Visual Studies 1 - Understanding Visual Culture - The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

I was unable to find a copy of the BBC programme so I was left with just the book. When I am presented with two views, the second of which states that many of the ideas were taken from the first, I always feel uneasy because of a sense of being guided to a particular conclusion. That in some way there is a fear that if I am offered an alternative view I will be enticed to stray from the true course. I am also aware that there is a world of difference between the written word and a television documentary even if they are the product of the same 'author'. Television engages the senses of sound and sight whilst the tone of the narrator and the background music, if there be such, impacts on our emotions inviting us to join the narrator in his version of the world.

Both Benjamin and Berger have a particular view of the world which they see as the unthinking masses; the ruling elite (that changes in form through time but remains in a position to structure the thinking of the masses to see the world as it is as the only ideal way for it to exist); and a very few rationalist intellectuals, a group to which they belong, who can see the world as it really is and only through them can the masses be brought into the sunlit uplands of the truly free. I do not subscribe to this view in its entirety not least the idea of 'unthinking masses'. The  depressing world of Berger and Benjamin where we all sit in front of the television accepting what is put before us without question and awareness is nonsensical. That we have no discrimination and cannot appreciate the differences in the world around us is undermined by many events in history most recently by the riots that hit many of our major cities recently. The Arab Spring that hasstarted change in the Middle East is further evidence that the masses do not happily accept the view of the world forced upon by the ruling classes. I readily acknowledge that too often one despot is all too often replaced by another albeit in a different disguise.

For me the most telling argument against Berger and Benjamin is their apparent willingness to ignore the individuality of humans. I would argue that our experience of the arts, in whatever form, cannot be lumped into a limited number of types. Every experience is unique. We are the product of 'nature' and 'nurture' and as that combination is unique to the individual what we 'see' will be different. Although superficially we may behave in a particular way on entering, say a museum or a religious building, because of perceived social norms, what we experience and how we react to particular stimuli will be unique to us. You only have to sit in an Art Gallery and listen to the comments of your fellow visitors to realise how different we are.

As I was unable to find a copy of the BBC programme I searched the internet to see if there was a critique of the programme written by someone whose views were different to those of Berger. I found what I wanted in The Australian Journal of Media and Culture vol.2 no 2 (1989) Performance Theory Australia eds Brian Shoesmith & Alec McHoul.  The particular article was written by Jan Bruck & John Docker  and is entitled  Puritanic rationalism: Jon Berger's Ways of Seeing and media and culture studies.  Describing Berger's approach as supporting puritanic rationalism the authors find 'spectacular' the absence of ethnography in Ways of Seeing. I would recommend anyone to read this article in full as a counter-argument to the pronouncements of Berger.

We are asked to consider whether a work of art removed from its original site grows or diminishes in meaning. I am left wondering - what is the original site? Clearly the art work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if removed and placed elsewhere (if this was possible) would be diminished. The work depends upon its location because the contours of the ceiling are an integral part of the work. Can this be the case with an oil on a flat piece of canvas in its frame. When created by the artist was he aware of its final resting place and used that knowledge to imbue the painting with meaning? It is possible that this was the case in some work but probably not in most cases. Da Vinci could not have envisaged that the Mona Lisa would be displayed in the Louvre in Paris. Certainly he could not have foreseen its present location with its attendant security and lighting measures. Is the Mona Lisa now devoid of the meaning that Da Vinci wished for it. We cannot know, although from a personal point of view when I visited the Louvre I found the experience of seeing the Mona Lisa as an anti-climax - it had none of the impact I expected.

The next question "Does familiarity breed contempt" has no real meaning because it is not apparent to what it is referring. I would agree that familiarity leads to an acceptance bordering on an inability to see what is before us. Whether it leads to contempt rather than simple boredom depends upon the 'value' the viewer has ascribed to the product.

The final question "Has Benjamin's 'aura' been removed by the postcard?" invites the simple answer 'No'.  The term 'aura' has been given a specific meaning by Benjamin and although he would argue that the ability to reproduce a piece of art countless times removes the aura of the original I do not agree with his argument. Again experience suggests that when people believe that they are in the presence of an original their behaviour changes as though the painting and what it represents has some magical quality that reaches out to them in a way that only an original can.