The depiction of the nude
Ways of Seeing
On a cold, wintry afternoon I settled down to watch "Ways of Seeing" with John Berger. (1) This series of four programmes was recorded in 1972 which makes it well over 40 years old and I was not expecting much. It is is a black and white, poor quality image, relies on the technology of the day, is studio bound and features John Berger giving what amounts to a university lecture with poor visual aides. It was nothing like the slick, travelogue art programmes we get now.
And I loved it.
The dialogue was straightforward, intense, and full of ideas that at the time were new and still feel fresh now. The idea of a man expounding a feminist viewpoint in 1972 must have been amazing. But what did he offer that impressed me so much?
Part 1
Berger suggests that the way we interpret Western Art is determined by habit and convention. I take that to mean that he thinks we accept what we are told without asking our own questions. Berger believes that because (even in 1972) reproduced images were so accessible our judgement is impaired because of the manner in which they are viewed. We rarely have the opportunity to see the original work as the artist intended. For instance the intention might have been to inspire reverence which is difficult to capture in a newspaper reproduction placed next to advertisements.
The main premise of Part One is that extraneous influences get in the way of our seeing paintings "properly". Berger gives us the opportunity to look at Vermeer's The Milkmaid in silence because external noise can influence our viewing.
 |
| The Milkmaid - Johannes Vermeer (1657 est) Oil on canvas (2) |
This seemed to me to be an unusual thing to do but I was amazed to find that in the silence I thought I could hear the water pouring into the bowl. And I really looked at the image - all this and it was only in black and white. It was a very powerful illustration.
Berger goes on to say that we view art through the mirror of our experience - there is always a personal context to viewing. A painting I really like is another Vermeer, Woman in Blue Reading a Letter.
 |
| Woman in Blue Reading a Letter - Johannes Vermeer (1663 est) Oil on canvas (3) |
There is a lot of speculation about this painting; what is she reading, is she pregnant, why is the map of the Netherlands on the wall? What Berger is suggesting is that the viewer brings their own baggage to the interpretation. For instance someone who is expecting a love letter would view the painting in a different way to someone who had a son or daughter fighting in a war. One would be welcoming the positive and the other dreading the negative. It's all about context and the way our world view changes us.
Part 2
Part two is a discussion about the nude in art and an attempt to clarify exactly what a nude is. Kenneth Clarke has said that being naked is being without clothes and the nude is a form of art. Berger seems to dispute this as rather simplistic and tells us that to be naked is to be oneself; and to be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognised for oneself. A nude has to be seen as an object in order to be a nude. I can go along with this.
It reminds me of my apprehension when I went to my figure drawing group for the first time a few weeks ago. I couldn't anticipate how I would feel looking closely at and drawing a naked (nude?) person. Having considered Berger's thoughts I think the completely neutral nature of the professional encounter makes the model an object. Interestingly the model is very personable as we are eating lunch but slips effortlessly into professional mode afterwards. The model has been the same woman each time I have attended and she is easy on the eye. I have some concern about how I will manage a male model or someone less attractive. There are some contradictions here about my intellectual understanding and the emotional response I have.
Berger maintains that few old masters show a woman being herself; the majority portray her as an object of male desire or idealisation.
Part 3
Part three offers a Marxist based philosophical look at the oil painting and its function and worth. The advent of oil painting gave the artist a much improved medium for depicting objects that looked tangible. The patron could show off his valuable possessions and material wealth for the world to admire in a commissioned painting. Ironically the paintings became treasures themselves.
Berger contrasts his own opinion of Constable's Mrs and Mrs Andrews with that of Kenneth Clarke.
Clarke describes Constable's painting of the countryside as "sensitive". The enchanting landscape, says Clarke, is painted with love and mastery. Berger on the other hand sees the painting as a flaunting of wealth and privilege. He believes the attitude of Mr and Mrs Andrews is one of superiority and arrogance.
I can happily accept the arguments that Berger makes but without the legacy of European oil paintings, however morally reprehensible the culture that gave us them might be, we would be the poorer in many ways.
Part 3 didn't hold my attention as Parts 1 and 2 did probably because it has a little more distance from what I am currently studying. It's stimulating all the same to hear a view other than the traditionally accepted one.
Part 4
Part 4 suggests that we are surrounded by publicity images that offer us a better way of life. It goes on to look at the subliminal impact of such material and the message it might give to those who cannot attain the desirable objects. In 1972 when Berger recorded these programmes he can have had no idea how consumerism was going to develop.
Berger spends some time looking at the concept of "glamour" which he says is "a state of being envied" and "publicity is the process of manufacturing glamour". He suggests that glamour is a new idea and that when everyone knew their place in society and no one had was aspirations there could be concept of glamour. I'm not sure that I agree with Berger - there have always been people who want more or better and I think this is demonstrated in a lot of art.
