5 ms·

John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ Exploded a Discipline

108 points by prismatic 7y ago

hansjorg 7y ago
I'm glad to learn that the BBC also aired a response to "Civilisation". That's one of the few TV programmes I've ever seen that I'd label as repulsive.
- searine 7y ago
  Why was it repulsive?
  - hansjorg 7y ago
    It's violence couched in aesthetics and academic language. If you want something, take it. Don't spend 650 minutes insulting the universe by trying to weasel your way into having earned it.
    - searine 7y ago
      I'm not an art historian, and when I watched either of the two shows I found them interesting and insightful so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd like to understand the criticism of each. I don't understand what you mean by "It's violence couched in aesthetics and academic language."
deogeo 7y ago
> self-armed semioticians and practiced deconstructors of political signification. Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself, and not assume it is an unalloyed good, and question what is targeted for deconstruction, and what is left to stand.
- PTOB 7y ago
  Excellent point. I had a philosophy professor who let us know that it was neither his position nor purpose to indoctrinate us regarding the soundness of ideas. He very consistently stuck to his guns and gave every argument presented to the class the the best treatment he could, and no one ever figured out what position he took personally on any of them. I asked if he did not consider the purely rational method he embodied a form of indoctrination itself. He smiled, and very considerately ceded the point that it might very well be the case and that if so, he was not aware of it. All my other philosophy professors were folks who - for some reason - became angry when asked questions like that.
  - downerending 7y ago
    That's what University is supposed to be like. Unfortunately, it's a dying ethos...
- pnathan 7y ago
  Understanding the purpose of having a construction and the call into the human soul to demand a narratival and binding meaning is something that is simply inadequately done in this long afternoon of Modernity. Trite answers don't suffice, nor do pompous ones.
- leoc 7y ago
  > Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself That hasn't really been the case for a long time. Deconstruction was officially declared off-message in the aftermath of 9/11: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-I... . It's had something of a rehabilitation in the post-financial-crisis world of the new wokeness, though.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    It really disturbed me how many people went through that "this changes everything" transformation at the time. Even if I disagreed more with their former position, it makes me seasick. It's like, there must be something profound missing from people who have such definite views and then a switch flips and they see the world completely differently. I mean, the WTC was attacked before! So how could a thinking person not allow for the possibility of a successful attack? How could it fundamentally be a surprise that upends your worldview? Yet that seemed to be the effect on an awful lot of people.
- patcon 7y ago
  Maybe we're just supposed (in the sense of evolutionary/mimetic/entropic fitness) to be in conversation with all forms of structure; between order and disorder... like a devil's advocate or a high-confident grey [1] -- maybe we're supposed to stake the middle ground: build when it's rubble and tear it down when it's cathedral :) [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can_groups_make_good_decisions/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_...
tgv 7y ago
So he is the father of word salad.
- blacksqr 7y ago
  If nothing else, I find John Berger's voice immensely soothing. Toss on.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
This is a really great (and relatively short) program. Here’s a link to the first episode: https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk The rest of them are there as well. Go ahead and give it a watch!
- hpliferaft 7y ago
  And if you enjoy Ways of Seeing in all its retro-critical glory and need MOAR, check out Robert Hughes's The Shock of the New: https://youtu.be/J3ne7Udaetg https://youtu.be/J3ne7Udaetg
briandoll 7y ago
I loved the talk that Michael Bernstein gave at the Deconstruct Conference relating "Ways of Seeing" to "Ways of Selling", related to software specifically: https://www.deconstructconf.com/2017/michael-bernstein-ways-of-selling https://www.deconstructconf.com/2017/michael-bernstein-ways-...
- draw_down 7y ago
  Yes, that was my favorite talk at the whole conference that year.
JeremySecond 7y ago
Reading the article, I was shocked to realize almost everyone involved is Jewish. John Berger, Griselda Pollock, Walter Benjamin, Georg Lukács, Béla Balázs, Karl Mannheim, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Vilém Flusser, Simone Weil - an entirely Jewish way of seeing.
Jun8 7y ago
This series is very interesting; but let the viewer beware: as usual with such deconstructive media it contains many assertions that are not presented in-depth and may or may not be true at a deeper level. They sound profound but further reflection fails to provide what deep learning they project. Take, for example, the very beginning of Episode 1, where Berger states "All the paintings of the tradition used to convention of perspective which is unique to European art." Then he moves on. Think about this important assertion for a moment, it is very interesting. Why is it true? Why didn't anybody else invent it, e.g. Arabs, with their advanced knowledge of optics? perhaps Islam's ban on painting human form hindered them. How about the Chinese? Here's one answer: "...because, as Erwin Panofsky1 would point out, perspective is not only a direct transcription of the visual reality but a form of representation that originates within broader cultural needs." , i.e. for some reason their cultural needs were different. You see the enlightened view itself has Orientalist foundations. A better discussion can be found here [3] If you want to read a great fictional work that covers these topics I suggest Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red, e.g. "Such painting, says one modernist to the other, means that "if you depicted one of the trees in this forest, a man who looked upon that painting could come here and, if he so desired, correctly select that tree from among the others". A tree with Ottoman roots relates the conversation and objects: "I don't want to be a tree, I want to be its meaning."" [3] I was fascinated by the extensive and excellent coverage on Persian/Turkic miniature art and its comparison to Western painting tradition in this book, so at a book signing when Pamuk was touring US after its publication I asked him about resources that he used (Note that Pamuk wanted to be a painter originally): he said there were scant resources and he made most of it up! [1] http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/perspective/history.html http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/perspective/histor... [2] https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-paintings-western-paintings https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-paintings-western-paintings [3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/15/highereducation.fiction https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/15/highereduc...

