Berger makes connections between different periods in art, talking about how the art of.
the past shapes modern day art, and makes connections between past art and how it can situate us.
in history. The writings of Berger were challenging, demanding, and troubling. After reviewing.
the essay, I realized that there are controversial parts to this essay in which I did not see my first.
time reading it. I have come up with two controversial sections, and one extremely confusing.
statement, in which I will do my best to explain. .
One segment I would like to focus on is Berger's statement: "When we "see" a landscape,.
we situate ourselves in it. If we "saw" the art of the past, we would situate ourselves in history. .
When we are prevented from seeing it, we are being deprived of the history which belongs to.
us"(108), and "When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. .
As a result its meaning changes"(115). My argument is that if there is only one original painting.
and six billion people in this world, then how can everyone possibly "see" the original painting? If.
there were no replicas, how many people would actually get to see a specific original painting?.
Mystification is what makes a painting unique and valuable, so if the painting is replicated than the.
originality is taken from that painting. At the same time, a replica can give more people a chance.
to be exposed to that particular painting. Take for example the "Mona Lisa", sure, people see her.
in different ways. Some people think that she is smiling, some perhaps, believe that she is .
2.
frowning. But, at least, a wide variety of people have seen this work of art and have gotten to.
share it with others. One question that we can consider is if you can get the same mystification.
out of a replica that you can get out of the original? If not, then why do people create replicas? .
If the sole value is in the original, then why would anyone want to see a copy? But on the other.
