John Berger / Ways of Seeing , Episode 3 (1972)
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- A BAFTA award-winning series with John Berger, which rapidly became regarded as one of the most influential art programmes ever made. With the invention of oil paint around 1400, painters were able to portray people and objects with an unprecedented degree of realism, and painting became the ideal way to celebrate private possessions. In this programme, John Berger questions the value we place on that tradition.
Ways of Seeing is a 1972 BBC four-part television series of 30-minute films created chiefly by writer John Berger and producer Mike Dibb. Berger's scripts were adapted into a book of the same name. The series and book criticize traditional Western cultural aesthetics by raising questions about hidden ideologies in visual images. The series is partially a response to Kenneth Clark's Civilisation series, which represents a more traditionalist view of the Western artistic and cultural canon.
Arguably one of the greatest tv programmes ever made
You shall get no argument from me
Remember this series from my high school days. It resonates now, 50 years later, much, much more than it did then.
Have discovered these on here years after reading the book, and it's just wonderful. What a great presenter, so calm, polite and patient with his subtly subversive message! A great thing to watch alongside Clark's Civilisation, and feel your mind stir as it so rarely does when watching contemporary documentaries (or so it seems to me) that don't trust you to keep up with the grown ups.
Instagram is the modern day version of this.
Dear god, this is so good! he makes such great points that I have often felt but never heard anyone else make.
Me too ! Except I’m only seeing it now 😄 I felt the same way watching the second one on nude paintings, always felt some kind of discomfort watching them, not because of the nudity but because of the way it was meant to be perceived and the way it was thought of when it was made. And I wish my art history teachers were even half as good as this man is as explaining
What a masterpiece this is! Should be described as one of the most important documentaries ever made on art and perspective.
It is an interdisciplinary effort which should be appreciated by the connoisseurs of art and craftsmanship, and readers of philosophy and history of art by the great thinkers and scholars, alike.
Wonderful to watch.
I wonder what Berger would think of NFTs...
he would probably be disappointed that people will buy images on the Internet for the same price as a house
well as he mentioned, things don't have to be tangible to be considered of value and reality. So, the NFTs can be seen as the contemporary equivalent of oil paintings coveted by collectors in the past! Except that right at this moment I believe NFTs are already obsolete. lol
Finally.....after 5 decades of looking, I found my husband.......however obviously the guy is dead.....I guess I will be a woman in waiting forever.....Really....this man is magnificent.
That's the irony of Life 😆
Not looking hard enough
Not sure if I'm learning from this or being seduced by this guy?
Lmaoooo I've been wondering that too XD
The british baby huey voice usually bothers me, but this one is bothering me below the belt.
LOL Wtf
It's that Jagger haircut.
must one choose?
This puts Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray in a new light for me. John Berger and Oscar Wilde having a talk would be an amazing discussion I guess.
may i ask how exactly you see it now? i haven't managed to draw a coherent parallel between the two but am very interested in what your view is
@@lychenlyre I am, too
@@lychenlyre I'm interested in that too 👍
I think @albnite is finding a connection between the self-indulgent oil paintings of 1500-1900 Europe with the self-indulgent “picture of Dorian Gray”, and how both relate to status and wealth
@@NickMilodragovich well, Oscar's stories feature people driven mad by these popular undertakings. For example, seeing a clairvoyant or letting an artist cast them into a portrait. Where Berger talks about the individuals titillating themselves with imbued powers. Possession upon the self and how that bears upon a life's narrative.
Imagine letting these two present further description of privileged lives throughout the ages.
I'm happy to find this series in 2023 in the US! I'm immediately reminded of what has become the standard pose for young women on social media, which is to admire themselves in a phone while the viewer (I guess) is supposed to admire the woman admiring herself. We don't seem to have come very far in 50 years! (at least not in the US)
so so interesting, and good! didnt know that art developed as a form of wealth and self-advertisement, and evolved into modern day publicity
This is just great thanks for posting
8:46 This is an excellent use of imagery to explain something convoluted. Instead of intstantly telling us all about the controversies of cultural and religious spread into the Americas, Berger simply shows us depictions of crosses in contrast with Columbus's quote in order to introduce the topic.
In the recently published "The Book Of Trespass", the author goes to the site of the Gainsborough painting, and in observing the landscape he makes an observation that supports Berger's reading: you can't actually see all of those fields in the background. The painter has used creative licence to curve the landscape upwards in order to display more of the property that the subjects own.
The painting was commissioned for their marriage and in some ways stands in for their marriage licence, and the exchange of property that came with it.
It's wonderful to see this series again. I saw it on tv with my dad and brother as a very Arty child and loved it. I do wish he had changed that f-cking shirt occasionally though. Jeezus!
really interesting and informative film, thank you for upload
Funny that! When talking about Holbein's "the ambassadors", he says the main topic/theme is money and property, precisely as the camera glides over the anamorphosis of the skull (that white elongated blotch in the lower center of the painting is actually a skull that can only be made out when looking at the painting from the side, at an angle), which creates a contrast between the accumulation of wealth and fame versus death, their mortality....
