《广告传播理论与实践》课程教学课件（讲稿）John Berger’s Ways of Seeing.pdf_大学文库

notice how tha-faculty of touch is like e static, limited form ofTHEKEY OFDREAMS BY.MAGRITTE1898196sight.) We never loak at just one thing; we are always lookingat tne relation between things and aursalves. Our vision iscontinually active, contiouaily moving, continually holdingthings in a circle around itsolf, constituting what is presentto us as we are.Soon after we can see, we are aware that we canalsa be seen. Tha eye of the other combines with our own eyeto make it fully credible that we are part of the visible worid.If we accept that we can see that hill over there,we propose that from thathill we con ba seen.The reciprocalnatura of vision is more fundamantal than thot of spokendialogue. And often dialogue is an attempt to verbalize this -an attempt to axplainhow,either metaphorically orliterally'you see things', and an attempt to discover how "he seesthings'.In the sense in which we use the word in thisbook,all images are man-made.The way we see things is affected by what weknow or what we believe. In the Middle Ages when menbelieved inthe physical exietence of Hellthe sightof firemusthave meant something different from what it means today.Nevertheless their idea of Hell owed alot to the sight of fireconsuming and the ashes remaining -as wall as to theirexperienceof thepalnofburns.When in love, the sight of the beloved has acompletenass which no words and no embrace can match:a completeness which onfy theactof making lovecantemporarilyeccammodate.Yet this seeing which comes before words, andcan never be quite covered by them, is not a question ofmechanically reacting to stimuli.(it can only be thought of inthis way if ane isolates the small part of the pracess whichconcerns the eya's retina.) We anly see what we look at. Tolook is an act af cholca. As a result of this act, what we see isbrought within our reach-though not necessarily withinAn image is a sight which hasarm's reach.To touch something ls to situate oneself inbeen recreated or reproduced. It is an appearance, or a set ofrelation to it. (Close your eyes, move round the room andappearances,which has beendetached fromthe placeand time89

The way we see things is affected by what we kr~ow or what we believe. In the IVtlddle Ages when men believed in the physical existence of Hell the sight of fire must have meant something different from what it means today. Naverthe|ass their idea of Hell owed a lot to the sight of fire consuming and the ashes remaining - as well as to their experience of the pain of burns. When in love, the sight of the beloved has a completeness which no words and no embrace can match : a completeness which only the act of making love can temporari|y accommodate. Vet this seeing which comas before words, and can never be quite covered by them, is not a question of mechanically reacting to stimuli. (It can only be thought of in this way if one isolates the small part of the process which concerns the eye’s retina.) We only see what we look at. To look is an act of choice. As a result of this act, what we see is brought within our reach - though not necessarily within arm’s reach. To touch something is to situate oneself in relation to it. (Close your eyes, move round the room and notice how the.faculty of touch is like a static, limited form of sight.) We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at ~e relation between things and ourselves. Our vision is continually active, continually moving, continually holding thiugs in a circle around itaalf, constituting what is present Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can also be seen. The eye of the other combines with our own aye to make it fully credible that we are p~ of the visible world. ~f we ac~pp~ that we can see ~ha~ hil~ over there, we propose ~hat from that hiBI we can be seen. The reciprocal ~ature o~ vision is more fundamen~l than that of spoken ~ialogue. And often dialogue is an a~empt to verbalize this - an attempt to explain how, either metaphorically or literally, ’you see things’, and an attempt to discover how "he sees ~hings’. in the sense in which we use the word in this book, a~l images are man-made. An image is a sight which has been recreated or reproduced, it is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time

