John Berger
Mar. 28th, 2002 04:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sun_set_bravelySo I just re-read "Ways of Seeing" and wanted to post some of my favorite passages:
"From the tradition [of oil painting] a kind of stereotype of 'the great artist' has emerged. This great artist is a man whose life-time is consumed by struggle: partly against material circumstances, partly against incomprehension, partly against himself. He is imagined as a kind of Jacob wrestling with an Angel. (The examples extend from Michelangelo to Van Gogh.) In no other culture has the artist been thought of in this way."
there's more here, explaining the source of this angst-ridden myth of the artist, but that's all I have time to type now
"Publicity has another important social function. The fact that this function has not been planned as a purpose by those who make and use publicity in no way lessens its significance. Publicity turns consumption into a substitute for democracy. The choice of what one eats (or wears or drives) takes the place of significant political choice. Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society. And it also masks what is happening in the rest of the world."
and lastly, confirming my personal agenda:
"This picture [Allegory of Time and Love by Bronzino] is made to appeal to his sexuality. It has nothing to do with her sexuality. (Here and in the European tradition generally, the convention of not painting the hair on a woman's body helps towards the same end. Hair is associated with sexual power, with passion. The woman's sexual passion needs to be minimized so that the spectator may feel that he has the monopoly of such passion.) Women are there to feed an appetite, not to have any of their own."
Damn, this man and his colleagues are sharp!
Other disturbing explanations have been made for this culture's imperative to women that they keep themselves as hair-free as possible. One is the idea that a woman, once shaved of her leg, pubic, armpit hair resembles a baby or pre-pubescent child more than a grown woman, which is less threatening to a man's sense of power, etc. I should say "The Man's" sense of power, because I don't want to personally insult any of my lovely male friends.
Okay, I'm supposed to be packing for a weekend trip now, so I should go do this. Next book to re-read: Writing Down The Bones, by Natalie Goldberg. Her writing and advice gives me a deep sense of peace. Soon I'll return to the page with my new fountain pen, and all will be right in the world...
"From the tradition [of oil painting] a kind of stereotype of 'the great artist' has emerged. This great artist is a man whose life-time is consumed by struggle: partly against material circumstances, partly against incomprehension, partly against himself. He is imagined as a kind of Jacob wrestling with an Angel. (The examples extend from Michelangelo to Van Gogh.) In no other culture has the artist been thought of in this way."
there's more here, explaining the source of this angst-ridden myth of the artist, but that's all I have time to type now
"Publicity has another important social function. The fact that this function has not been planned as a purpose by those who make and use publicity in no way lessens its significance. Publicity turns consumption into a substitute for democracy. The choice of what one eats (or wears or drives) takes the place of significant political choice. Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society. And it also masks what is happening in the rest of the world."
and lastly, confirming my personal agenda:
"This picture [Allegory of Time and Love by Bronzino] is made to appeal to his sexuality. It has nothing to do with her sexuality. (Here and in the European tradition generally, the convention of not painting the hair on a woman's body helps towards the same end. Hair is associated with sexual power, with passion. The woman's sexual passion needs to be minimized so that the spectator may feel that he has the monopoly of such passion.) Women are there to feed an appetite, not to have any of their own."
Damn, this man and his colleagues are sharp!
Other disturbing explanations have been made for this culture's imperative to women that they keep themselves as hair-free as possible. One is the idea that a woman, once shaved of her leg, pubic, armpit hair resembles a baby or pre-pubescent child more than a grown woman, which is less threatening to a man's sense of power, etc. I should say "The Man's" sense of power, because I don't want to personally insult any of my lovely male friends.
Okay, I'm supposed to be packing for a weekend trip now, so I should go do this. Next book to re-read: Writing Down The Bones, by Natalie Goldberg. Her writing and advice gives me a deep sense of peace. Soon I'll return to the page with my new fountain pen, and all will be right in the world...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Some cool ideas (from Berger, not me)
Date: 2002-03-28 08:37 pm (UTC)a) it seems like male artists--in any artistic field--are given more attention in general, and
b) the idea flies in the face of the whole "stiff upper lip" stereotype that men were supposed to adhere to for hundreds of years; a sensitive guy struggling with the ethereal world would seem, on the surface, to hold more poignant weight than a woman doing the same (because they're "expected to"? Hey, I didn't come up with these stereotypes).
