readingrinbow's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
mrears0_0's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
women in art was my fave of the essays + I learnt a bit about Rembrandt
btmcastro93's review against another edition
3.0
“But the essential way of seeing women, the essential use to which their images are put, has not changed. Women are depicted in a quite different way from men - not because the feminine is different from the masculine-but because the 'ideal' spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of the woman is designed to flatter him.”
Very very progressive
Very very progressive
caliesha's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting read. I appreciate Berger's commentary on the relationship between art and place, specifically the contingent spatiality of oil paintings in the Renaissance. He effectively presents a tension at the heart of oil painting: the familiar tactility inherent to the mechanics of the medium contrasted with the formal, emotionally distant presentation of subjects in the foreground. How ought the artist represent the metaphysical when, by the very nature of his medium, he is confined to static materialism? He is right to highlight female and colonial bodies as recipients of the perverted gaze of the ruling class, as figures whose dynamic narratives come from the spectator-buyer's interpretation of their bodies. Such bodies are inevitable and stagnant, only animated by the hegemonic gaze which fashions them as an Other.
What I am less convinced by, however, is Berger's positioning of oil paintings as a paradigm of social relations under capitalism. His final essay on publicity was self-evident and, frankly, unremarkable. Berger disguises intentional fallacies under a vague web of poststructuralism. He takes a classical Marxist position arguing the affective value of art directly stems from the economic conditions of its production, while also arguing the ideological reception of art is, at once, economically and politically spurned. On the surface, oil paintings “show what you have” and publicity “shows what you want”, but this does not necessitate a historical continuum. A broader scope is needed here. One cannot claim oil painting is “a celebration of private property” without first considering the artist’s intent. Representing what one has through realism may be seen as a manifestation of capitalist urges, but it is ahistoric and superficial to claim oil paintings arbitrate society and the market simply because they depict objects of consumption. Commodity representation, or even consumption for that manner, is not inherently Marxist. Berger places too much faith in economic organization and not enough in culture—an oddly classical stance, given his poststructural leanings.
The first few essays were solid. I enjoyed the reflections on nudity, women, and materiality. Berger’s greatest flaw lies in his eagerness to wield art as a tool in his ongoing tirade against capitalism, at the expense of the artists and subjects of their works. Beware anachronistic idealism, he cautions, moments before imposing his model of modernity onto art of the past.
I would like to believe Berger is somewhat aware of his faults. This book is not meant to be a comprehensive exposition of his beliefs. The postscript—“To be continued by the reader…”—speaks to the real value of the text: inspiring scholarship to salvage the scraps and build new strains of criticism upon them.
3.5 stars
What I am less convinced by, however, is Berger's positioning of oil paintings as a paradigm of social relations under capitalism. His final essay on publicity was self-evident and, frankly, unremarkable. Berger disguises intentional fallacies under a vague web of poststructuralism. He takes a classical Marxist position arguing the affective value of art directly stems from the economic conditions of its production, while also arguing the ideological reception of art is, at once, economically and politically spurned. On the surface, oil paintings “show what you have” and publicity “shows what you want”, but this does not necessitate a historical continuum. A broader scope is needed here. One cannot claim oil painting is “a celebration of private property” without first considering the artist’s intent. Representing what one has through realism may be seen as a manifestation of capitalist urges, but it is ahistoric and superficial to claim oil paintings arbitrate society and the market simply because they depict objects of consumption. Commodity representation, or even consumption for that manner, is not inherently Marxist. Berger places too much faith in economic organization and not enough in culture—an oddly classical stance, given his poststructural leanings.
The first few essays were solid. I enjoyed the reflections on nudity, women, and materiality. Berger’s greatest flaw lies in his eagerness to wield art as a tool in his ongoing tirade against capitalism, at the expense of the artists and subjects of their works. Beware anachronistic idealism, he cautions, moments before imposing his model of modernity onto art of the past.
I would like to believe Berger is somewhat aware of his faults. This book is not meant to be a comprehensive exposition of his beliefs. The postscript—“To be continued by the reader…”—speaks to the real value of the text: inspiring scholarship to salvage the scraps and build new strains of criticism upon them.
3.5 stars
sophie_seeing's review against another edition
4.0
Almost too influental for its own good. Its radical conslusions i reasied have been tought to me thoughout my education. but still a intresting read and has made me think diffrently about the role of images and the resons form there production.
carlycormier_'s review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
fast-paced