Yet when an image is presented as a work of art,inwhich itfirst madeits appearance andpreserved-forafewthe way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learntmoments or a few centuries. Every image emhodies a wayofassumptions about art.Assumptions concerning:seeing.Even a photograph.Forphotographs are not, as isoften assumed, a mechanical record. Every time we look at aBeautyphotograph, we are aware, however slightly, of theTruthphotographer selecting that sight from an infinity of otherGeniuspossible sights. This is true even in the most casual familyCivilizationsnapshot. The photographer's way of seeing is roflected in hisFormchoice of subject. The painter's way of seeing is reconstitutedStatusPby the marks he makes on the canvas or paper. Yet, althoughTaste,etc.overy image embodies a way of seeing, our perception orappreciation of an image depends also upon our own way ofMany of these assumptions no longer accord withseeing.(lt may be, for example, that Sheila is one figure amongthe world as it is. (The world-as-it-is is more than puretwenty; but for our own reasons she is the one we have eyesobjective fact, it includes consciousness.) Out of true with thefor.)present, these assumptions obscure the past. They mystifyrather thon clarify. The past is never there waiting to bediscovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is. Historyalways constitutes the relation between a present and its pastConsequently fear of the present leads to mystification of thepast. The past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusionsImages were first made to conjure upthefrom which we draw in order to act. Cultural mystification ofappearances of something that was absent.Graduallyitthe past entails a double loss. Works of art are madehecame evident that on image could outlost what itunnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewerrepresented; it then showed how something or somebody hadconclusions to complete in action.once looked -and thus hy implication how the subject hadWhen we 'see'a landscape, we situate ourselvesonce been seen by other people. Later still the specific vision6in it. If we 'saw' the art of the past, we would situateof the image-maker was also recognized as part of the recordpuoourselves in history. When we are prevented from seeing it,An image became a record of howX had seenY.This was thewe are being deprived of the history which helongs to us.result of en increasing consciousness of individuality.Who benefits from this deprivation? In the end, the art of theaccompanying an increasing awarenessof history.Itwouldbepast is being mystified because a privileged minority isrash to try to date this last development precisely. Butastriving to invent a history which can retrospectively justifyCertainly in Europe such consciousness has existed sioce the2the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification canbeginning of the Renaissance.no longer make sense in modern terms. And so, inevitably, itNo otherkind of relic or text fromthe past canRmystifies.offer such a direct testimony about the world which5surrounded other people at other times. In this respectnowLetus consider atypical example of suchimoges are more precise and richer than literature. To soy thismystification. A two-volume study was recently published onis not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art,Frans Hals.'It is the authoritative work to date on this painter.treating it as mere documentary evidence; the more imaginativeAs a book of specialized art history it is no better and nothe work, the more profoundly it allows us to share theworse than the average.artist's axperience of the visible.1110

in which it first made its appearance and preserved - for a few 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 a photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the photographer selecting that sight from an infinity of other possible sights. This is true even in the most casual family snapshot. The photographer’s way of seeing is reflected in his choice of subject. The painter’s way of seeing is reconstituted by the marks he makes on the canvas or paper. Yet, although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing. (it may be, for example, that Sheila is one figure among twenty; but for our own reasons she is the one we have eyes for.) Images were first made to conjure up the appearances of something that was absent. 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. Later still the specific vision of the image-maker was also recognized as part of the record. An image became 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 be rash to try to date this last development precisely. But certainly in Europe such consciousness has existed since the beginning of the Renaissance. No other 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 images are more precise and richer than literature. To say this is not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art, treating it as mere documentary evidence; the more imaginative the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the artist’s experience of the visible. Yet when an image is presented as a work of art, the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learnt assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning: Beauty Truth Genius Civilization Form Status ~ Taste, etc. Many of these assumptions no longer accord with the world as it is. (The world-as-it-is is more than pure objective fact, it includes consciousness.) Out of true with the present, these assumptions obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there waiting to be discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is. History always constitutes the relation between a present and its past. Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the past. The past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusions from which we draw in order to act. Cultural mystification of ’~he past entails a double loss. Works of art are made unnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewer conclusions to complete in action. 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. Who benefits from this deprivation ? In the end, the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms. And so, inevitably, it mystifies. Let us consider a typical example of such mystification. A two-volume study was recently published on Frans Hals.* It is the authoritative work to date on this painter. As a book of specialized art history it is no better and no worse then the average

