‘A.book made by
John Berger, Sven Blomberg, Chris Fox,
‘Michael Dibb, Richard Hollis
Mes
PWNS
air,
So
WAYS OF SEEING
‘based on the BBC television serias with
JOHN BERGER
British Broadcasting Corporation
and Penguin BooksNote to the reader
-This book has been made by five of us. Our
staring point wes some of tho iene contained in the tleaslon
Maes Gening. We have tried to oxtendl and elaborate
sar “They have influenced not only what we say bat
ie as roowact about tying ey The carried
euch to do with our purpose as the argu
contained within it.
"The book consists of seven 1
Four of th
‘only images. These purely
fn and on various
ments
‘the verbal essays.
it "o information at a is given
Sometime images reproduced because H asemed {0 0 Sey
soar information might distract from the poles boi ‘made.
‘can be found in the List
Tall cases, however, this information
i a eseerveriuced wich be pried atthe end ot tne Noo
vie of the essays protends to deal with more
chan cartin napucts of each eubject perticlary thoes spect
than corrate relief by a modern historical consciousnecs,
‘eeoeet palais fas bean te amet a Proves Merton‘Sesing comes before words. The child looks and
recognizes before it oan speak.
‘But there Is also another sense in which seeing
‘comes before words. It
in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words,
‘but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by
it, The relation between what we sea and what we know is,
over settlod. Each evening we sce the sun set. We know
‘that the earth is turning away from it. Yet the knowledge, the
‘explanation, never quite fits the sight. The Surrealist painter
Magritte commented on this always-present gap betweon
words and seeing in a painting called The Key of Dreamseres
‘The way we see things Is affected by what we
know or what we In the Middle Ages when mon
bolieved in the physical oxistence of Hell the sight of fire must
have meant something difforont from what it means today.
Novortholoss their idea of Hell owed a lot to the sight of fire
consuming and the ashes remaining — ‘to the
exporience of the pain of burns.
When in love, the
completeness which no wor
ness which only the act of making love can
can never be quite covered by them, is not
mechanically reacting to stimuli. (It can only be thought of in
‘this way if one isolates the small part of the process which
look is an act of choice. As a result of this act, what we
brought within our reach — though not necessarily within
notice how the faculty of touch is like
sight.) We never look at just one thing;
at the relation betwe
continu
static, limited form of
we are always looking
things and ourselves. Our vision ie
ly active, continually moving, continually holding
things in a circle around itself, constituting what is present
tous as we are.
‘Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can
«also be seen. The eyo of the other combines with our own one
‘to make it fully credible that we are part of the visible worla,
If we accept that we can s0e that hill over there,
we propose that from that hill we can be seen. The reciprocal
nature of vision is more fundamental than that of epoker
this
erally,
“and an attempt to discover how ‘he sees
dialogue. And often dialogue is an attempt to verbali
an attempt to explain how, either metaphorical
you see things’
things’.
{in the sense in which we use the word in this
images are man-made,
a
1 sight which hasin which It first made its appearance and preserve
moments or a few centuries. Every image embodies a way of
seeing. Even a photograph. For photographs are not, as is
often assumed, a mechanical record. Every time we look at
photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the
photographer solocting that sight from an infinity of other
‘This is true even in the most casual family
possible sights
‘snapshot. The photographer's way of seeing is reflected in his Civilization
choice of subject. The painter's way of seeing is reconstituted, Form
by the marks he makes on the canvas or paper. Yet, although Status
Taste, ote.
every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or
‘appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of
sosing. (It may be, for example, that Shella is one figure am
‘twenty; but for our own reasons she is the one we ha
for.)
the word as iti, (The worl
abjctive tore, coneciousness) Out of true with the
resent. thess assumptions obmcure the past They eyeuey
Is never there weling to be
Sieconered tb acogied fr east wha Hy
siways constitutes the ralation brwoon s pravont eu
Consequenty fear of the present lends te myatfcnton ete
bast. Tho past isnot for living in: it fea well et eonetonions
{rom which we draw in order to act. Cutter! myeiionton ot
the past entails a double loss. Works of art ure reas,
unnecessarily ramote. And the past stars ue foo
Conciuslons to compote actor,
When we ee! landesape, we situate our
It 1 we ‘saw the art of the part we would sass
curselves in history. Whan we are prevented from seaing
ot th history which batonge to us
wprvaton? Im th ond, the art of the
bast is being mputified bectuce a pillaged ninety
1 which can retroapecteayjutity
es, and such justiictan con
se in modern terme. And 20; Ineutay, it
Images were first made to conjure up the
appearances of something that was absont. Gradually it
became evident that an image could outlast what it
‘represented; it then showed how something or somebody had]
‘once looked — and thus by implication how the subject had
‘once been seen by other people. Letor still the specific vision
of the image-maker was also rocognized as part of the record.
‘An image bocame a record of how X had seen Y. This was the
result of an increasing consciousness of individuality,
accompanying an increasing awareness of history. It would
sh to try to date this last development precisely. But
certainly in Europe such consciousness has existed since the
beginning of the Renaissance.
[No othor kind of relic or text from the past can
offer such a direct testimony about the world which
‘surrounded other people at other times. In this respect
no longer make
mystifies.
Let us consider a typical example of such
fon. A two-volume study was recently published on
tis the authoritative work to date on this painter
Of specialized art history it 1s no better and ne
Worse than the average.
{is not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art,
‘treating It
‘the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the
artist's experience of the visible
10aun
‘They were officially commissioned port
12
of over eighty, was destitute. Most of his life he had been in
debt. During the winter of 1664, the year he began painting
plotures, he obtained three loads of peat on public,
charity, otherwise he would have frozen to death. Those who
now sat for him were administrators of such public charity.
‘The author records these facts and then explicitly
says that It would be incorrect to read into the paintings any
criticism of the sitters. There is no evidence, he says, that
Hals painted them in a spirit of bitterness. The author
considers thom, however, remarkable works of art and
explains why. Here he writes of the Regentesses: |
Each women speaks to us of the human condition with
qual importance. Each woman stands out with equal
clarity against the enormous dark surface, yet they are
linked by a firm rhythmical arangemont and the subdued