Friday, September 24, 2010

Art and its Many Interpretations


This weeks readings both hit on interesting topics.  I would like to focus on Ways of Seeing by John Berger, which raised many interesting questions and arguments that I had not thought about before when it comes to art, visualization, and seeing in general.  I found this reading to be similar to Eagelton’s in the way that they both play on the idea of creating ones own meaning when approaching things vs. going along with the accepted definition of a particular piece or thing.  The article explores in depth the idea of mystification which as we have come to know it is the opposite of doxa.  Doxa is described as the accepted meaning of something or common assumption therefore, mystification is described as removing or not allowing an assumption to be made.  Mystification involves keeping in mind that there are always different ways to read anything.  The reading also expanded on ideas from Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, which spoke about the modern context that is created when a painting or piece of art is replicated.  The argument is made that this process of modern replication severs the original meaning from the painting or artwork, but as we discussed in class I feel that this is not completely true.  When looking at a replicated painting you are in some aspects still seeing the original meaning in many ways, perhaps you cannot see each individual brush stroke but one comes to understand the general image and therefore I think the context of how you might interpret the painting is what really changes.  Another topic that is touched on in the article is the idea that we do not simply just see things as they are as solely individual objects or beings.  We see things in relation to other things.  We are constantly forming relationships between objects to better understand each object.  This is why context changes but meaning does not as much in my mind.  Because each time you see a painting you are seeing it in a different environment.  The time, the place, and the people you are with, etc. all affects how you interpret something.  Whether it is text, paintings or anything, the past and our environment are constantly playing a role in our interpretation of every thing on this earth.

1 comment:

  1. I agree that the article by John Berger you are reflecting on was similar in ways to that of Eagelton. I also agree with the point you made about still being able to capture the meaning of an original painting even if it is a duplicate. I believe the original painter or artist probably wanted their work to be seen by the entire world, and everybody in the world won't be able to come to the original spot it was made. How you brought your response to a close was also good, because it brought everything you were talking about to a stop, and it was evident your writing was done.

    -Kevin Ber

    ReplyDelete