of over eighty, was destitute. Most of his life he had been inBYHATSISOTHEOLDMEN'SALMSHOUSEdebt. During the winter of 1664, tha year he began paintingthese pictures,he obtained three loads of peat on publiccharity, otherwise he would have frozen to death.Those whanow sat for him were administrators of such public charity.The author records these facta and then explicitlysays that it would be incorrect to read into the paintings anycriticism of the sitters. There is no evidence, he says, thatHals painted them in a spirit of bitterness. The authorconsiders them, howeuer, remarkable works of art andexplains why. Here he writes of the Regentesses:Eachwomanspeakstousofthehumanconditionwithequalimportance.Eachwomanstandsoutwithequalclarityagainsttheenormousdark surface,yettheyarelinkedbyafirmrhythmicalarrangementandthesubdueddiagonal pattem formedbytheirheadsand handsSubtlemodulationsofthedeep,glowingblackscontributeto the harmonious fusion of thewhole andBYGEALSES.GETHE OLD MEN'SALMS HOUSEformanunforgettablecontrastwiththepowerfuwhitesand vivid flesh tones where the detached strokes reachapeakofbreadthandstrength.(ouritalics)The compositional unity of e paintingcontributes fundamentally to the power of its image.It isreasonabletoconsiderapainting'scomposition.Butherethecomposition is written about as though it were initself theemotional charge of the painting.Terms like harmonious fusion,unforgettablecontrast,reachingapeakofbreadthandstrengthtransfer the emotion provoked by the image from the planeof lived experience,to that of disinterested 'artappreciation'.All conflict disappears. One is left with theunchanging'human condition',and thepainting considered asa marvellously made object.Very ilttleis known ahout Hals or the Regentswho cammissioned him, Itis notpossibleto producecircumstantialevidencetoestabllshwhattheirrelationswereThe last two great paintings by Frans Hals portrayBut there is the evidence of the paintings themselives: thethe Governors and theGovernessesofanAlms Houseforoldevidenceof agroup of men anda group af women as seen bypaupers in the Dutch seventeenth-century city of Hearlem.another man, the peinrter. Study this evidence and judge forTheywereofficialiy commissioned portraits,Hals,an oldmanyourself.1213

The last two great paintings by Frans Hals portray the Governors and the Governesses of an Aims House for old paupers in the Dutch seventeenth-century city of Haarlem. They were officially commissioned portraits. Hais, an old man of over eighty, was destitute. Most of his life he had been in debt. During the winter of 1664, the year he began painting these pictures, 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 he incorrect to read into the paintings any criticism of the sitters. There is no evidence, he says, that Hale painted them in a spirit of bitterness. The author considers them, howe~er, remarkable works of art and explains why. Here be writes of the Regentesees: Each woman speaks to us of the human condition with equal importance. Each woman stands out with equal clarity against the enormous dark surface, yet they are linked by a firm rhythmical arrangement and the subdued diagonal pattern formed by their heads and hands. Subtle modulations of the deep, glowing blacks contribute to the harmonious fusion of the whole and form an unforgettab/e contrast with the powerfuJ whites and vivid flesh tones where the detached strokes reach a peak of breadth and strength. (our italics) The compositional unity of a painting contributes fundamentally to the power of its image, it is reasonable to consider a painting’s composition. But here the composition is written about as though it were in itself the emotional charge of the painting. Terms like harmonious fusion, unforgettable contrast, reaching a peak of breadth and strength transfer the emotion provoked by the image from the plane of lived experience, to that of disinterested ’art appreciation’. All conflict disappears. One is left with the unchanging "human condition’, and the painting considered as e ma~vellously made object. Very little is known about Hals or the Regents who commissioned him. It is not possible to produce circumstantial evidence to establish what their relations were. But there is the evidence of the paintings themselves: the evidence of e group of men and a group of women as seen by another man, the painter. Study this evidence and judge for yourself. 12 13

Ths art historian fears such direct judgement:This, he suggests, is a libei. He argues that it wasa fashion at that time to wear hats on the side of the head.As insomanyotherpicturesbyHals,thepenetratingHe cites medical opinionto provethat the Regent's expressioncharacterizationsalmostseduceusintobelievingthatweknowthe personalitytraits and even the habits of thecould well be the result of a facial paralysis. He insists that thepainting would have been unacceptable to the Regents if onemenand womenportrayed.of them had heen portrayed drunk. One might go onWhat is this 'seduction'he writes of? It isdiscussing each of these points for pages.(Men innothing less than the paintings working upon'us.They workseventeenth-centuryHoiland wore their hats pnthe side ofupon us because we accept the way Hals saw his sitters.Wetheir heads in order to be thought of as adventurous anddo not accept this innocently.We accept it in so far as itpleasure-loving. Heavy drinking was an approved practice.corresponds to our own observation of people,gestures,faces,Etcetera.)But sucha discussionwouldtake us evenfartherinstitutions.This is possiblebecause we still live in a societyaway from the only confrontation which matters and which theof comparable sociai relations and moral values.And it isauthor is determined to evade.precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological andIn this confrontationthe Regents andsocial urgency.Itis this-not the painter's skill as a'seducerRegentesses stare at Hals, a destitute old painter who has lostwhich convinces us that we can know thepeople portrayed.his reputation andlives off public charity:he examines themThe outhor continues:through the eyes of a psuper who must nevertheless try to beobjective,i.e., must try to surmount the way he sees as aInthe case of some criticstheseduction hasbeenapauper. This is the drama of these paintings. A drama of antotal success. It has, for example, been asserted that'unforgettahle contrast'the Regent in the tipped slouch hat, which hardly coversMystification has little todo with theanyof his long,lank hair,and whose curiously setvocahularyused.Mystification is theprocess of explainingeyesdo notfocus,wasshown inadrunkenstate.1514

The art historian fears such direct judgement: As in so many other pictures by Hals, the penetrating characterizations almost seduce us into believing that we know the personality traits and even the habits of the men and women portrayed. What is this "seduction" he writes of? It is nothing less than the paintings working upon’us. They work upon us because we accept the way Hals saw his sitters. We do not accept this innocently. We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still llve in a society of comparable social relations and moral values. And it is precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological and social urgency, it is this - not the painter’s skill as a ¯seducer" - which convinces us that we can know the people portrayed. The author continues: in the case of some critics the seduction has been a total success. It has, for example, been asserted that the Regent in the tipped slouch hat, which hardly covers any of his long, lank hair, and whose curiously set eyes do not focus, was shown in a drunken state. 14 This, he suggests, is a libel. He argues that it was a fashion at that time to wear hats on the side of the head. He cites medical opinion to prove that the Regent’s expression could well be the result of a facial paralysis. He insists that the painting would have been unacceptable to the Regents if one of them had been portrayed drunk. One might go on discussing each of these points for pages. (Men in seventeenth-century Holland wore their hats on the side of their heads in order to be thought of as adventurous and pleasure-lovlng. Heavy drinking was an approved practice. Etcetera.) But such a discussion would take us even farther away from the only confrontation which matters and which the author is determined to evade. in this confrontation the Regents and Regentesses stare at Hals, a destitute old painter who has lost his reputation and lives off public charity; he examines them through the eyes of a pauper who must nevertheless try to be objective, i.e., must try to surmount the way he sees as a pauper. This is the drama of these paintings. A drama of an ¯ unforgettable contrast’. Mystification has little to do wtth the vocabulary used. Mystification is the process of explaining 15

