Seeing Art
John Berger's episode, "The Ways of Seeing," offers a special insight to the importance of maintaining the authenticity of paintings and how viewing works of art in their unintended environment may alter the viewer's understanding of the piece. He compares a painting to the human eye - it can only be at one place, at one time, and only one size. However, the mobility of paintings became infinite once cameras were invented.
Cameras gave us the ability to take a snapchat of anything and be able to see it anywhere. That being said, it did the same for paintings and all original works. The Mona Lisa is no longer only available to be seen in the Louvre. Anyone can Google it right now and see it on his/her screen. There is even a good chance that I could walk into the Art Department at school and see a replica. The invention of the camera made this possible. It allowed paintings to be reproduced and available all over the world.
Although classic masterpieces like the Mona Lisa or The Starry Night can be seen world-wide, is that a good thing? Berger claims it is not because "the camera has destroyed a painting's original meaning and multiplied its possible meanings." By this he means that it is important to view the piece of art in its appropriate setting, not through a computer screen. Looking at a copy of the paining does not allow for the viewer to gain the whole experience. Even if he/she sees the entire picture, every detail would not be noticeable. Berger also mentions that a painting's image should be kept "still and silent" - two crucial aspects that technology and cameras disregard.
After watching the episode, I have a new perspective about copies and replicas of famous pieces. Having access to well-known works of art is nice, but perhaps the pieces should be left to the museum walls in order to protect the authenticity and solemnity of the artist's work.
Cameras gave us the ability to take a snapchat of anything and be able to see it anywhere. That being said, it did the same for paintings and all original works. The Mona Lisa is no longer only available to be seen in the Louvre. Anyone can Google it right now and see it on his/her screen. There is even a good chance that I could walk into the Art Department at school and see a replica. The invention of the camera made this possible. It allowed paintings to be reproduced and available all over the world.
Although classic masterpieces like the Mona Lisa or The Starry Night can be seen world-wide, is that a good thing? Berger claims it is not because "the camera has destroyed a painting's original meaning and multiplied its possible meanings." By this he means that it is important to view the piece of art in its appropriate setting, not through a computer screen. Looking at a copy of the paining does not allow for the viewer to gain the whole experience. Even if he/she sees the entire picture, every detail would not be noticeable. Berger also mentions that a painting's image should be kept "still and silent" - two crucial aspects that technology and cameras disregard.
After watching the episode, I have a new perspective about copies and replicas of famous pieces. Having access to well-known works of art is nice, but perhaps the pieces should be left to the museum walls in order to protect the authenticity and solemnity of the artist's work.
Comments
Post a Comment