“Ways of Seeing” Second Reading Questions

• Question 1: Berger describes “history” throughout his essay. The history he talks about is mostly referring to the history of the art. Once we know the history of the art, then we are able to see it for what it is. When he refers to the art historians writing about their opinions of the art, we take what they have said to be the truth about a piece of art. However, they take the art out of context. With the example of Hals pictures, the unknown author describes the Regentesses as though they were being revered by Hals, but when we find out that he was a poor artist working for wealthy commissioners we suddenly have a new perspective on Hals’ painting. Because we now know the history of the painting we are able to see it as it was maybe originally meant to be seen, not as a critic or historian sees it. This history gives us a way to recover (Oh, Walker Percy, you genius) the actual meaning and context of the painting or image.
• Question 2: Berger claims that the way we see things depends on our knowledge and our opinions of what we are seeing. By finding out the history of the painting, we can perhaps then be able to look at it, not objectively, but as the painter may have seen it. Our subject views are now more informed so that we can then maybe we can see the painting as it was meant to be seen. I think that Berger wants us to still go to see art but he believes that we should be informed about our observations. Perhaps everything we see is too clouded with judgements and previous assumptions, and that we just need to break everything down to its origins and find out its historical beginnings. Berger says his favorite painter is Caravaggio not because he was a greater artists than other but because as he put it Caravaggio, “does not depict the underworld for others: his vision is one that he shares with it.”