ASSIGNMENT
John Berger in Ways of Seeing compares oil paintings, as they were viewed and used originally (and still are oftentimes) to what he calls modern day “publicity” (also known as advertising). How does he argue this, and to what end? [Note: this could provide much “food for thought” for us as we go about our encounters with various arts venues during the session this summer.]
RESPONSE
John Berger argues that oil paintings, as they were viewed and used originally, conveyed messages similarly to how publicity images convey messages. He contends that advertisements make us think that a product will make our life better. He explains that the purpose of publicity is to make the spectator-buyer marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life. Publicity shows how a product can transform the spectator-buyer so that others will envy her and then she envies what she could be if she pays for the price of the product. Berger suggests that this too was the purpose of oil paintings.
He explains that the oil painting was a celebration of private property. As an art-form it derived from the principle that you are what you have. He argues that art is sign of affluence; it belongs to the good life; it is part of the furnishing which the world gives to the rich and beautiful. Therefore, having an oil painting made the spectator-owner envied because it was a sign of affluence, the good life, and being rich and beautiful. Berger goes on to argue that publicity now uses images in oil paintings to convey these messages.
He suggests that as we compare images of publicity and paintings that the two media convey messages similarly. He offers many examples of this. Of note are the gestures of models (mannequins) and mythological figures; the gestures and embraces of lovers, arranged frontally for the benefit of the spectator; the physical stance of men conveying wealth and virility.
Berger goes onto explain that despite this continuity of language, the function of publicity is very different from the oil painting because the oil painting showed what its owner was already enjoying among his possessions and his way of life. It enhanced his view of himself as he already was. It began with facts, and embellished the interior in which he actually lived. In contrast the purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life and suggests if he buys what it is offering, his life will become better. It offers him an improved alternative to what he is. The oil painting addressed those who made money out of the market and Publicity addresses those who constitute the market, it addresses the spectator-buyer who is also the consumer-producer from whom profits are made twice over as worker and then as buyer. He explains that the only places relatively free of publicity are the quarters fo the very rich because their money is theirs to keep.
John Berger in Ways of Seeing compares oil paintings, as they were viewed and used originally (and still are oftentimes) to what he calls modern day “publicity” (also known as advertising). How does he argue this, and to what end? [Note: this could provide much “food for thought” for us as we go about our encounters with various arts venues during the session this summer.]
RESPONSE
John Berger argues that oil paintings, as they were viewed and used originally, conveyed messages similarly to how publicity images convey messages. He contends that advertisements make us think that a product will make our life better. He explains that the purpose of publicity is to make the spectator-buyer marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life. Publicity shows how a product can transform the spectator-buyer so that others will envy her and then she envies what she could be if she pays for the price of the product. Berger suggests that this too was the purpose of oil paintings.
He explains that the oil painting was a celebration of private property. As an art-form it derived from the principle that you are what you have. He argues that art is sign of affluence; it belongs to the good life; it is part of the furnishing which the world gives to the rich and beautiful. Therefore, having an oil painting made the spectator-owner envied because it was a sign of affluence, the good life, and being rich and beautiful. Berger goes on to argue that publicity now uses images in oil paintings to convey these messages.
He suggests that as we compare images of publicity and paintings that the two media convey messages similarly. He offers many examples of this. Of note are the gestures of models (mannequins) and mythological figures; the gestures and embraces of lovers, arranged frontally for the benefit of the spectator; the physical stance of men conveying wealth and virility.
Berger goes onto explain that despite this continuity of language, the function of publicity is very different from the oil painting because the oil painting showed what its owner was already enjoying among his possessions and his way of life. It enhanced his view of himself as he already was. It began with facts, and embellished the interior in which he actually lived. In contrast the purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life and suggests if he buys what it is offering, his life will become better. It offers him an improved alternative to what he is. The oil painting addressed those who made money out of the market and Publicity addresses those who constitute the market, it addresses the spectator-buyer who is also the consumer-producer from whom profits are made twice over as worker and then as buyer. He explains that the only places relatively free of publicity are the quarters fo the very rich because their money is theirs to keep.
posted by book1 at 5:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home