Very interesting series though, excellent job!
yeah i dont understand why he didnt mention that
cos Lacan covered it already!
really? i'd like to read what he has to say !
I once approached the painting in the National Art Gallery looking directly at the ambassadors, before looking down and seeing the skull. I'm fairly sure I actually jumped a bit, and said, "Jesus christ!". I imagine that's the proper way to view it.
Or a representation of the human sacrifice of what their wealth and power is built upon.
John Berger is a credit to art critics, art historians, the British, and to his Jewish race. I always learn so much from him he brings a very refreshing internationalist perspective that is not muddled by nationalist pride in art. Although one gets the impression that he despises the subjects and opulence of western paintings he does appreciate the skill and talents of the painters.
I am shooketh...
Thank you for uploading these
thank you so much for this.
I did not know that there was a male version of Sister Wendy! He even has the same tongue defect as Sister Wendy that dulls the pronunciation of the letter “r”. ! Amazing!
tongue defect?
11:15- 11:50, where Mr.Berger brings out the contrast between 'European oil painting' and artworks from 'other cultures', it seems quite a broad generalization to term artworks from every culture other than the European as 'static, ritualistic, hierarchical and symbolic'. I get the point, but every culture is uniquely complex, and it seems a sweep to make a statement like this placing 'other cultures' in opposition to a 'European tradition'.
My thoughts exactly.
I would go further and say it's totally whimsical. The ruling class of any civilization was self serving, accumulated and flaunted its wealth, and subdued its people.
So our understanding of art and history is heavily influenced by the ruling class and the wealthy people, who had money
to write themselves into a history
regardless, without these wealthy people, artists of the past would have no way to live and exercise their passion, and therefore the art we know and have today wouldn't exist.
@@heylo5274 Only because they made it so. There was no such rule.
@@dopaminecloud artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, before that, Giotto all wouldn't be able to even study their art if there weren't rich merchants or rich churches ordering the work. It's not a rule, yes, but it's reality.
As an artist myself, I prefer artists to not all live in poverty and insanity like Van Gogh did.
@@heylo5274 Van Gogh wasn't poor at all! His brother Theo had a lot of money and used to help Vincent out. In fact, Theo used to get mad at Van for using all the money to buy painting supplies instead of buying food and paying his rent!
@@heylo5274 "artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, before that, Giotto all wouldn't be able to even study their art"
allow me to repeat @Dopamine Cloud's statement:
Only because they made it so.
great upload, enjoyed and informed.
Art on BBC4 now is normally 20 minutes of material stretched out to last a bloated hour. These half hour programmes of the 70s and 80s were punchy and concise.
lovely
I believe that's Kenneth Clark (Berger's adversary you could say) on the right at 5:07
yeah. a "way of seeing" him as a nazi. very decent, huh, john berger, you fucking fool
why was he there?
I wonder is that why vinyl records have become popular again? Because with them you can be surrounded by your music like an art lover can be surrounded by their art 6:30
70s marxist art theory asmr
Amazing comment, 100% accurate and yet would be incomprehensible to the creators.
@@celeritas2-810 if mass production put the art of the renaissance and the mediaeval period into a whole new context, then so has the internet put the disposable mass media of the 20th century into a whole new context. Or something.
glorious
Exactly, lol. This is some Marxist isht.
I love that there were only 3 channels back then 😂
RED AND YELLOW SKKKKRRRRRRRRRRT PULL UP BOIIIIII
I wonder what he would've said about NFTs
N F Cheese
Reverend Billy's Decomposing John Berger led me here
❤
I didn't understand much of this.
I don't think anyone did
I think he fell into the same trap he mentioned in the first episode where he criticizes other art critics for vage descriptions and generalizations.
The more you watch of John Berger the more you get the feeling that he is the official owner of the correct interpretation of these paintings painted hundreds of year ago.
I like the documentary and the first episode was great, and it did set me up to be critical of John Berger himself.
It’s Marxist art theory, as someone pointed out above.
How do i cite this episode?
So they basically did cosplay? (17:00)
Berger mentions that paintings are so expensive and sought after due the ability to show sights and pictures, and that form the years of 1500 to 1900, Europe was dominated with oil paintings. But, today I believe that oil painting and paintings in particular are no longer sought after for their visual appeal but rather their history. We have TV, phones, computers, and cameras all as ways to show us pictures, and sights, so his argument as to why paintings are so expensive and sought after is no longer valid. I believe the popularity and steep costs is now driven by the exclusivity rather than the scenes. To have a piece of history is now a way we show off rather than having a visual which is the main reason from the 1500s to 1900s.
