John Berger, an art critic and writer discussed the meaning of art, and how it depicts women and possessions. The documentary was filmed in 1972, three years before the sex discrimination act was put in place. He brings simple matters up such as cropped part of paintings, which alters the view, how fashion at the time can affect how we take information from the scene, and why are all the women in art beautiful?
The invention of the camera allows us to reproduce art. The way we see art through screens is a different perspective as if we were to see it with our own human eyes.
What is art? Is a line on a piece of paper correct, or a naked women?
Religious artifacts, are praised because they symbolise something they worship. It can have meaning, and does not need to be seen and gazed upon, but acknowledged.
Pieces can look different through the lines of the television screen, and the ink in the printed versions.
Powerful feelings can be felt when viewing the art first hand, the original perhaps in a gallery. The feeling of buying a print of the painting you saw in the gallery does not have the same effect as when your eyes first glanced at the close up paintbrush strokes.
Sometimes when I am viewing a painting I spend a silly amount of time acknowledging the amount of time taken to produce the work. I often think about stories about how the artist felt when creating, and if I was to do the same work in the same situation and pressure as them how would it turn out?
The stillness and silence of the painting creates an escape in our minds of the outside world, and transports us into the scene.
Berger tells the audience that he will discuss how the audience of 1972, the second half of the 20th century, see the paintings with their developed minds and eye. For feminists hearing that in 2017 is quite humorous, as Women in the 20th century had very little rights and that is not that long ago to compare the difference that women in the 21st century have today.
To tell an 8 year old girl that she will do the same work as her male classmate and get rewarded 5 Smarties, while he gets 7 Smarties would make her rebel and question why. That only her male class mate could do some painting while she could only do the washing up of the brushes,. She would not understand why. It's silly to think that we are all born on this planet, very much alike with the interest to be happy and creative, yet grow up to be greedy and selfish. Where did the compassion go? How did we become so greedy? The irony of this all is the greed is a sin, and before the 21st century everybody was religious. Where-as now, most humans have lost connection with religion and agree with science.
Sometimes when large paintings are cropped, it changes the meaning. It can then be manipulated, and alters the viewer’s thoughts. An example I have about this I experienced myself, was when last year I had a book about large master’s paintings and on the front was a cropped part of Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights.
My first thoughts were that it was a surrealist painting developed in perhaps the 1920's. The piece itself is bonkers, and I thought maybe it represented a dream the artist had. Later I turned the pages to view a triptych of a religious painting of Adam, Eve, God, earthly pleasures, and hell.
Which is a complete contrast. Then again, Adam is naked, and god is dressed. We often see female posers in the nude, but hardly ever the male. If both are naked in this religious piece, why is it we see it as religious, but say if god was not painted and we have no knowledge that the humans are Adam and Eve, our minds would assume a sexual tension within the picture.
Bosch in the middle triptych paints matters which Berger talks about in the documentary, but also includes naked men as well as women. It shows that men and women are equal and are both interested in sex and other pleasures.
When researching paintings of women, I found that they are all beautiful. It implies that the art was designed for pleasure. There is no doubt that obviously the paintings had been touched up and edited, much like how editors use Photoshop to adjust models skin and body shapes for the media in today's society.
Berger tells the audience how the model is made to position herself for the artist demands. It shows submission.
To me when I heard this I thought it was said to make me feel pity. I assumed the female could have just said no, or if she was accepting to model she was just taking the artists thoughts into reality. Unfortunately that is the world I am living-ins views.
It was only recently that women had rights to say and do what they wanted. There was a time where if a married women was raped, she would be found guilty and then punished.
The idea of challenging 'marital rape' had only been discussed in Western countries during the 1960's and 70's. It wasn't until Countries in Western Europe and English speaking countries outlawed it in the 1980's and 90's.
As I research the way women were treated before me as an female 18 year old in 2017, it is frightening to even think about how men was thinking just over 30 years ago.
Some female nudes can be compared to pornography, which is most often targeted at men. The women's painted expression is intended to look at the viewer, often a man who is a stranger, much how a porn actress would look at the camera for the same intentions.
The female shows minimum energy, which can indicate her body is not for her use.
I typed in 'Nude painting' on Google and every result (except a few) were of females.
Nude artwork has been found, dating back to the Gravettian period (26,000 - 21, 000) years ago, but early examples exist as early as 35,000 years ago, to the Aurignacian. Though mostly female bodies were engraved onto rocks or stones. The original cultural meaning and purpose of them are not known. The artifacts have wide hips and legs, and exaggerate the abdomen, hips breasts and thighs. The pieces do not concentrate on arms or feet at all, in fact they are not included in the 'nude.' The head is also absent. The artifacts show just the female reproductive side of the body, and are quite erotic.
Art can be manipulated to the way humans see and interpret. The intentions the artist had can be perceived differently to how the model understands the situation. Generations understand and connect art differently to older or younger generations through what they have been through, and their interests. Also their knowledge.
When the artifact was created, and sometimes facts about the artists back life can change a view on the work. A good example of this is Vincent Van Gogh.
Van Gogh was a poor man throughout his entire life and his work was hardly appreciated at the time. In today's society his work is highly praised and is in the top 20 most expensive painting in the world chart. What had changed in people's minds, and why did they never appreciate his art then? Why do we appreciate it now? It is still the same work he done, just years have gone by.
It is most likely the story that goes behind him. It seems quite fashionable now days to romanticize mental illness, and appreciate and become interested in his tragic life story.
The way we see art is a continuous changing process.
Comments