Selection of Cultural Activities (07/11/10 - 14/11/10)

Films

The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock, Universal Pictures/Alfred J. Hitchcock Productions, USA, 1963)

Brazil (Terry Gilliam, Embassy International Pictures, UK, 1985)

Day of the Dead (George A. Romero, Dead Films Inc/Laurel Entertainment Inc/Laurel-Day Inc, USA, 1985)

Dead Ringers (David Cronenberg, Mantle Clinic II/Morgan Creek Productions/Téléfilm Canada, Canada/USA, 1988)

Gaslight (Thorold Dickinson, British National Films, UK, 1940)

The Happy Ending (Richard Brooks, Pax Enterprises, USA, 1969)

Inherit The Wind (Stanley Kramer, Stanley Kramer Productions, USA, 1960)

Jet Pilot (Josef von Sternberg, RKO Radio Pictures, USA, 1957)

How Green Was My Valley (John Ford, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA, 1941)

Magnificent Obsession (Douglas Sirk, Universal International Pictures, USA, 1954)

Peeping Tom (Michael Powell, Michael Powell (Theatre), UK, 1960)

Pit and the Pendulum (Roger Corman, Alta Vista Productions, USA, 1961)

La sirène du Mississipi (‘Mississippi Mermaid’) (François Truffaut, Les Films du Carrosse/Les Productions Artistes Associés/Produzioni Associate Delphos , France/Italy, 1969)

A Streetcar Named Desire (Elia Kazan, Charles K. Feldman Group/Warner Bros. Pictures, USA, 1951)

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (Fritz Lang, Nero-Film AG, Germany, 1933)

Two Evil Eyes (Dario Argento/George A. Romero, ADC Films/Gruppo Bema, Italy/USA, 1990)

Whirlpool (Otto Preminger, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA, 1949)

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, Warner Bros. Pictures/Chenault Productions. USA, 1966)

Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer, Tobis Filmkunst, France/Germany 1932)

Young at Heart (Gordon Douglas, Arwin Productions, USA, 1954)

Television

episode three, Getting On, second series, UK, BBC4, tx. 09.11.2010.

Joan Rivers: a Piece of Work (Ricki Sterne/Anne Sunderberg, Break Thru Films, USA, 2010)

‘Hands and Knees’, episode ten, Mad Men, fourth series, USA, BBCHD, tx. 10.11.2010.

Silent Britain (David Thompson, British Broadcasting Corporation, UK, 2006)


Radio

The Film Programme, 2010. [Radio programme] BBC, BBC Radio 4, 12 October 2010 16.30.

OCA: Project 9: Barbarous Taste – Pierre Bourdieu (16/11/10)

The Open College of the Arts – Visual Studies 1: Understanding Visual Culture  - Part 2: Ways of Seeing.


Since Walter Benjamin and his essay ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ the standard and methods of mechanical reproduction have changes enormously. For example, colour photography has become the norm and cinema has been superseded by television as the main means of mass visual communication.

 Maybe through the development digital technology, the internet will be become the successor of television? It has been suggested that it is in the process of democratising communication, though this was said of the previous successive means of mass visual communication which were in fact, despite of mass access, tightly controlled; concerning both production and distribution.

From photography onwards, new media has become both a significant part of contemporary visual art practice but also central to critical debate.

This week I read and made notes from French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930-1920) essay ‘The Social Definition of Photography’. Though this essay covers similar ground to previous essays studied (including those by Osip Birk, Walter Benjamin and John Berger) it does introduce a sociological element to the form of photograph (e.g the social function of ‘frontality’ in photographs).

First section of Bourdieu’s essay (the introduction and ‘Barbarous Taste’) comments as to the way in which photography is taken to be representing the ‘real’. He suggests that perhaps photography is seen as representing the real because society confers on photography the role of such representation, not because it is intrinsic to the medium.

The rest of the essay (‘Hierarchies of Legitimacy’) discusses photography’s position as an art in the minds of a general public and the relationship between the process and the subject. Some discussion of the way in which a subject is chosen and why, and finally he looks at what he calls “The hierarchy of legitimacies”. Could the concept of hegemony applied to Bourdieu’s hierarchy of legitimacies?

