Rendered at 12:28:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
a_c 5 hours ago [-]
I bought this book on two occasions because of recommendation here. I still haven't started it yet. This time I know I have two already so I'm not getting a third one.
I recommend the book over the series. It was written after the original series aired, and gives more space to some interesting topics. For instance I don't recall the series discussing museum goers beliefs about museums.
eecc 16 hours ago [-]
yep, and Sony Music Entertainment auto-ensured shareholder value was maximized
qoez 37 minutes ago [-]
Watching the documentary based on this made me realize after years hearing about this that it's sort of incomprehensible word slop that I doubt many of the people recommending it got anything from at all https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SCoeb8QMtWWD5_7tiYB....
smokel 16 hours ago [-]
Interestingly, this is not copyright infringement, or at least not for the text being reproduced here. The original book (1972) mentions "The text of this book is not copyright" [1]. The image reproductions could invite copyright trolls though, so be warned.
I found Berger's writing pretty hard to digest. But thanks for the inspiration — will try again.
yzydserd 15 hours ago [-]
I came to Berger through Sontag’s On Photography. An easier companion.
17 hours ago [-]
trimethylpurine 16 hours ago [-]
Berger had no credentials or education in anthropology or any science whatsoever but invented a whole movement that I think doesn't carry any scientific weight. His reputation is truly undeserved.
I think the fact that his work has been largely adopted by media experts, and is taught as dogma in film/media studies course work at the college level should be a strong signal that our ideas as a society about sex and body image are severely distorted and deeply problematic. Not in light of his work but because of it.
purpleflashing 4 hours ago [-]
What does anthopology have to do with Berger's work? He was an art critic and an artist, what makes his work unfit for being used in film/media studies that overlap with film criticism as a disciplince that, when looked from a broad perspective, is just a brunch of art criticism? I think the connection is pretty straightforward.
John Ruskin's ideas are also used in film studies even though he formulated them before film as a medium existed.
trimethylpurine 1 hours ago [-]
Sexual preferences are a subject well within the realm of anthropology, especially if the claim is that they arise from contemporary culture, art, ritual, etc.
purpleflashing 1 hours ago [-]
Berger doesn't claim that.
trimethylpurine 43 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, you're right, but there is much literature that does, largely stemming from the supposition that we can divine such knowledge from a painting. And that supposition is Berger's.
purpleflashing 21 minutes ago [-]
If I had to simplify Berger's thesis, I would say that there cannot be a complete objective interpretation of the image, "what it means" is context-dependent, where what's displayed, who's looking at it, what they experienced in life, and what mood they're in can change what they "see" in the image. Traditionally, image locations were relatively stable, so at least that aspect of "seeing" was controlled, but with the advance of technology, we can replicate images and embed them in different contexts with different purposes, and so art criticism and analysis should focus not only on the image in isolation but also on who and how distributes it, because that part of art (where it's displayed, by whom, to whom) carries meaning in itself. As I said, he was an art critic, so he focused on the methodology of how art can be analyzed.
I really don't know where you got the idea that he was saying that one can divine some knowledge from a painting or that paintings and culture influence our sexuality.
Edit: Spelling and punctuation. God, I really should enable a spellchecker. I'm a terrible speller, I apologize.
saagarjha 9 hours ago [-]
His work is most definitely not taught as dogma. I assure you, there are plenty of courses that will be happy to explain to you about the old masters.
trimethylpurine 1 hours ago [-]
Interesting. I'm happy to know that at least in some places it's being challenged.
wonnage 11 hours ago [-]
I’m confused, so now that he is considered influential in the fields he lacked credentials for how is that in any way a negative
Unless you think those fields were scientifically rigorous until they decided to adopt his ideas?
Maybe you just disagree with the existence of “male gaze”
trimethylpurine 1 hours ago [-]
He's most certainly not considered influential in any scientific fields. You've misunderstood my comment.
I think maybe the feminist movements adopted his beliefs and repeated them infinitely to the extent that they've become as facts without any scientific basis. Regardless, I hear people regurgitating Berger-like beliefs in art museums around the world.
Male gaze, sure. (That's not Berger's btw. It's Mulvey using Berger beliefs. Great example.)
The idea that we can draw much knowledge about the owner of the painting of a fat woman, simply from the painting, is just not based in any science.
Hopefully that's more clear.
tclancy 13 hours ago [-]
Can you expand on that and point me at resources in this topic? Interesting.
trimethylpurine 35 minutes ago [-]
Berger claims we can know a lot about ownership and power based on paintings. That's not very well grounded in science.
Authors like Mulvey have taken this as fact and used it to make claims about sexuality.
And society generally believes this stuff, at present. That's my experience, anyway.
You could look to Laura Mulvey, Lynda Nead, Naomi Wolf, etc.
pmoriarty 16 hours ago [-]
> It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world
Do blind people not have a place in the surrounding world?
purpleflashing 4 hours ago [-]
He elaborates on that but you can replace "seeing" with "perceiving" -- it would be a little easier to understand what Berger means, imo.
yzydserd 15 hours ago [-]
Berger’s way of ‘seeing’ is to situate yourself in the time and place, less ocular than you may assume. And then he wrote the touching Cataracts, about how he lost his vision and gained a new way to see. He regained his vision and soon died. Possibly this is why you’ve been downvoted.
trimethylpurine 15 hours ago [-]
If that's true then the down votes themselves are beautifully and ironically tone def in regards to Berger's advocacy of awareness of context and medium in which the viewer is interpreting the content.
NamlchakKhandro 12 hours ago [-]
So you're just here to tone police
trimethylpurine 7 hours ago [-]
I think Berger is. I also think it's wrong and ridiculous.
[1] https://pengpedia.org/edition/ways-of-seeing-john-berger-471...
I think the fact that his work has been largely adopted by media experts, and is taught as dogma in film/media studies course work at the college level should be a strong signal that our ideas as a society about sex and body image are severely distorted and deeply problematic. Not in light of his work but because of it.
John Ruskin's ideas are also used in film studies even though he formulated them before film as a medium existed.
I really don't know where you got the idea that he was saying that one can divine some knowledge from a painting or that paintings and culture influence our sexuality.
Edit: Spelling and punctuation. God, I really should enable a spellchecker. I'm a terrible speller, I apologize.
Unless you think those fields were scientifically rigorous until they decided to adopt his ideas?
Maybe you just disagree with the existence of “male gaze”
I think maybe the feminist movements adopted his beliefs and repeated them infinitely to the extent that they've become as facts without any scientific basis. Regardless, I hear people regurgitating Berger-like beliefs in art museums around the world.
Male gaze, sure. (That's not Berger's btw. It's Mulvey using Berger beliefs. Great example.)
The idea that we can draw much knowledge about the owner of the painting of a fat woman, simply from the painting, is just not based in any science.
Hopefully that's more clear.
Authors like Mulvey have taken this as fact and used it to make claims about sexuality.
And society generally believes this stuff, at present. That's my experience, anyway.
You could look to Laura Mulvey, Lynda Nead, Naomi Wolf, etc.
Do blind people not have a place in the surrounding world?