Berger emphasizes how important images are to our daily experience. If you were blind, or color-blind, would the world around you be completely different, in every aspect, since you don't have images to use and can't place images in your mind? He says that "seeing comes before words". Do you think than that a blind person never truly understands the world because he can't ever quite understand what is around him, since as Berger claims, you can't cover your "seeing" with words. How do you think that publicity should be directed towards someone who can't see? Should the words used be more descriptive and outrageous?
Berger also claims that we can't ever understand the past or history because we are hearing and seeing it as one person interpreted it. Do you think that all of our history is biased? When we look at a painting, are we drawn to the artists opinion, never actually grasping what truly went on, what people really looked like, etc.?
How do you think reproduction of a piece of art affects its value? Does it depend on who is doing the reproducing and what it is being used for? Does a painting that is reproduced more make the original all the more appealing? Would you buy an original if you could just get a reproduction for a much cheaper price?
No comments:
Post a Comment