The chapter is primarily
about the work of John Berger: Ways of
Seeing, a 1972 polemic that set out to change way that
art was looked at.
Berger points out that
'seeing comes before words.' It establishes our own place in the world. 'Images
are more precise and richer than literature.' However, Berger believes that our
ability to see art has been compromised by assumptions about art, assumptions
that deliberately mystify in order that a privileged minority is trying to
invent a history that retrospectively justifies the role of the ruling classes.
Experts have explained away the political evidence of the paintings, neglecting
a 'total' approach that would relate the paintings to people's everyday lives.
This all
seems rather far fetched to me. Berger is undoubtedly on to something in his
comments that doubt the integrity of visual cultural analysis but one has to
ask why the commentators would intentionally or unintentionally seek
retrospectively to protect the ruling
classes? It seems much more likely that much of the pretentiousness, indeed
much of the infrastructure of the art history industry, seeks to enhance and
protect its own image, in simple terms it is an exercise in self importance.
Moreover, one
has to question whether the average person in the street is actually that
concerned that experts do not explain art in a total way. Is this something he
or she needs?
Berger continues by
pointing out that most people associate museums with churches (not sure this would be true in 2013). He would
prefer pinboards in rooms where images of pictures would be stuck.
Oil painting has a special
relationship with property says Berger - not merely because they are property
but also because they show property. Thus paintings become propaganda.
Again, this
seems a huge leap. We have already discussed the fact that paintings were often
commissions by obviously wealthy people (one needs only to visit most stately
homes to see an array of the great and the good of the family through the ages
to confirm this) so it is hardly surprising that paintings show property. One
can infer that having a portrait of ones self and family was a status symbol.
Berger is here stating the obvious.
H&N continue with
Berger's critique of the Ambassadors by Holbein. Berger admits there is great
technical skill in the painting but claims the 'stuff' that 'demonstrates the
desirability of what money could buy' that dominates the painting, highlighting
scientific instruments and a globe, for example.
H&N point out that
there is an alternative explanation (I might add
that one is hardly required if my argument above is accepted: that this is an
example of painting procured by the wealthy and influential to show themselves
off. It does not need a class based approach to see this). The
disclosing of a particular time on a clock, the broken string of a lute may
point to the transience of the scene; that all the wordly goods might disappear
as easily as they materialise. There is a skull as well: a recurring motif
meaning memento mori,
remember you have to die. Thus
it could equally be said that Holbein has added a sense of folly.
There is further dichotomy
over Berger's interpretation of Frans Hals' Old
Men's Alms House. Hals was penniless and earned three loads of
peat for painting group portraits. Some (notably Slive) praise the works and
say there is no evidence that the paintings were done by Hals in a negative way
. Berger disagrees, saying that Hals would obviously have been bitter about his
relative position and economic disadvantage.
The problem
with this argument is that it replaces what Berger would claim is a reactionary
acceptance by the art world of a situation where the haves are taking advantage
of the have nots with an arrogant assumption that this MUST be the case. How
does Berger know? He might be right but then he might not. Hals might have been
very happy at the prospect of practising his craft. He might have been
grateful.
The chapter then continues
with the developing argument between Fuller and Berger over the last two
decades of twentieth century. Fuller originally countenanced Berger's theory
but gradually distanced himself, ultimately becoming quite hostile to Berger.
H&N analyze the
differences between Berger and Fuller, and conclude much as I have done above,
that there are several plausible motives that Hals might have had when painting
the portraits.
Marxian theories are
outdated now, but we should credit Berger with at least advocation a new 'way
of seeing' that remains relevant, and perhaps rightly shook the cosy world of
art commentary.
H&N then move on to
look at gender, specifically noting how the vast majority of nude painting is
by men of women, not dissimilar, one might add, of
contemporary pornography. Indeed some painting is very much of the top
shelf variety. H&N further discuss an essay by Laura Mulvey in which she
argues that women are very much portrayed as objects of male fantasies in the
cinema.
Again, one
has to say that this is all pretty obvious. Men were trained to be painters in
patriarchal European society so it is hardly surprising there are no female
painters, and perhaps equally unsurprising that female sex organs are more
commonly portrayed than male, though this is surely not true of Greek
sculpture, which seemed to major on the male organ. Perhaps the polemical
approach to sexism in art is unjustified; it simply reflected the Zeitgeist of the period.
The remainder of the
chapter discusses the work of Bordieu; I profess not to understand this so
decline to add to notes.
No comments:
Post a Comment