Reading Berger and Barnet’s works really changed my perspective on viewing art. Going to the Museum of Modern Art this past week was much different than my previous museum visits. I had never been to the MoMa before, so it was a brand new experience for me; both the works and the museum itself were unfamiliar to me. A fresh environment, fresh art, and a fresh perspective.

The first exhibit I visited was the gallery of Andy Warhol’s works. It consisted of several images of pop culture, from Elvis to Marilyn Monroe to the Campbell soup can. A prevailing theme in Warhol’s works is repetition. Many of his works were either redone and copied with variation in other works or included the use of repeated images overlapping each other. Reading the descriptions next to each painting, I couldn’t help but think of chapter 1 from Ways of Seeing. I thought of the disparity between words and images. The descriptions cited the use of repetition in the images as a way for Warhol to illustrate the common and commercial existence of the subjects. While it seemed likely that that could be true, it was still “mystical.” The idea wasn’t confirmed by anyone – it was even written that Warhol preferred to refer to the meaning of his works with the phrase “no comment.” I thought of how the descriptions of these works were, in a way, unnecessary. The viewer should be the one to interpret the art, based on the context of the art and the mind of the viewer. From what I understand, this is what Barnet labels the reception theory. The art is not limited to what the artist intended or what the person who wrote the plaque thought the artist intended. I thought of the other possibilities of the meaning of the artwork. Maybe the repetition is a metaphor for Warhol’s delusional mind, or of the duality of American society at the time. As I thought of more and more possibilites, I realized that they are all valid because I was a viewer who was engaged with the art.

Another thing that struck me was viewing Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night. It was not nearly as massive as I thought, especially in comparison to the huge crowd that surrounded it. When I observed it up close, it was undoubtedly beautiful, but I did not find it more or less beautiful than many of the other paintings around it. Yet, it was by far more popular, and without a doubt, more expensive. The scene reminded me of Chapter 5 from Ways of Seeing. This piece is extremely valuable just by possession, which is true for the rest of the works to an extent. The value of an item is not really dependent on the work that the artist went through, or the significance it initially had socially, but of how well the artist’s name has persisted. Van Gogh is famous for being Van Gogh, and so his artwork is valued higher than others. It was fascinating to think about, as I saw the crowd grow around Starry Night while not many people stayed around the Franz Klee pieces.

The final piece that I saw during my visit was Mark Rothko’s No. 10. It’s a personal favorite. I had been told that to fully appreciate a Rothko, one must stand very close to it to observe all it’s underlying colors, which has been said to evoke great emotion from some viewers. However, as I stepped closer to the painting, a security guard told me, politely, that I was too close and to back up. I understood and respected his wishes, but as a result, I don’t think I got the full experience. This was a very insignificant moment, but it struck a chord with me later. I, as a viewer, could not view the piece to its full extent. If, as a viewer, my perspective is important in giving the piece its meaning, by rule of the reception theory, then Mark Rothko’s piece was left incomplete.

 

-Jaimee Rodriguez