#John berger ways of seeing epud plus#

By taking the paintings out of their surface, replaces how the artist viewed the world. Building upon the German philosopher, Walter BenjaminsвЂ™ works, he theorizes, with the invention of the camera, the reproduction of images, concentrating on European oil paintings, changed not what we see but how we see them.

#John berger ways of seeing epud plus#

Reproduction is the key to getting more people to acknowledge the time and effort that it takes to create a masterpiece.John Berger begins his book вЂњWays of SeeingвЂќ by putting across the idea that words are inadequate when it comes to conveying the way we perceive the world, seeing is habit plus convention. On top of that, people would not have seen the artists other works to know their credibility. So, with just the originals, very few people are given the chance to view a work of art. The value of art is based on how many people believe that it is worthy. Alternatively, I feel that a positive point of reproducing is the value. He believes that by reproduction, the original is hurt the most because less people will find appealing. How would we even have any вЂ¦show more contentвЂ¦ As Berger expresses his opinion in his essay, he states вЂњвЂ¦images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free.вЂќ (Berger, 126) This statement makes it clear that Berger feels that reproduction has destroyed the value of art. We use reproductions for other beneficial means such as educational purposes. You cannot look inside a home or even go outside without finding something that has been reproduced by a camera or other means. In todayвЂ™s times, reproductions are everywhere. I believe the camera presented a new opportunity for people to see things that would not normally be available. In some cases, we would not even have any knowledge of art. A large fault in the mindsets of those who believe that art should not be reproduced, is that without reproduction, then we would not have any history of art. Then art is not damaged by reproduction, it is pushed to new levels of engagement that would not be found without reproduction. Whereas I think that without reproduction, art would be nothing like it is today. So, by reproducing and moving the art, he states that this availably ruins the quality and uniqueness of art. Also, he thinks that by moving the image, it changes the meaning of the original. He believes that paintings should not be recreated and moved so that they cannot be seen in multiple places at the same time. I believe along with many others that the reproduction of art вЂ¦show more contentвЂ¦ He suggests вЂњThe uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided.вЂќ (Berger,114) This is one of his main points to why the camera has been harmful. However, he is ignorant to any of the other possibilities dealing with art. In John BergerвЂ™s essay, he brings up many cases where the reproduction of art has had many negative situations. On the contrary, I believe that the reproduction of art has generated countless benefits for the art community, such as knowledge, popularity, and value. Throughout his essay he states that reproduction has belittled the original, and has made images of art valueless. Show More вЂњWhat the modern means of reproduction have done is to destroy the authority of art and to remove it.вЂќ (Berger, 126) This quote from, вЂWays of SeeingвЂ™ indicates a portion of John BergerвЂ™s bitterness towards the reproduction of art.