Berger seem to see that without history, art is hard to perceive. He seems to want the background history in able to appreciate art because this allows him to see what the artist might have had on his mind when trying to express him/herself through art. Therefore, if Berger has not “discovered” the past or recovnized it for exactlty what it is, his writing about the paintings could ultimately mean nothing if he wants to know the history in order to appreciate it. If it’s not the case, if he can appreciate art without the history behind it, ,then it would not be pointless.
Berger’s theory is that you would need to know the background information in order to fully apprecicate the artwork. Therefore, if there is a painting offered by the unnamed art historian in a case of “mystification”, he would not be able to understand nor appreciate the artwork because he would not know what the hidden meaning that the artist is trying to portray in his work.

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0005YVMF8.01-A3CDPEGSIQM61V._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg)