![john berger ways of seeing photography john berger ways of seeing photography](https://artofcreativephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Hintergrund.jpg)
The Context: The sampled history of the Black Panther Party – 1970.The Context: The sampled history of the Black Panther Party – 1969.The Context: The sampled history of the Black Panther Party – 1968.The Context: The sampled history of the Black Panther Party – 1966/1967.The Original: Jailbird in a Peacock Chair.The Remix: The Legacy of a Panther in our pop.cultural imagination.Timeline of appropriations of Huey in a Rattan Chair.Ongoing Research #2: Remix in Visual Culture.: Visualization ofArtificial Life Environments. Ways of seeing.  Thefeminism and visual culture reader,37-39.īerger, J.(2008).  Waysof seeing (Vol.1).
![john berger ways of seeing photography john berger ways of seeing photography](https://anotherimg-dazedgroup.netdna-ssl.com/786/azure/another-prod/360/1/361677.jpg)
Berger’sargument is that cultural representations of women and men affect howindividuals conduct themselves and their mutual perception as well.For instance, the depiction of women as nude justifies the men’sexamining them.īerger, J.(2003). In conclusion, John Berger in the film,, explores themanner in which women and men are culturally represented. Consequently, the publicity image hasnegatively influenced the spectator`s self-esteem as the personseeking to be envied fails to share their experiences which are realin the hope of motivating their audience. As such,Berger (1972) says that instead of offering pleasure,publicity promises happiness. In the era of advertising and publicity, theidealized viewer’s potential is more important than the actualreality as was the case of the old master’s portraits. In the fourth part of the film, Berger discusses the replacement ofthe oil painting by the color photography and the reversing of thecontext over time. Berger(2003) argues that a woman’s presence is manifestedin her opinions, chosen surroundings, voice, clothes, andexpressions. As such, the paintingsdepicted a woman with a calculated charm geared toward pleasing a manshe thinks is looking at her. Berger argues that theEuropean oil paintings were mainly nude as there existed a spectatorin the painter’s mind and according to him “the spectator waspresumed to be a man” (Berger, 1972). Berger argues that in most of the painting he refersto as the old master’s paintings, the female gender is portrayedfrom the male’s perspective or idealization. This is the point where the concept of objectifyingwomen comes in. The third part of the film portrays how only a small proportion ofthe old master’s paintings depicted a woman as in control of herlife and body. Naked women are natural or in controlof themselves while nude women are without clothes for other peopleto recognize(Berger, 2008). At this juncture, Berger draws the linebetween being naked and nude. He incorporates images of women both still and painted.Besides, he classifies paintings in which women are the subjects intotwo groups naked and nude. In the second part of the film, Berger discusses the depiction of thefemale nude.
![john berger ways of seeing photography john berger ways of seeing photography](https://i2.wp.com/indexgrafik.fr/wp-content/uploads/John-Berger-ou-la-memoire-du-regard-documentaire-arte-couv-index-grafik.jpg)
Instead, he positsthat the audience sees the image presented in the form of aphotograph from the photographer’s perspective which is in turninfluenced by an individual’s knowledge and beliefs. As such, Berger refutes theargument that photography is a mechanical process. WhatBerger means by this is that unless one recognizes the visual world,they cannot describe it in words. In the first part of the film, Berger discusses how one must seethings before they can describe what they have seen using words.Berger argues that a child has to look before they can speak. The film raises pertinent questionsabout the Western cultural aesthetics as depicted in images andpaintings. The film’s script was adapted into abook that goes by the same title. Is a BBC four-part film created by John Berger andproduced by Mike Dibb in 1972.