I think if you it would be difficult to apply Bourdieu’s argument about photography to contemporary forms of visual artistic expression and performance (e.g. the mediums of video or installation art) as it is specific to photography’s social use being inexplicably bound to social class, though you can apply the concept of hierarchy of legitimacies. As these new forms of visual artistic expression have been adopted by the established market they have also been institutionalised. They are removed from the popular aesthetic and culture and belong to the sphere of legitimacy, though there is an issue with the universal claims of this form of art. This could instead highlight the correlation between high-culture and the avant-garde, in reaction to popular culture.

An interesting point in Bourdieu’s argument:

“In conferring upon photography a guarantee of realism, society is merely confirming itself in the tautological certainty that an image of the real in which is a true to representation of objectivity is really objective”.

I am convinced by Bourdieu’s argument; I think the former quote conveys his concept that photography is predisposed to social functions.

I agree that a convention of photography is that, unlike other art form, it doesn’t interpret but only records; though objectivity then only captures an aspect of reality as only the visual qualities, and from one viewpoint (space is thus expressed through the dominant form of Western art perspective), remain.

Unlike traditional artistic mediums, photography (in its most ‘realistic’ form) is deemed not to reflect the personality of the creator; despite the systematic selection of possible photographic subjects. From its inception, photography is considered both realistic and objective due to it recording the visible world; so it assigned the social uses of being realistic and objective.

Photography seems ‘natural’ as its conventional use of perspective makes, for the spectator, the visible legible. This influences our social reading of photography as we refuse the reproduction of reality when it is omits the norm of the canonical aesthetic.

The canonical aesthetic dominates Western pictorial tradition, the use of perspective and thus our perception of our world, which an objective recording reinforces the conveyance of naturalness and truth. 

As Bourdieu proposes, this viewpoint is a naive realisation of realism as in fact a photograph is a realistic representation of the real.  The conformity to this convention defines photography’s social function to record objective visions of the world. 

An initial investigation into the situationist international group (1957-1972) will be helpful in my study of Guy Debord, who was once leader of this group, and the society of spectacle.

I understand that theoretically blended both Surrealism and Marxism to produce a practice of revolutionary art, through ‘situations’, and give a possible insight into the way in which an advanced capitalist society hides the degradation of the life and knowledge behind ‘spectacles’. Here is a quote that I find intriguing:

“The whole of life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representation”.

Does this build on Bourdieu’s idea of that images are objective representations of objectivity? Would this statement also aide Post-Modern critique?

Further research to be conducted into relationship between culture, society and class distinctions:

• Cook, Jon (2000) ‘Culture, Class and Taste’, in Sally R. Munt (ed) Cultural Studies and the Working Class: Subject to Change, London: Cassell, pp97-112.

Bibliography

2010. Situationist International Online. [online] Available at: < www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/index > [Accessed 13 November 2010]

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1965. ‘The social definition of photography’. From: Photography: A Middleborw Art (Polity Press, 1990) pp.73-98.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge. pp.1-7.

Selection of Cultural Activities (24/10/10 - 06/11/10)

Films

Black Sunday (Mario Bava, Galatea Film/Jolly Film, Italy, 1960)

Bloody Mama (Roger Corman, American International Pictures (AIP), USA, 1970)

Cape Fear (Martin Scorsee, Amblin Entertainment/Cappa Films/Tribeca Productions, USA, 1991)

The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover (Peter Greenaway, Allarts Cook/ Elsevira/ Erato Films/ Erbograph Co./ Films Inc./Miramax Films/Vendex , France/UK, 1989)

Exodous (Otto Preminger, Otto Preminger Films,USA, 1960)

Fahrenheit 451 (François Truffaut, Anglo Enterprises/Vineyard Film Ltd., UK,1966)

The Hound of the Baskervilles (Terrence Fisher, Hammer Film Productions, UK, 1959)

The House by the Cemetery (Lucio Fulci, Fulvia Film, Italy, 1981)

The Girl Can’t Help It (Frank Tashlin, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA,1956)

The Godless Girl (Cecil B. DeMille, C.B. DeMille Productions, USA, 1929)

Giulietta degli Spiriti (‘Juliet of the Spirits’)(Federico Fellini, Rizzoli Film/Francoriz Production, Italy/France, 1965)

Has Anybody Seen My Gal (Douglas Sirk, Universal International Pictures, USA, 1952)

His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks, Columbia Pictures Corporation, USA, 1940)

Laura (Otto Preminger,  Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA, 1944)

Lola Montès (Max Ophuls, Gamma Films/Florida Films/Oska-Film GmbH/Union-Film GmbH, France/West Germany/Luxembourg, 1955)

