PDF Summary:Ways of Seeing, by John Berger

How does the way you see something affect what you see? Does the public really need museums and art critics to explain an artwork’s meaning to them? In Ways of Seeing, published in 1972, critic John Berger argues that throughout history, the way we see art has been manipulated by a privileged minority to preserve their social and economic dominance. The book challenges the idea that to understand and appreciate works of art, we need experts to “translate” them for us. Rather, Berger urges us to pull back the curtain and look at the images before us with our own eyes.

In this guide, we explore Berger’s premise that, throughout history, the dominant class has used art and art criticism to “mystify” the working class. Additionally, we add historical background on both the artwork Berger analyzes and the landscape in which Berger is writing, and compare Berger’s ideas to those of contemporary art and culture.

(continued)...

Mythology

According to Berger, paintings of ancient myths and religious stories were the most respected category of painting. Because the wealthy elite were educated, they were the minority in society who had access to these myths. But instead of inspiring their wealthy owners to live up to the morality depicted in the paintings, Berger says the paintings instead served only to confirm its owners’ high perception of themselves because they were educated enough to know the stories being told.

Shortform Commentary: A Modern-Day Mythological Painting—Leda and the Swan

Painted in 1962 as one of a set of six, Leda and the Swan is a modern-day mythological painting by Cy Twombly. It’s immediately apparent that this painting is done in a different style than the mythological oil paintings of the European tradition, yet it meets the criteria of the genre. The painting is based upon the Greek story of Zeus seducing Leda by taking the form of a swan. This particular painting sold for over $50 million in 2017, demonstrating that the market value for this genre still tops the hierarchy list previously discussed. Another member of this set currently resides at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Genre Paintings

“Genre” paintings were the opposite of mythological images. Rather than depicting morality and virtue, the genre paintings depicted unrefined vulgarity. The subjects of these paintings were the working class—nameless individuals going about their lives. The genre paintings that follow the tradition depict the working class as poor, but happy. Often, the subject is even smiling outward at the viewer of the painting, presumed to be a member of the bourgeoisie. Berger says this depiction isn’t realistic, but that it kept the wealthy from feeling guilt about their privilege (mystification).

(Shortform note: Many of the masters of the “genre” genre came from the Netherlands, including Vermeer and Steen. The most common scenes depicted included social events, daily pleasure, soldier life, and scenes of drunkenness.)

Colonialism

Just as myth paintings assured elites that they too were moral and therefore deserving of their wealth, paintings that depicted colonized people and places reminded elites that (in their view) their culture was superior and therefore justified violent conquest. Berger explains that the painting in itself (a commodity) and the subject it depicted both contributed to this view.

(Shortform note: Postcolonial theory is a body of thought that claims we cannot understand the world we live in without considering how imperialism and colonial rule has shaped it. “Post” is added to the word colonial because it primarily focuses on colonialism from the 18th to 20th centuries, but the theory doesn’t imply that colonialism has ended.)

The Mystification of European Oil Paintings

Because of the subjects depicted in paintings from this time period, as well as the monetary value the paintings hold as commodities, European oil paintings are ripe for mystification. One of the most prominent ways that art is being mystified today is in how it’s represented and explained through art theory and history. According to Berger, the artists and works that are most represented by museum docents and historians don’t accurately reflect the norms of the European oil painting tradition. As a result, the history of the time is invisible to the viewing public, which means they’re unable to learn from it.

The rise of the oil painting coincided with the rise of the free art market in Europe. Almost all paintings during this time were done on commission, in large part because of the expense of the venture. The wealthier a person was, the more paintings he could commission. Because the paintings were commissioned, the patron had control over what the painting depicted. Berger explains that this is a form of mystification, because if you study the paintings from this time period, you are not seeing a record of what was—you are seeing how the wealthiest class of people wanted to be portrayed. These depictions protected their social status, which is inherently connected to wealth, for all of history.