108 points by prismatic 7y ago

I'm glad to learn that the BBC also aired a response to "Civilisation". That's one of the few TV programmes I've ever seen that I'd label as repulsive.

searine 7y ago
Why was it repulsive?
- hansjorg 7y ago
  It's violence couched in aesthetics and academic language. If you want something, take it. Don't spend 650 minutes insulting the universe by trying to weasel your way into having earned it.
  - searine 7y ago
    I'm not an art historian, and when I watched either of the two shows I found them interesting and insightful so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd like to understand the criticism of each. I don't understand what you mean by "It's violence couched in aesthetics and academic language."

deogeo 7y ago

> self-armed semioticians and practiced deconstructors of political signification. Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself, and not assume it is an unalloyed good, and question what is targeted for deconstruction, and what is left to stand.

PTOB 7y ago
Excellent point. I had a philosophy professor who let us know that it was neither his position nor purpose to indoctrinate us regarding the soundness of ideas. He very consistently stuck to his guns and gave every argument presented to the class the the best treatment he could, and no one ever figured out what position he took personally on any of them. I asked if he did not consider the purely rational method he embodied a form of indoctrination itself. He smiled, and very considerately ceded the point that it might very well be the case and that if so, he was not aware of it. All my other philosophy professors were folks who - for some reason - became angry when asked questions like that.
- downerending 7y ago
  That's what University is supposed to be like. Unfortunately, it's a dying ethos...
pnathan 7y ago
Understanding the purpose of having a construction and the call into the human soul to demand a narratival and binding meaning is something that is simply inadequately done in this long afternoon of Modernity. Trite answers don't suffice, nor do pompous ones.
leoc 7y ago
> Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself That hasn't really been the case for a long time. Deconstruction was officially declared off-message in the aftermath of 9/11: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-I... . It's had something of a rehabilitation in the post-financial-crisis world of the new wokeness, though.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  It really disturbed me how many people went through that "this changes everything" transformation at the time. Even if I disagreed more with their former position, it makes me seasick. It's like, there must be something profound missing from people who have such definite views and then a switch flips and they see the world completely differently. I mean, the WTC was attacked before! So how could a thinking person not allow for the possibility of a successful attack? How could it fundamentally be a surprise that upends your worldview? Yet that seemed to be the effect on an awful lot of people.
patcon 7y ago
Maybe we're just supposed (in the sense of evolutionary/mimetic/entropic fitness) to be in conversation with all forms of structure; between order and disorder... like a devil's advocate or a high-confident grey [1] -- maybe we're supposed to stake the middle ground: build when it's rubble and tear it down when it's cathedral :) [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can_groups_make_good_decisions/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_...

tgv 7y ago

So he is the father of word salad.

blacksqr 7y ago
If nothing else, I find John Berger's voice immensely soothing. Toss on.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

This is a really great (and relatively short) program. Here’s a link to the first episode: https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk The rest of them are there as well. Go ahead and give it a watch!

hpliferaft 7y ago
And if you enjoy Ways of Seeing in all its retro-critical glory and need MOAR, check out Robert Hughes's The Shock of the New: https://youtu.be/J3ne7Udaetg https://youtu.be/J3ne7Udaetg

briandoll 7y ago

I loved the talk that Michael Bernstein gave at the Deconstruct Conference relating "Ways of Seeing" to "Ways of Selling", related to software specifically: https://www.deconstructconf.com/2017/michael-bernstein-ways-of-selling https://www.deconstructconf.com/2017/michael-bernstein-ways-...

draw_down 7y ago
Yes, that was my favorite talk at the whole conference that year.

JeremySecond 7y ago

Reading the article, I was shocked to realize almost everyone involved is Jewish. John Berger, Griselda Pollock, Walter Benjamin, Georg Lukács, Béla Balázs, Karl Mannheim, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Vilém Flusser, Simone Weil - an entirely Jewish way of seeing.

Jun8 7y ago

This series is very interesting; but let the viewer beware: as usual with such deconstructive media it contains many assertions that are not presented in-depth and may or may not be true at a deeper level. They sound profound but further reflection fails to provide what deep learning they project. Take, for example, the very beginning of Episode 1, where Berger states "All the paintings of the tradition used to convention of perspective which is unique to European art." Then he moves on. Think about this important assertion for a moment, it is very interesting. Why is it true? Why didn't anybody else invent it, e.g. Arabs, with their advanced knowledge of optics? perhaps Islam's ban on painting human form hindered them. How about the Chinese? Here's one answer: "...because, as Erwin Panofsky1 would point out, perspective is not only a direct transcription of the visual reality but a form of representation that originates within broader cultural needs." , i.e. for some reason their cultural needs were different. You see the enlightened view itself has Orientalist foundations. A better discussion can be found here [3] If you want to read a great fictional work that covers these topics I suggest Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red, e.g. "Such painting, says one modernist to the other, means that "if you depicted one of the trees in this forest, a man who looked upon that painting could come here and, if he so desired, correctly select that tree from among the others". A tree with Ottoman roots relates the conversation and objects: "I don't want to be a tree, I want to be its meaning."" [3] I was fascinated by the extensive and excellent coverage on Persian/Turkic miniature art and its comparison to Western painting tradition in this book, so at a book signing when Pamuk was touring US after its publication I asked him about resources that he used (Note that Pamuk wanted to be a painter originally): he said there were scant resources and he made most of it up! [1] http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/perspective/history.html http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/perspective/histor... [2] https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-paintings-western-paintings https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-paintings-western-paintings [3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/15/highereducation.fiction https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/15/highereduc...