Marnie (Alfred Hitchcock, Universal Pictures, USA, 1964)

A Matter of Life and Death (Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger, The Archers/Independent Producers, UK, 1946)

Night and the City (Jules Dassin, Twentieth-Century Fox Productions, UK, 1950)

Phenomena (Dario Argento, DACFILM Rome, Italy, 1985)

Pocketful of Miracles (Frank Capra, Franton Productions, USA, 1961)

Rancho Notorious (Fritz Lang, Fidelity Pictures Corporation, USA, 1952)

The Searchers (John Ford,C.V Whitney Pictures/Warner Bros. Pictures, USA, 1956)

Scarlet Empress (Josef von Sternberg, Paramount Pictures, USA, 1934)

Shanghai Express (Josef von Sternberg, Paramount Pictures, USA, 1932)

Soy Cuba (‘I Am Cuba”) (Mikhail Kalatozov, Instituto Cubano del Arte e Industrias Cinematográficos (ICAIC)/Mosfilm, Soviet Union/Cuba, 1964)

Stage Fright (Alfred Hitchcock, Warner Bros. Pictures, UK, 1950)

Le Temps qui Reste (‘Time to Leave’) (François Ozon, Fidélité Productions/France 2 Cinéma/Banque Populaire Images 5, France, 2005)

Todo Sobre Mi Madre (‘All About My Mother’) (Pedro Almodóvar, El Deseo S.A./Renn Productions/France 2 Cinéma, France/Spain, 1999)

Whiskey Galore (Alexander Mackendrick, Ealing Studios, UK, 1949)

• To consider a film for analysis I think you should at least screen it twice. These preliminary notes are brief ideas that I get from the initial screening that may be useful to take into consideration in a further screening of the film.

Preliminary Notes: Bloody Mama
Freudian interpretation. Implied incest. Shelley Winters performance. Links to American ‘New Wave’ (budget and film style).

Preliminary Notes: Cape Fear
Clear influence of Hitchcock. Freudian Interpretation.  Duality: ‘Max Cady’/’Sam Bowden’. Is ‘Cady’ ‘Bowden’s alter ego? Phallic imagery associated with ‘Cady’. Levels of the Bowden household could suggest exploration of psyche (ID, ego, super-ego). The river at Cape Fear could suggest the unconscious. Sadism and voyeurism evident when ‘Bowden’ watches ‘Cady’ beat his attackers (an action he intentionally organised).
 

Jayne Mansfield in The Girl Can’t Help It (Frank Tashlin, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA,1956)
as 'Jerri Jordan' (Top), the persona, and 'Georgiana' (Bottom), the aspiring housewife; two sides of the same woman.
Polarised stereotypical patriarchal views of  female sexuality?

Preliminary Notes: The Girl Can’t Help It
Tashlin and the influence of the cartoon on his live action work. The performance of Jayne Mansfield may be a parody of femininity both in look (over the top, a caricature almost bordering on the grotesque – links in with the conventions of cartoon characterisation) and in character of ‘Jerri’ (the blonde bombshell who wants to be a housewife). 



Preliminary Notes: Has Anybody Seen My Gal
Colour scheme of film is the palette (dominated by pastels) of contemporary illustrative advertising to the setting of the film. It suggest the new found opulence of the Blaisdell family. Is Sirk, through form, having a dig at consumerism?

Altar Keane (Marlene Dietrich) winning the "race" in the saloon. Rancho Notorious (Fritz Lang, Fidelity Pictures Corporation, USA, 1952).

Preliminary: Rancho Notorious
Brecht. The Character of ‘Altar Keane’ and the saloon scene (domination suggested through the "race"; the Wheel of Fortune). The use of painted backdrops in a Western, although a budgetary constraint, is deliberately artificial (alienation?).


Television

‘The Summer Man’, episode seven, Mad Men, fourth series, USA, BBCHD, tx. 27.10.2010.

‘The Beautiful Girls’, episode eight, Mad Men, fourth series, USA, BBCHD, tx. 03.11.2010.

Preliminary Notes Mad Men
Narrative and theme’s exemplified in the last shot of ‘The Beautiful Girls’. The three main female protagonists (‘Peggy’, ‘Joan’ and ‘Faye’) catch the lift together and the doors close. Fade to black and then the credits.


Radio

The Film Programme, 2010. [Radio programme] BBC, BBC Radio 4, 29 October 2010 16.30.