(Shortform note: Berger explains how mystification benefits the wealthy, but he doesn’t provide a clear argument for how demystification of centuries-old paintings would affect modern-day capitalism. We might infer that if the masses were to understand the class stratification and oppression of the past, they might be more likely to recognize it in modern society and challenge its authority.)

Nudity and Objectivity

Nude women were a prominent subject in European oil painting. Berger points out that in the same way oil paintings depicted wealth using images of land and objects, women were also seen as property to be flaunted. Nudes, Berger says, are characterized by the objectification of the female “subject,” who through the assumed gaze of the male viewer is made into an object.

Nude women in European oil paintings appear for the benefit and use of the assumed male viewer, who Berger calls the “spectator-owner.” He calls them this because the man who owns the painting “owns” the nude woman, and (in his mind) he’s also the reason why the nude woman is there—to display herself for him, the spectator.

(Shortform note: According to Berger, the nudes of the oil painting tradition were highly focused on the spectator-owner and featured the male gaze within the paintings as well. Today’s nudes are less focused on being desirable, and more focused on breaking taboos. In many examples, the woman touches her own body and exudes a sexuality that up until recently was viewed as a character flaw. Since the “Me Too” movement of 2017, women have moved toward unapologetically embracing their sexuality and rebelling against the historical objectivity of their bodies.)

Naked Versus Nude

Not all naked paintings are nudes. According to Berger, to be naked is to be yourself, and to be seen by others for who you are—it is vulnerability and honesty. To be nude, on the other hand, is to hide oneself and be seen by others as an object—usually for sexual fantasy. We can’t know for sure what the subject in an image is feeling, but Berger says there are three primary distinctions between nudes and nakedness that you can visually see in an image:

1. The nude is conventionally attractive—the woman’s body is depicted in a way that satisfies man’s desire in a given time period. Nakedness will display “flaws” by conventional standards.
2. The nude is present for the purpose of being viewed—she is visibly aware that she is the object of a man’s attention, evident by her eyeline and/or body positioning. Nakedness contains no exhibitionism or voyeurism. The woman is simply living her life as anyone would, which occasionally requires being naked.
3. The nude is passive and still—often portrayed lying down in the supine position, the nude is inanimate, just as an object would be. Her face is placid or coy. Nakedness is portrayed using motion and expression—a towel slipping, a woman moving lustfully or appearing surprised, are examples that show that she’s a living human.

When speaking in terms of percentage, Berger explains that nudes are common in European oil paintings, and nakedness is rare. He infers that the rarity exists because the image of a naked woman that doesn’t “belong” to the spectator-owner is not marketable.

(Shortform note: Sir Kenneth Clarke, Berger’s primary adversary, argues that to be naked is to be without clothes and to feel exposed or embarrassed because of it. It’s a vulnerable state of being. To be nude, he says, is intentional and comfortable. A nude represents a particular society’s ideal figure. This means that a nude in one country or one time period will be different than that of another.)

The Impact of Reproduction

The invention of the camera (and therefore a means to reproduce images) forever changed how art was viewed, understood, and appreciated. For the first time in history, art could travel to the viewer, and the viewer could be anywhere in the world. As one form of mystification lifted, room was made for a different sort—the intentional distortion of meaning through physical manipulation of the image.

Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Era of Mechanical Reproduction”

Berger notes that his discussion in this section draws heavily on philosopher Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Era of Mechanical Reproduction.” Benjamin argued that reproduction of art devalues what he calls its “aura,” or its special, noble, meaning-giving power, which is present in the original work. Without connection to its physical place or the special moment-in-time quality of art that makes it timeless, art is open to political co-option.

Reproduction Removes the Art From Its Intended Home

The original meaning of a painting is distorted each time it’s viewed in a new location. Imagine that you’re viewing a painting of Jesus Christ on a crucifix. You’re standing in front of the original painting in a beautiful cathedral, surrounded by hushed whispers, ornate stained glass, and soaring ceilings. Now imagine you are looking at a replica of that same painting, and it’s hanging on the wall of your grandmother’s living room. It’s reasonable to assume that your reaction (and your interpretation of the work) would differ between the two experiences.

