
John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ Exploded a Discipline - prismatic
https://aeon.co/essays/john-bergers-ways-of-seeing-and-his-search-for-home
======
TaylorAlexander
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
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
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-...](https://www.deconstructconf.com/2017/michael-bernstein-ways-of-
selling)

~~~
draw_down
Yes, that was my favorite talk at the whole conference that year.

------
deogeo
> 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
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
That's what University is _supposed_ to be like. Unfortunately, it's a dying
ethos...

------
Jun8
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/histor...](http://www.essentialvermeer.com/technique/perspective/history.html)

[2] [https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-paintings-western-
paintings](https://confuciusmag.com/chinese-paintings-western-paintings)

[3]
[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/15/highereduc...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/sep/15/highereducation.fiction)

------
hansjorg
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
Why was it repulsive?

~~~
hansjorg
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
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."

------
tgv
So he is the father of word salad.

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