The Film Programme, 2010. [Radio programme] BBC, BBC Radio 4, 05 November 2010 16.30.

Reading

Bazin, Andre. (1967) What is Cinema?: Volume 1. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press

Bordwell, David. 2005. The Cinema of Eisenstein. London: Routledge.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1968. The Battleship Potemkin. London: Faber and Faber.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1991. Towards a Theory of Montage (Selected Works, Volume 2). London: BFI.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1988. Writings, 1922-34 (Selected Works, Volume 1). London: BFI.  

Gillespie, David (2000) Early Soviet Cinema: Innovation, Ideology and Propaganda. Short Cuts. London: Wallflower Press.

Leyda, Jay. 1960. Kino: History of Russian and Soviet Film. New York: George Allen & Unwin.

Nilsen, Vladimir. 1972. The Cinema as a Graphic Art. New York: Hill & Wang.

Nizhny, Vladimir. 1979. Lessons with Eisenstein. New York: Da Capo Press.

Taylor, Richard. 2007. The Battleship Potemkin. London: I.B. Tauris.

Wollen, Peter. 1969. ‘Eisenstein’s Aesthetics’. In: Signs and Meanings in the Cinema.1997.London: BFI.

Sight & Sound. 21. (12/December 2010).

My extended reading for the past two weeks has been inexplicably linked to the part-time courses I am doing (Check the relevant bibliographies). Though, I have began preparatory reading for my summative essay (2,000 words) for Warwick Open Studies: "Discuss the ways in which Battleship Potemkin demonstrates Eisenstein's theory of montage".

Week 6: Warwick, Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies (06/11/10)

Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, 1941): New developments in Expressionism and the introduction of the ‘Deep Focus’ technique. 
This week a lecture about a single film: Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, USA, 1941). It is genreally recognised as an seminal film so it justufiable that we have had the oppurtunity to study it. Though as part of the lesson we also discussed the impact of the ‘Deep Focus’ technique and related it to the development of narrative film.

This week’s lessons led to discussions on cinematography and authorship. In regards to cinematography we considered the work of Gregg Toland and how ‘Deep Focus’, with the introduction of a greater depth of field and the possibilities of several planes of action, led to new aesthetic possibilities; especially in relation in the creation of meaning (e.g. spatial relations and staging) through the mise-en-scène. Due to the collaborative nature of filmmaking we discussed the debatable issue of whether it was either Orson Welles or Herman J. Mankiewicz who could be given authorship over Citizen Kane.  We also explored the themes and aesthetic influences of Citizen Kane and related it to our previous study of
German Expressionism.

Despite this week’s lesson consisting of a single film, prior to the lesson I had done some extended reading in relation Citizen Kane. I also have watched the film on several occasions. As usual I took notes during the lesson.

I was also able to watch other films directed by Orson Welles and some who were significant in their use of ‘Deep Focus’.

Bibliography

Bordwell, David., 1971. Citizen Kane. In: B. Nichols ed. Movies and Methods, Volume 1. 1976. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 96-106, pp. 309-316.  

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2006. Film Art: An Introduction. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. pp. 453-456.

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2009. Film History: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, pp. ‘Chapter 10: The Hollywood Studio System 1930-45’.

Bordwell, David., 1988. ‘Deep Focus’. In: D. Bordwell, J. Staiger, K. Thompson, Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960. London: Routledge, pp. 341-352.

Carringer, Robert L. 1985. The Making of Citizen Kane. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Cook, Pam., ed., 2008. The Cinema Book. London: BFI Publishing. pp. 402-404, 526-527.

Kael, Pauline. 1971. ‘Raising Kane’. In: Raising Kane and other Essays. 1996. London: Marion Boyars.

Larden, J. (2010). Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, 1941): New developments in Expressionism and the introduction of the ‘Deep Focus’ technique., [Lecture]. Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies. The University of Warwick. Open Studies Certificate. Stone Hall Adult Education Centre, 1083 Warwick Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, 6th November.

Maltby, Richard. 2003. Hollywood Cinema. 2^nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 256-257.  

Mulvey, Laura. 1992. Citizen Kane. London: BFI Publishing.

Salt, Barry., 2009. Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Starwood Press, ‘Chapter 17: Film Style and Technology in the 1940’s’ pp. 251-266.