(Shortform note: While smartphones are undoubtedly a way art and music are divorced from place, some artists are using smartphones to create intentional place-based work. Using GPS, a Washington D.C. band created an album that you can only hear if you’re at the National Mall, listening on your phone. If you walk too far away from the Mall, the album won’t play.)

Reproduction Breaks the Whole Into Parts

Before reproduction, paintings were only ever viewed and analyzed in their entirety. After reproduction, paintings could be interpreted based on individual sections. Why would someone display part of a painting rather than the whole thing? Berger explains the motivation: When a person has the freedom to pick and choose which sections of a painting to display, they gain control over the message that it sends. (Shortform note: Modern technology has made cropping photos easy and instant. Nearly every smartphone has a photo editing feature where you can separate an image into parts in the blink of an eye. It’s considered unethical for journalists to crop a photo if it’s going to change the meaning of the photo, but some news outlets engage in this behavior anyway.)

Proximity to Words

The content of the words placed beneath or beside an image isn’t as important as the way it changes how we interpret the image. Berger notes that when a piece of art stands alone, the viewer takes it in (along with the setting, as we discussed earlier in this chapter) and draws meaning. When words are present, however, that creative process is halted. Instead, the image becomes an illustration of the words.

(Shortform note: A modern-day example of words changing the meaning of an image can be found in memes. A meme is a digital image that is copied over and over with slight variations and passed along, usually for the sake of humor.)

Proximity to Another Image

Just as words can alter the meaning of an image, two images placed side by side can have the same effect. Berger argues that what is seen immediately after an image, when there is no chance for digestion, changes its meaning. (Shortform note: This is another strategy often used by the media to convey a particular message. For example, a newspaper might print a photo of a protest directly next to a photo of a politician. This doesn’t mean the protest is about him, but that’s the meaning derived by their proximity.)

Advertisements in the Modern Age

We can see a throughline from traditional oil painting to modern advertisements.

Every advertisement you see offers a different product or service, but Berger explains that they all promise the same thing: An improved life. By spending money on this or that, your life will become more fun, more relaxing, more convenient. You will improve as a person. Others will envy you and emulate you. (Shortform note: The examples that Berger uses almost entirely focus on the promise of being envied. Today, advertisements tend to focus more on offering convenience. We can infer that the demands of the time dictate what is being promised to the consumer.)

Advertisements and Reproduction

Most advertisements don’t explicitly display fine art, but when they do, Berger points out that they use all of the techniques discussed in the chapter on reproduction: Separation of art from its original home, breaking of the whole into parts, as well as proximity to words and other images.

Advertisements and Oil Paintings

Berger draws a direct lineage from the oil painting tradition to advertisements of the modern age, with one clear distinction: who the viewer is. Instead of reflecting wealth and desire back to the wealthy and desired, as oil paintings did, ads use the qualities of oil paintings (desirable objects that can be bought and sold, the self-satisfied expressions of owners and elites of the past) to reflect an ideal of wealth, desirability, and status to the average person. Instead of enforcing a clear, rigid class system, as oil paintings did under aristocracies, ads enforce the less rigid but still clear class system of the present, where it’s technically possible, but unlikely, to rise to the top in wealth and status.

(Shortform note: Advertisers have been shown to cater their methods and choices of products based on the customer’s socio-economic status, so they do have an incentive to keep their customers within the classes they’ve already identified.)

Mystification of Advertisements

Berger argues that the public (especially members of lower economic status) is subjected to constant mystification through advertisements. The true state of the world is hidden or obscured by advertisements every single day, and though they promise a better life, their goal is to maintain the status quo. As soon as you buy whatever is being advertised to you, there is something new being offered—the goalpost constantly moves just out of reach. (Shortform note: Facebook has recently come under intense scrutiny for their advertising practices, with many claiming that their algorithms are discriminatory and oppressive. Lawsuits against Facebook have been launched by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Housing and Development, the Fair Housing Act, and more.)