John Berger / Ways of Seeing (1972)
- Thread starter luke wilson
- Start date
luke wilson
The Living Force
I just finished watching all 4 episodes and I think it was great. The main reason I think so is because a lot of what he said is essentially timeless in that they still hold true today.
Episode 1:
He basically says that the meaning/context of great works of painting (at the time of their original production) are lost through reproduction. In short we interpret these works through our own lenses rather than that which existed at the time.
Episode 2:
This one opens with him saying men dream of women, women dream of themselves being dreamt of, men look at women, women watch themselves being looked at.
He concentrates on nude paintings here - from the period 1500 to 1900. First he notes that they were pretty much of females. Secondly, he notes that they are not simply a portrayal of a female as naked in of itself but a female naked as perceived by an onlooker i.e. she is naked not for herself but for the onlooker. Her nakedness is essentially another garment that she wears for the pleasure of the onlooker. This is something that has come down to modern advertising... in that the female is not something unto herself but her existence is as defined through the eyes of the onlooker. This is something that has come to define the experience of life for many females if I'm not mistaken.
I particularly liked the discussion he had at the end... one of the girls said that, a woman's image of herself is derived directly from other people, whilst a man's image of himself is derived from the world, that is, it's the world that gives him back his image because he acts in it. That women are drawn to the man as he represents a center of activity and as a source of worth since he is in the world and the fact that he values her is important as a source of her personal self-esteem. The lady goes on to say that she thinks that what some women envy in some men is that their is something in them that is important to them other than simply what other people think of them and she thinks that, that thing is the product of his interaction with the world. Again, in modern ads, you see men being portrayed as more active, in the world... whilst women are being portrayed as passive, removed from the world in terms of participation.
Episode 3:
He essentially says oil paints, above anything else, were a means of depicting or reflecting the status of the individuals who commissioned them. They showed their place in the world, they re-enforced them. They were a status symbol and the contents of the paintings themselves showed this.
Episode 4:
Here he talks about modern day publicity and advertising as it applied in the 70's which in my view hasn't changed much since. He basically argues that colour photography has taken over the role of the oil paint with a crucial difference. Whereas the oil paints showed the status and life experiences as they were of those who commissioned and consumed them, publicity and advertising are in stark contrast to the status and life experiences of those who consume them i.e.. they don't show our lives as they are but as something maybe they ought to be...
The oil paintings of old showed status as in the pictures themselves you had the spoils of possession and ownership e.g. a master being shown with his servants and slaves or in front of his country estate or in front of his acre upon acre of private land etc... the oil painting consolidated his own sense of his own value - it wasn't depiction of a dream but of life as he experienced it.
Advertising despite depicting status/glamour/opulence etc appeals to a way of life we aspire to or think we aspire to but have not yet achieved. They suggest that if we buy what is in the ad our life will be different from what it is. Ad after ads show you this different life you can have. This also includes the kinds of relationships you can have as a result of these new possessions. But the kicker is that we can only achieve this if we have money and so ads make us chase after money and money takes on this magical veneer - it's the key to the lives we want. Also, the pursuit of money promotes the illusion that a man's ability to consume is directly related to his sexual virility. According to the rules of the dream, those who do not have this power, those who lack glamour become faceless. Therefore, ads both promise and threaten, they play upon fear. They suggest that you are inadequate as you are but they console you with a promise of a dream. The imagery of these ads are public but the dreams we have are intimate/personal.
All in all, I think this was a good series and quite relevant + you get to see loads and loads of old paintings.
Episode 1:
He basically says that the meaning/context of great works of painting (at the time of their original production) are lost through reproduction. In short we interpret these works through our own lenses rather than that which existed at the time.
Episode 2:
This one opens with him saying men dream of women, women dream of themselves being dreamt of, men look at women, women watch themselves being looked at.
He concentrates on nude paintings here - from the period 1500 to 1900. First he notes that they were pretty much of females. Secondly, he notes that they are not simply a portrayal of a female as naked in of itself but a female naked as perceived by an onlooker i.e. she is naked not for herself but for the onlooker. Her nakedness is essentially another garment that she wears for the pleasure of the onlooker. This is something that has come down to modern advertising... in that the female is not something unto herself but her existence is as defined through the eyes of the onlooker. This is something that has come to define the experience of life for many females if I'm not mistaken.
I particularly liked the discussion he had at the end... one of the girls said that, a woman's image of herself is derived directly from other people, whilst a man's image of himself is derived from the world, that is, it's the world that gives him back his image because he acts in it. That women are drawn to the man as he represents a center of activity and as a source of worth since he is in the world and the fact that he values her is important as a source of her personal self-esteem. The lady goes on to say that she thinks that what some women envy in some men is that their is something in them that is important to them other than simply what other people think of them and she thinks that, that thing is the product of his interaction with the world. Again, in modern ads, you see men being portrayed as more active, in the world... whilst women are being portrayed as passive, removed from the world in terms of participation.
Episode 3:
He essentially says oil paints, above anything else, were a means of depicting or reflecting the status of the individuals who commissioned them. They showed their place in the world, they re-enforced them. They were a status symbol and the contents of the paintings themselves showed this.
Episode 4:
Here he talks about modern day publicity and advertising as it applied in the 70's which in my view hasn't changed much since. He basically argues that colour photography has taken over the role of the oil paint with a crucial difference. Whereas the oil paints showed the status and life experiences as they were of those who commissioned and consumed them, publicity and advertising are in stark contrast to the status and life experiences of those who consume them i.e.. they don't show our lives as they are but as something maybe they ought to be...
The oil paintings of old showed status as in the pictures themselves you had the spoils of possession and ownership e.g. a master being shown with his servants and slaves or in front of his country estate or in front of his acre upon acre of private land etc... the oil painting consolidated his own sense of his own value - it wasn't depiction of a dream but of life as he experienced it.
Advertising despite depicting status/glamour/opulence etc appeals to a way of life we aspire to or think we aspire to but have not yet achieved. They suggest that if we buy what is in the ad our life will be different from what it is. Ad after ads show you this different life you can have. This also includes the kinds of relationships you can have as a result of these new possessions. But the kicker is that we can only achieve this if we have money and so ads make us chase after money and money takes on this magical veneer - it's the key to the lives we want. Also, the pursuit of money promotes the illusion that a man's ability to consume is directly related to his sexual virility. According to the rules of the dream, those who do not have this power, those who lack glamour become faceless. Therefore, ads both promise and threaten, they play upon fear. They suggest that you are inadequate as you are but they console you with a promise of a dream. The imagery of these ads are public but the dreams we have are intimate/personal.
All in all, I think this was a good series and quite relevant + you get to see loads and loads of old paintings.