Orson Welles Filmography

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, Mercury Productions/RKO Radio Pictures, USA, 1941)
F for Fake (Orson Welles, Janus Film/ Les Films de l'Astrophore/SACI, France/Iran/West Germany, 1973)
Journey into Fear (Norman Foster, Mercury Productions/RKO Radio Pictures,
The Lady From Shanghai (Orson Welles, Columbia Pictures Corporation, USA, 1947)
Macbeth (Orson Welles, Mercury Productions, USA, 1948)
The Orson Welles Story Part One, Part 1, Arena, UK, BBC, tx. 1982.
The Orson Welles Story Part Two, Part 2, Arena, UK, BBC, tx. 1982.
The Stranger (Orson Welles, International Pictures, USA, 1946)
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, Universal International Pictures, USA, 1958)

Deep Focus Filmography

L'avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, Cino del Duca/ Produzioni Cinematografiche Europee (P.C.E.)/ Societé Cinématographique Lyre, Italy/France, 1960)
The Heiress (William Wyler, Paramount Pictures,USA,1949)
The Letter (Williams Wyler, Warner Bros. Pictures, USA,1940)
The Manchurian Candidate (John Frankenheimer, M.C Productions, USA, 1962)
Paper Moon (Peter Bogdanovich, Directors Company, The/Paramount Pictures/Saticoy Productions, USA, 1973)
Roman Holiday (William Wyler, Paramount Pictures , USA/Italy , 1953)
La Règle du Jeu (Jean Renoir, Nouvelles Éditions de Films (NEF), France, 1939)
Visions of Light (Arnold Glassman/Todd McCarthy/Stuart Samuels, American Film Institute (AFI)/NHK USA, 1992)
Wuthering Heights (William Wyler, The Samuel Goldwyn Company, USA, 1939)

(Understanding Visual Culture, Part 2: Ways of Seeing): Project 8: The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

There is a clear distinction between looking and seeing. We may see, but what we look at is influenced by society.

Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was a literary and cultural critic who was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. In 1935, Benjamin wrote a seminal essay in regards to 20^th Century art criticism: ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’. When this essay was re-discovered in the 1960’s it influenced our understanding of the way individuals look and see; it had wider implications in 20^th Century visual culture.

Like much of the theory to be associated with the Frankfurt School, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ is informed by Marxism. As the essay suggests the democratisation of the arts, it ultimately puts forward a case for the special nature of photography and rather than confronting orthodoxy, it questions it from within.

Benjamin belonged to the Frankfurt School of Marxist aesthetics. He made an analogy to psychoanalysis within his discussion of photography; he believed it was the technology of the ‘optical unconscious’. This was because photography, similar in a way to psychoanalysis, showed us aspects of our world that eluded standard vision. Thus the camera is able to extend human observation beyond its normal parameters.

In relation to the Cinema, Benjamin had differing views to those of Georges Duhamel. Within ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ he discusses the new mediums progressive epistemological impact. The new mass-media forms of photography and film, allowed for new artistic paradigms; reflective of new historical forces. This meant that the new forms shouldn’t be judged by pre-existing standards. Ultimately, the Cinema has expanded the field of human perception and deepened humanity’s critical consciousness of reality.

In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ Benjamin states his case for the removal of art’s elite nature through mechanical reproduction; especially through photography. The process of pictorial reproduction was freed from the artist and thus it accelerated as the lens could capture instantaneously. As technical reproduction reached a certain standard, it captured its own place within the artistic process. While authenticity, perquisite to the presence of the original, is outside technical reproducibly the reproduction process itself makes the reproduction independent from the original. This allows a copy of the original to be put in situations outside its original context.  Though, this means that the quality of the original is depreciated as authenticity is sensitive. The ‘aura’ is natural to an artwork; defined as unique phenomenon of spatial distance.  Mechanical reproduction of an artwork eliminates the element of the ‘aura’ from the reproductions. I agree with the idea of the ‘aura’ in an original art object, it is the concept that makes it desirable. The ‘aura’ it lacks transmissibility; the ultimate authority of the original is jeopardised and art’s elite nature is removed.
 

Understandably, humanity changing mode of existence has allowed perception to be shaped by historical circumstance. Mechanical reproduction is used by the masses in contemporary life; this desire to bring things closer has decayed the ‘aura’. Society is ardent to overcome the uniqueness of reality by accepting its reproduction.  The technique of reproduction detaches the object from the domain of tradition (the ultimate authority), which substitutes a plurality instead of a unique existence. It democratises art’s position as the reproduction permits the artwork to meet the individual in their own particular situation. Tradition, evident in the ‘aura’, is shattered.

