«
»

Ways of Seeing, Second Reading Questions

By rachell

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.

This entry was posted on September 20, 2006 at 7:58 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Ways of Seeing, Second Reading Questions”

  1. prof Groom Says:
    September 20, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    Rachell,

    Your poitns here seem a bit appreviated and rushed. What do you mean by the following:

    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.

    What is mystification? how does Berger describe it specifically?

    Additionally, what do you mean by the following tatements:

    Therefore, if Berger has not “discovered” the past or recognized 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.

    How do does Berger employ history in his reading of the Hals work? Be specific, use quotes from Berger to anchor yourslef in the text and be a bit more precise about what you are arguing here.

  2. MikeBrouillette Says:
    September 20, 2006 at 10:10 pm

    I agree that background information is essential to understanding art. Could you write something more about the mystification though? It seems quick as Professor Groom said and it feels very open ended about why the historian is mystified.

  3. lexydeg Says:
    September 20, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    I think that you understand what you are saying, however it is very brief and you don’t completely explain yourself.

  4. vnoori Says:
    September 20, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    I disagree with your idea on Berger thinking that you need to know the background on a piece of artwork in order to appreciate it. I think that you dont really need to know the background but it does help. Well stated.

Leave a Reply