So there was a bit of a misinterpretation of Berger and his ideas about images being reprinted due to new technology. Berger was saying mostly that we take an image/painting out of context when we do things like, taking a painting and then zoom in on a particular person. If we wanted to study that particular person more closely like that, zooming in, then sure we could probably get more detail of expression and feeling, but then that part of the image is taken out of context. Like the image of Mars and Venus we have in our book, when Venus is zoomed in on, we can see she looks like she’s lost in thought. Not too sure what about, but we know she’s thinking about something. It’s something that is definitely pressing on her conscience. Then, when you put her back in the whole picture, it’s a completely different story! You’ve got these little demon babies all over the place and Mars is looking like a lost mostly naked fool. Venus is most definitely thinking, but it doesn’t seem to be about some random issue that just so happened to come up. Not at all, because she really looks like what hell (no pun intended) am I doing here?!
Now I don’t think my previous interpretation was completely off. I think that even when an entire painting/image is taken out of its original place it is then slightly misrepresented. I understand that Berger is not saying that if we see pictures of things in books, or only see partial images of something, that it’s completely wrong, because not everyone in the world is going to have a chance to go somewhere to look at that one thing. So with the invention of the camera, we are able to capture what is SEEN and at home we’re able to relate to what is going on.
HOWEVER, you are seeing what is presented to you, but you cannot capture the true feelings of when you see such a thing full blown, and in its rightful place. The experience of art is much more than just seeing it and trying to figure out what exactly the artist wants you to know about that person, people, place, event at that point in time. So earlier when I had posted the picture of the Sistine Chapel, yes you can see all of what Michelangelo painted so high up, but when you are actually there, it’s a completely different vibe directly from the art. The ceilings are quite high, yet you can still see almost all of the detail shown in books. So with how well he painted it, you forget about the hundreds of people around you also observing the place, and you get absorbed into what Michelangelo was trying to show you.
So I think what’s really being said by Berger is that yes, reproducing image is fine, because it is giving a chance for an idea to be passed on more readily, and easily to the masses. We just need to remember the context of what is seen in the image, the time period, and the location of where that image would have been seen.
Maybe if we capture something, there should be multiple shots of it. There should be the up-close so we can fully see the image, and possibly a picture of the image in its element (the painting/image with the things around it).
No comments:
Post a Comment