I tend to agree with this statement by Benjamin: “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of quality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction”. Would that implicate that the masses shun aesthetic quality over to quantity and spectacle? Would this further mean that they are ripe from manipulation via cultural hegemony?

Additionally, I would say that the improvements in reproduction methods and possibilities, through technological advancement (i.e. colour printing, digital imagining and television), strengthen Benjamin’s argument or, more precisely, make his ideas more relevant today. It is fitting to our modern western lifestyle that mechanical reproduction emancipated art from its dependence on ritual. Ultimately, the function of art has been inverted as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic function. The traditional ritual of art has become politicised.  

No, the failure of the Soviet experiment does not alter the validity of Benjamin’s case.  Marxism has not become obsolete with the collapse of the Soviet Union; capitalisms ever increasing power is still present. I believe his ideas are applicable to today, though like human perception, the nature of capitalism has changed because of historical circumstance.

John Berger (b. 1926) is concerned with the way in which we confront images in ways and places that are very from their original contextual surroundings and explores how this then affects their meaning. Berger was influenced by the Frankfurt School of Marxist aesthetics. His argument, expressed in both the first chapter and first episode of Ways of Seeing, is directly influenced by Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ and develops on certain aspects of the original essay. Berger’s case is convincing as historical circumstances and the development in Marxist theory, marks Berger’s argument from Benjamin’s.

Berger discusses the reciprocal nature of vision and that all images are man-made. In relation to that every image embodies a way of seeing (put there by the image-maker) and our perception of the image depends upon our way of seeing; which is influenced (or maybe conditioned?) society. In an obvious Marxist analysis, Berger believes society perspective of art began to change during the Renaissance; because of an increasing awareness in both history and the consciousness of the individual.

Society has taught us artistic conventions, concerning aesthetics, which are no longer in accord with the modern world.  Cultural mystification of artworks, making them remote, has been openly encouraged by a privileged minority (the ruling classes, or whatever their equivalent in a state of modern capitalism) to justify their control. Therefore mystification is openly regarded as part of cultural hegemony.

Mystification itself changes the original meaning of an artwork as it explains away what otherwise may be apparent. Though, it is human nature to perceive the art of the past in a different way than it was actually conceived; exemplified in the concept of perspective. Conventionally, perspective was treated as ‘reality’, an ideal, though it did not allow for visual reciprocity. The invention and the implications of the camera’s function in human existence exposed the contradictions inherent in artistic perspective.

An image is used for many different purposes; obviously, manipulated to fit many purposes as well. The image’s commoditised status allows it to be become part of an argument that has little to do with its original meaning. The authority of the original is now distributed over the context in which it appears.

Perspective meant that the uniqueness of a painting relied in what it presented. I think a work of art removed from its original site does not either grow or diminishes in meaning; it subverts it. It is no longer what the original shows that is unique.  Instead of a camera reproducing a painting and destroying its uniqueness; its meaning is altered and multiplied into new fragments. Mechanical reproduction has allowed for new meanings to be attached to them, like all transmissible information.

In Benjamin’s sense the ‘aura’ has been removed by the postcard, though if you consider Berger, the uniqueness of an original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. Economically its market value relies on rarity. The status of the original is altered by the reproduction, causing mystification to build up around it. The bogus religiosity of art, in relation to what is deemed authentic and aesthetically beautiful, allows capitalism to bestow a new impressiveness on high art and culture; determined by the market value of the art object.

Nostalgia becomes functional in art because of the camera. If an art object is no longer unique or exclusive it is artificially made mysterious. Rather than familiarity breeding contempt; familiarity breeds apathy. The reproduction is used to suppress; it is used politically and commercially to deny individual existence and reinforce interpellation.

Ways of Seeing screenshot.

-          Ways of seeing part one can be seen on YouTube:

Episode One: Part 1
Episode One: Part 2
Episode One: Part 3 
Episode One: Part 4 

Bibliography

Benjamin, Walter. 1936. ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’. From: Illuminations. ed. Hannah Ardent. New York: Schocken Books. 1968., pp. 217-242.

Berger, John.  1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Publishing. pp. 1-27.

D’Alleva, Anne. 2005. Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.

Edwards, Steve. 2006. Photography: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stam, Robert.  1999. Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell., Chapter: ‘The Frankfurt School’, pp. 64-71.