Sunday, September 9, 2012

Reading Response: Berger


Berger

Summary

            In his article ‘Ways of Seeing’ John Berger strives to bring to light the two lives that all women supposedly lead. Berger argues that women base all of their behaviors on the way they believe others see them and the way they see themselves. This prompts women to project an insincere and almost forced version of themselves onto the outside world, specifically men, in order to paint themselves in the best, or most appealing light.

Synthesis

            I think that all of the articles we’ll read in this class will be related to Greene’s idea of argument as eternal conversation. The sexism dissected in Berger’s article is something that is still very prevalent in today’s society, which is saying something because there’s at least a 300 year gap between those two time periods. The fact that we still observe and analyze gender meticulously is a testament to the idea that these topics will never reach unanimous agreement, will never make the transition into pure, indisputable truth.

Personal Response

            I found this article very interesting. Perception, as a theme, is something that I believe can be discussed from now until the end of time. Writing is perception. So with that in mind, seeing how other mediums portray perceptions of society, especially pre-existing societies, is deeply engaging. The sexism that took place centuries ago still exists today, albeit in a much more subdued, politically correct era. I found it interesting how we as a society are literally incapable of ridding ourselves of these ideals, misconceptions. It is slightly depressing to see women shown in such a submissive and weak state, but it is equally fascinating.


Before You Read

1)        I would draw the woman with either her back to the viewer or at least draw her in a way that tells us that she is unaware of our presence. I’d do this mainly because voyeurism is very interesting to me. I like the idea that we’re let included in this woman’s private life, because in real life, this is hardly ever the case. How many people’s private lives include you? How many are you not included in? I’d have this woman engaged in some sort of transaction. Something minor or irrelevant. Or maybe something major. I think you’d be able to convince the viewer that he is not supposed to be there in either type of scenario. I’d have her naked. Not nude. She has no intention of seducing her viewers. Her unawareness should get that point across.

2)        I looked at photos of Ryan Gosling and Jennifer Lopez on Google, and though there weren’t any radical differences in the way they were photographed, I did notice that these pictures were not exactly the same. I noticed that Lopez’s lips were much more animated, or at least prominent in her photos while Gosling sort of seemed to just present himself to the camera. Lips are regularly associated with sexuality.

Questions For Discussion and Journaling

1)        I believe that these paintings do contain intention, that their creators had specific messages or themes they aimed to get across. Whether it be sexuality, shame, submission etc. etc. But with art, there is no definitive, CORRECT interpretation. That being said, I disagree with some of Berger’s interpretations. Specifically the Nell Gwynne painting. Berger suggests that Nell looks at the spectator in a state of passivity, that she has accepted the submissive relationship she has with the spectator. To me, she comes off as close to seductive. The way her head is tilted, along with her eyes being open, but just slightly, suggest that she’s throwing her nudity at the spectator, rather than accepting a scenario of her being caught without clothing. Obviously, Berger knows much more about the time period than I do, and how women lived back then, but upon first sight, that’s how I interpret the painting. I don’t see submission. I don’t think Lely did either. But it’s very much possible that I’m completely wrong.

3)        In today’s society, I believe that both sexes are defined by their mannerisms, choices of apparel, self-expression–just the way they conduct themselves in any public setting. I don’t see men being defined by their promises of power as much as they were said to have been in the 70s. To me, a lot of character-definition involves no speaking whatsoever. So much judgment is made when looking at one’s clothing. That is the tool of definition, or at least superficial definition. With these apparel choices lies the suggestion of power. (Lay? Lie?) For instance, tank tops are very popular male apparel. They’re made to show off a man’s physique, with the hopes of attracting female attention. A woman may interpret this choice of clothing as one that she likes, one that a good guy would wear. A man may interpret this tank top in an entirely different way, criticizing the wearer and saying things that would generally imply a disdain for the wearer. I think that men are judged in a way very similar to the way women are judged these days.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

4)        I see humor as an essential definition of character. Finding out what someone else sees as funny or amusing gives you an extremely large amount of information about that person. So much is said. A person’s taste in music, film, pop culture, sports etc. can be conveyed through humor. Humor can certainly make up for things that people lack. In today’s society, humor is practically synonymous with sarcasm, which I see as the ultimate form of social divergence. Sarcasm aids you in not revealing your true self to others. There are many different types of humor, and not just from one person to the next. Any individual can make different types of jokes or humorous statements based on what social setting they’ve been placed in. For instance, there are jokes you’d tell to your male friends that you’d likely never tell to your female friends, due to fearing that you’d be judged in an undesirable way.

2)        The subject matter of any text is different from the next. So maintaining the same type of relationship with every writing we read is impossible. There are articles that discuss themes at great length without ever mentioning any living or deceased person. With that type of writing, one can feel like they are being spoken to directly. With other articles, an author can be detailing a person’s life, which could cause a sort of disconnect between writer and reader. The reader could enjoy the article thoroughly, but still feel like they were on the outside looking in. It’s all circumstantial.

MM

            When reading Berger’s article, I found myself seeing it as much more of a guide to artistic interpretation, instead of simply as a dissection of female nudity. You take the subject matter of any particular argument, you digest it, analyze it, and mold it into the way you perceive life as a whole. It’s a building block, a part of the puzzle that shapes the way you see everything else. This makes for writing that comes off more academic, more worldly.

No comments:

Post a Comment