Questions for a Second Reading – “Ways of Seeing,” by John Berger

1. Berger spends a lot of time in his essay, “Ways of Seeing,” discussing history. It’s correlation between art and the present is quite deep, when one truly realizes what he is trying to convey. Often times, history is simply defined as “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.” However, I feel that “history,” in terms of Berger’s essay, is meant to be more a story. The story is of people, the past, and its connection to the present.
Berger’s views are pretty straightforward, yet his point is quite valid. As viewers, we often take for granted what we see. “We only see what we look at. To look is an act of choice. As a result of this act, what we see is brought within our reach-though not necessarily within arm’s reach. To touch something is to situate oneself in relation to it.” Art allows history to speak. Often times, I feel, that we can learn more from looking than we can from speaking; every piece of art comes from a different time or era, and tells a different story. It is really amazing how much art can tell; yet everyone has assumptions about it. “Yet when an image is presented as a work of art, the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learnt assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning:
Beauty
Truth
Genius
Civilization
Form
Status
Taste, etc.”
While all of the above can be drawn out of art, Berger goes onto explain about how these assumptions obscure the past. The “mystify” it, which is clever… all of the assumptions people make about art are extremely subjective. Therefore, I feel, they do little to show history for what it truly is. To learn about history from art, we must situate ourselves in it, which teaches us history. Instead of viewing art from a subjective point of view, if we look at it in it’s context, we are much more likely to learn about it’s history. As a result of this, Berger has “situated” us in history, or has returned a piece of history to us.

2. Berger argued that the account of the Hal’s painting is a case of “mystification.” I would agree with his statement, as he makes valid claims for support. His argument about what he sees as “really” there is valid, yet that brings us back into the argument of history. Almost everything that he drew out of that was from a historical perspective. He states earlier that, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” This is a perfect example of that, and he proves his point. Yet, he goes onto explain how the expert’s explanation is not necessarily fact, when a drama of “unforgettable contrast” takes place. A person who lacks sovereignty could take the painting to mean something completely different. Thus proves that knowledge allows for us to see and perceive.