Our attention is drawn to the similarity between oil painting and publicity saying that they use many of the same references. Berger gives a multitude of examples where the advertising world has drawn heavily on the tradition of painting using poses and images based on paintings we are very familiar with.
There is a major difference in oil paintings and publicity however, Oil paintings celebrate what the commissioner had - it consolidated his position whereas publicity appeals to our aspirations and what we might have if we have the money. The consequent feeling of inadequacy if we fail to reach our expectations makes us what Berger calls "faceless".
The final section of Part 4 deals with the uncomfortable or even untenable position we are often put in by publicity. His example is the turning of a couple of pages in the Sunday Times Magazine. First we see a frivolous advert then a heartrending article pleading for help for Pakistani refugees. This is followed by more frivolity. I think what Berger was identifying was we now know as "charity fatigue".
Afterthoughts
Whilst I don't go along with all that Berger asserts the general thread of his thinking sits very well with me. I have the doubtful benefit of over forty extra years to see how things have developed. Women are still seen as objects and consumerism is even more rife. There are still the haves and the have nots and people are made very miserable if they can't have the latest must have gizmo.
What will stay with me most though is the feeling that there is another way to look at paintings and that although the societal context is always a huge factor one of the most powerful influences on our interpretation is our own life experience. What is amazing is that what has set me buzzing is over 40 years old. This has made me really think hard in new ways.
Part three offers a Marxist based philosophical look at the oil painting and its function and worth. The advent of oil painting gave the artist a much improved medium for depicting objects that looked tangible. The patron could show off his valuable possessions and material wealth for the world to admire in a commissioned painting. Ironically the paintings became treasures themselves.
Berger contrasts his own opinion of Constable's Mrs and Mrs Andrews with that of Kenneth Clarke.
 |
| Mrs and Mrs Andrews - John Constable (1750) (4) |
Clarke describes Constable's painting of the countryside as "sensitive". The enchanting landscape, says Clarke, is painted with love and mastery. Berger on the other hand sees the painting as a flaunting of wealth and privilege. He believes the attitude of Mr and Mrs Andrews is one of superiority and arrogance.
I can happily accept the arguments that Berger makes but without the legacy of European oil paintings, however morally reprehensible the culture that gave us them might be, we would be the poorer in many ways.
Part 3 didn't hold my attention as Parts 1 and 2 did probably because it has a little more distance from what I am currently studying. It's stimulating all the same to hear a view other than the traditionally accepted one.
Part 4
Part 4 suggests that we are surrounded by publicity images that offer us a better way of life. It goes on to look at the subliminal impact of such material and the message it might give to those who cannot attain the desirable objects. In 1972 when Berger recorded these programmes he can have had no idea how consumerism was going to develop.
Berger spends some time looking at the concept of "glamour" which he says is "a state of being envied" and "publicity is the process of manufacturing glamour". He suggests that glamour is a new idea and that when everyone knew their place in society and no one had was aspirations there could be concept of glamour. I'm not sure that I agree with Berger - there have always been people who want more or better and I think this is demonstrated in a lot of art.
Our attention is drawn to the similarity between oil painting and publicity saying that they use many of the same references. Berger gives a multitude of examples where the advertising world has drawn heavily on the tradition of painting using poses and images based on paintings we are very familiar with.
There is a major difference in oil paintings and publicity however, Oil paintings celebrate what the commissioner had - it consolidated his position whereas publicity appeals to our aspirations and what we might have if we have the money. The consequent feeling of inadequacy if we fail to reach our expectations makes us what Berger calls "faceless".
The final section of Part 4 deals with the uncomfortable or even untenable position we are often put in by publicity. His example is the turning of a couple of pages in the Sunday Times Magazine. First we see a frivolous advert then a heartrending article pleading for help for Pakistani refugees. This is followed by more frivolity. I think what Berger was identifying was we now know as "charity fatigue".
Afterthoughts
Whilst I don't go along with all that Berger asserts the general thread of his thinking sits very well with me. I have the doubtful benefit of over forty extra years to see how things have developed. Women are still seen as objects and consumerism is even more rife. There are still the haves and the have nots and people are made very miserable if they can't have the latest must have gizmo.
What will stay with me most though is the feeling that there is another way to look at paintings and that although the societal context is always a huge factor one of the most powerful influences on our interpretation is our own life experience. What is amazing is that what has set me buzzing is over 40 years old. This has made me really think hard in new ways.
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utEoRdSL1jo
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer)
(3) http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/vermeer/
(4) http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/thomas-gainsborough-mr-and-mrs-andrews
No comments:
Post a Comment