find an objective way to determine the definition of art. I wasn’t too successful in understanding how the time period affected the paintings that I observed, but I was able to look at some of the exhibits differently by realizing that they are considered artistic depictions in one form or another at a particular time.

Glenn Collaku

So, a few thoughts that stuck in my head when I was walking about MOMA, and their relations to Berger and Barnet’s concepts… and some more things that I might think about when I go there again.

Continue reading

For you to go to a museum of art, as I went to the Museum of Modern Art, to study the works found there, you must be aware of how to really look at the aforementioned works. If you do not know how to look at art without any knowledge of how to do so, all meaning and understanding of it will be lost upon you. The Barnet reading is a good source of reference to be able to look at art and question it in a way which would lead to understanding the meaning of works before you, as well as understand their significance. Continue reading