Ways of Seeing – Visuals in Relation to their Factual Counterparts

In reading Ways of Seeing by John Berger, I became exposed to the realities of photography and how it can take away from an object’s physical presence. Seeing something on a digital screen can be a completely different experience than seeing it in real life. For example, a photograph of a huge waterfall posted on the Internet may be pretty, but a screen does not reveal the massive scale one would experience in real life, nor does it provide the scents one would smell in its presence. Without these two physical aspects, individuals’ impressions of these landmarks may be misled as they were unable to experience them in their true beauty. While the Internet allows for us to see anything from anywhere at any time, we lose out on the world’s physical aspects because the virtual world cannot provide them. These principles also apply to the world of art. “Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes in an early Renaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that the images on the wall are records are records of the building’s interior life, that together they make up the building’s memory – so much are they part of the particularity of the building. The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided.” Paintings used to be unique to the life of certain buildings – but once photographs came into play, they lost that individuality and became viewable anywhere at any time. Each of these reproductions lessens the mental and emotional experience the creator had in mind when fabricating their masterpiece. Without taking in the sensory triggers in the physical atmosphere around the painting, its value is diluted. Without being able to see how the brush strokes interact with the lighting, its uniqueness is discounted. Without being able to see how the colors fade into one another and contrast each other, its individuality is lessened. Without being able to experience the painting interacting with its surroundings, its identity is changed. When people photograph paintings that would otherwise only be available when in the presence of their respective building, an alternate perception of the painting is created. Seeing it in real life may offer a completely different experience than in a simple digital photograph. This blurs artists’ intentions behind their work in the chaotic storm of media shared all around the globe. When we perceive their works differently, we lose valuable insight on a message they may have been trying to get across regarding the surroundings. We also lose possible connections that could be made, for example, an artist may have chosen to create his painting for a specific landscape, envisioning its texture in tandem with the cold, jagged rocks of the physical setting surrounding it.