I was also intrigued by his argument that oil paintings were so sought after do to the appeal of grasping what they depicted. Berger mentions that many focused on tangible objects, from chalices, to gold and other relics, and having such lifelike depictions in the paintings only increased the demand for the pieces. His quote, "But the emphasis on the real being solid, on what you could put your hands on, became equally connected with a sense of ownership." (8:04-8:14) This is a compelling point, as it is logical, especially for times that many items were unattainable, but an argument can be made today that this point is no longer valid. For example, look at the Mona Lisa, the most famous paining in the world; it's not large in size, nor does it depict anything tangible. It can be similarly said about Starry Night, Girl With the Pearl Earring, or The Kiss. I do not believe today popular paintings are mainly determined on what they depict, but rather how classic or vintage they are. Many of these pieces are representatives of their time and that is what drives today.
I am curious what you all think, do you agree with Berger or do you think that his claim is outdated?
weird to see the weird skull painting without a mention of the weird skull
sa mga naga-scroll da sang comments para macomment sa FB page sng Arts 1, GHORLLLLLLL, SAME TA AHAHHAHA
What section is this!? I'm in Arts 1 too!
you study this in college? seems so late hahaha
10:32
Would be nice to hear another opinion - to compare.
Carl Gustav Tessin watch Kenneth Clark's Civilization. That's basically the view Berger is arguing against. It's another beautiful documentary to engage with critically.
shweeet
doing hauser-style social history but better
Di na sties!
Was John Berger kind of hot idk I'm feeling it
Um, based department?
Why omit to talk about genre painting ? That's oil painting too ! This is actually showing the lives of the simple people, pointing at societie's sins instead of its virtues... The calvinists were the emancipated poor and were proud to claim their space in art history. Also.. Still lives are not displays of wealth. They are called "vanitas" explicitly made to show the superficiality and ephemeral aspect of wealth, just like the skull in the painting of the ambassadors.
For the vanitas argument, I would have agreed before, but don't you think that the painting itself disagreed with that messafe? For it was displayed as a sign of wealth, even though its message was, so to say, that nothing gold can stay?
While I understand this guy's methodology (industrial society and technology by that point had commodified and demystified art). However, using this materialist analysis on the totality of western European art is dishonest and subversive. Art historically even in the context of European art was not a expression of power and privilege over disenfranchised groups. Art is transcendental and sublime. Benjamin knew this, which is unfortunate given that Berger took a lot of influence from his analysis of modern art.
I agree. It seems reductive to say all art was produced only as a function of power. That's my main issue with Marxism, it's hard social determinism that doesn't leave much room for human agency in cultural production. It also fails to take into account the way art often subverted or resisted hegemonic power.
I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater! It was four half hour episodes. He had to make his point and be concise. And he made his point well!
He’s a Marxist.
John Berger was a modernist. He saw classical works through those modernist presuppositions and interpreted a whole lot of things that are not there and missed the actual point of renaissance and figurative art. To understand allegories, you need to read the symbols. To understand symbols you need to study mythology. Though convincing at the time. John Berger helped to blind a whole generation to the real meaning of art.
What did Berger see that was "not there"?
Ideology
@@porkpiecap lol
your mom
to Bergers point tho, think of history and when these paintings where made and which audience understood and studied the symbols, allegories, and mythologies....all of that can be a very true and real way to understand the painting and also still a proof of what Berger is saying, that it was a private conversation for a stratified society, a way for them to display their own cleverness and classical learning for other similarly educated people...I dont think the point of the program is to suggest a totalizing view of art but to point out an aspect of art which is there but ignored in our romanticization of art
Some of his other stuff is better. This is shallow Marxist crap. But I like his writing on the process of painting.
Great presentation but his anti european bias is unbearable and spoiling everything.
Yes, when the same critiquing dissection is not applied to other cultures which are instead viewed through rose colored glasses.
@@viborrr other cultural artworks ARE dissected with as much objectivity as the critic can muster. You may just not be aware of the criticisms because they are not directed towards your cultural affinity. You don't care when a Chinese artwork is critiqued in light of its historical implications. However, seeing as you are seemingly a Westerner, objective critique of western oil paintings seems as slander to your own soul. That's not what is happening here. Beauty is appreciated, but that which needs to be critiqued is handled accordingly.
@@viborrr To say that other cultures are always viewed through rose colored glasses is to not see the forest for the trees. European history contains plenty criticisms of other cultures, in fact it's intrinsic to the period being discussed, 1500-1900, the "Age of Exploration" when Europeans felt it their right and obligation to assert their "morality" as the best way for all people, while enslaving them for their own materialistic ends. The host of this show addressed this at 9:30 when he says "to conquer a land, it was always necessary to convert it to Christianity." And actually "a critiquing dissection" is exactly the attitude taken by european racist scientists from the era in question, who measured skulls of other peoples because they were so hung up on criticizing non-europeans. To say nothing of what was done to people in the name of scientific or medical research.
your mom
cope