As far as your third excerpt goes, it brought to mind an old episode from the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation (about to be released on DVD, btw) where the crew visited a civilization where women had taken the dominant gender role since the beginning of history. The episode sadly didn't explore this idea to any kind of potential--what can I say, all the first season episodes sucked big time--but it did get my wheels turning. What would our world look like--culturally, artistically--if that had been the case? Would the art of the Renaissance have the same ideals of beauty? Taking Allegory of Time and Love as an example, what would it look like in such a world?
My (feeble) guess is that it would look much the same. And based on the points John Berger is making, it seems like he'd agree with me. Sure, there would be a guy being fondled and objectified in the foreground, and a woman achieving mental meltdown in the background, but if we're looking at ideals of attractiveness in this art simply as thinly disguised effigies of power, as he's postulating, then the men would be pale, shorn, submissive--look like infants, essentially. The women would not want to feel challenged by the men's appearance in these pictures, so they'd make them look imprisoned, existing purely for their own pleasure. If the impetus is indeed to make this an oily display of power (wasn't that a Pantera album?)(had to hand out some Texas love there) rather than just a sensual, only subordinately symbolic, rendering of the ideals of Renaissance beauty, what would ultimately look different? And what would that mean about any potential difference between a matriarchal civilization and a patriarchal one?
Then again, I haven't read the book. And plus, chipping away at the columns holding up this hypothetical alternate Renaissance, this is supposing a world with women as the dominent gender would have had a Renaissance at that time period to begin with. It would require the same historical events leading up to produce the Renaissance in the first place, so same stupid wars, same stupid religious intolerance, same stupid Dark Ages. I don't think women would make the same historical decisions, do you? I'm not sure we can make a "suppose" that big, so the point is probably a permanently moot one. Doesn't mean it isn't worth speculating about, however.
Whaaaa.
Thanks. See? I can play fake grad student if I want to. I can also play Styx, so I submit this entry as my answer to the musical question, "Is it any wonder I've got too much time on my hands?
Have fun on your trip, dude.
Also...
Date: 2002-03-28 08:43 pm (UTC)Substitute the word "advertising" for "publicity" in your second excerpt from Berger's book, and you have the root of evil in America today.
Okay. Done. You probably aren't even gonna read all this. Not that these flaccid observations are worth reading anyway... Some cool stuff to think about, though. Toodles.
Re: Also...
Date: 2002-03-29 07:33 am (UTC)Okay, so I skimmed some of it, but I would respond to your Star Trek reference to a world where women are the dominant gender. I think what's important to note is that when any one gender or race, etc. dominates and abuses its power, everyone suffers. Wherever there is subordination, the society suffers. I wouldn't substitute "The Man" with "The Woman" by any means. "The Man" is simply what we have to deal with this time around, in this life. But we can always hope that one of these days we'll get it right.
I was also struck when reading this book (written in the 1970s) with their use of "publicity" to describe what I would also term "advertising" or worse, "marketing." From my limited theoretical historical knowledge, I would say that Berger and his people were some of the first to examine the real effects of publicity/advertising... but I could be completely wrong.
Okay, really, this is vacation, I'm going now.
Re: Also...
Date: 2002-03-29 07:48 pm (UTC)W/r/t speculating on some of the long-term effects of advertising/publicity/marketing, mmm, the book was probably an early effort, but certainly not the first. Alvin Toffler's vaunted Future Shock (1970) was not only the title of a kick-ass Herbie Hancock synthpop album but also could be construed as examining the psychological effects of a barrage of images, sounds, witticisms, etc. that are there every time you turn on the TV. Alias advertising. "Future shock" itself is supposed to be a kind of semi-permanent jet lag that ensues when this stuff is hurled your way, gradually dissolving into that hideous anti-Matt, apathy. Seems like a lot of people have moved through to the apathy stage. So that's why Armageddon was so popular! =)
More specifically, the venerable Marshall McLuhan devoted his 1967 effort, The Mechanical Bride, to the whole idea of marketing and advertising in the electronic age, and how it effects us. The whole idea of "hot media" and "cool media" really ought to be examined by mo' folk these days. Anyway, doesn't diminish the impact of Berger's ideas. What year did he write this book, anyway?
I don't know why all this stuff interests me in the first place. Maybe it's just my way of being alert to what's being shoved in my face, if that makes sense. The monster may still be eating me along with everyone else, but at least I'm aware that it's eating me.
What am I doing writing all this? It's the weekend! Go do your vacation, I'm gonna go get drunk. How responsible of me.
no subject
Date: 2002-03-30 01:56 pm (UTC)