away what might otherwise be evident. Hals was the firstportraitist to paint the new characters and expressionscreated by capitalism. He did in pictorial terms what Balzacdid two centuries later in literature. Yet the author of theauthoritative work on these paintings sums up the artist'sachievement by referring toHals's unwavering commitmentto his personal vision,which enriches our consciousness of ourfellowmenand heightens our awe forthe ever-increasing power ofthemighty impulses that enabled him to give us acloseAfter the invention of the camera thisviewof life'svitalforces.contradiction gradually became apparent.That is mystification.STULEROMIn ordertoavoid mystifying thepast (which canequallywell sufferpseudo-Marxist mystification)letusnowaxamine theparticular relation which now exists, so far asMANpictorial images are concerned, between the present and theWITHApast. If we can see the present clearly enough,weshall askthe right questions of the past.MOVIEToday we see the art of the past as nobody sawCAMERAit hefore. We actually perceive it in a different way.This difference canbe illustrated in terms of whatwas thought-of as perspective.The convention ofperspective,which is unique to European art and which wasfirstestabtished inthe early Renaissance,centresI'm an eye. A mechanical eye. 1, the machine, show youeverything on the eye of the beholder.It is like a beam from aa world the way oniy I can see it. I free myself forlighthouse-only instead of light travelling outwards,nseetoday and foreverfrom human immobility.I'minappearances travel in.The conventions called thoseconstantmovement.I approachandpull awayfromappearances reality.Perspective makes the single eye theobjects.I creep under them,I move alongside a runningcentre of the visible world. Everything converges on to thehorse's mouth. I fall and rise with the falling and risingeye as to the vanishing point of infinity.The visible world isbodies,This is l, the machine, manoeuvring in the chaoticarranged for the apectator as the universe was once thoughtmovements, recording onemovement afteranother into be arranged for God.themostcomplexcombinations.According to the convention of perspective thereFreedfromtheboundariesof timeand space,Iis no visual reciprocity.There is no need forGod to situateco-ordinate any and all points of the universe, whereverhimselfinrelationto others:heishimself theaituation.Iwantthemtobe.Myway leadstowardsthecreationThe inherent contradiction inperspective was that itof afresh perception of the world.ThusI explain inastructured all images of reality to address a single spectator.newwaytheworldunknownto you."who, unlike God, could oniy be in one place at a time.1716

away what might otherwise be evident. Hals Was the first po~raitist to paint the new characters and expressions created by capitalism. He did in pictorial terms what Balzac did two centuries later in literature. Yet the author of the authoritative work on these paintings sums up the artist’s achievement by referring to Hals’s unwavering commitment to his personal vision, which enriches our consciousness of our fellow men and heightens our awe for the ever-increasing power of the mighty impulses that enabled him to give us a close view of life’s vital forces. That is mystification. In order to avoid mystifying the past (which can equally well suffer pseudo-Marxist mystification) let us now examine the particular relation which now exists, so far as pictorial images are concerned, between the present and the past. if we can see the present clearly enough, we shall ask the right questions of tl~e past. Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We actually perceive it in a different way. This difference can be illustrated in terms of what was thought-of as perspective. The convention of perspective, which is unique to European art and which was first established in the early Renaissance, centres everything on the eye of the beholder, it is like a beam from a lighthouse - only instead of light travelling outwards, appearances travel in. The conventions called those appearances rea/ity. Perspective makes the single eye the centre of the visible world. Everything converges on to the eye as to the vanishing point of infinity. The visible world is arranged for the spectator as the universe was once thought to he arranged for God. According to the convention of perspective there is no visual reciprocity. There is no need for God to situate himself in relation to others: he is himself the situation, The inherent contradiction in perspective was that it structured all images of reality to address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time. After the invention of the camera this contradiction gradually became apparent. I’m an eye. A mechanical eye. t, the machine, show you a wortd the way only ( can see it. ! free myself for today and forever from human immobility. I’m in constant movement. I approach and pull away from objects, t creep under them. ~ move alongside a running horse’s mouth, t fall and rise with the falling and rising bodies. This is I, the machine, manoeuvring in the chaotic movements, recording one movement after another in the most complex combinations, Freed from the boundaries of time and space, I co-ordinate any and all points of the universe, wherever I want them to be. My way leads towards the creation of a fresh perception of the world. Thus I explain in a new way the world unknown to you.* 17

ThecameraisolatedThe invention of the camera also changed the waymomentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the ideain which men saw paintings painted long before the camerathat images were timeless. Or, to put it enother way, thewas invented.Originallypaintings were an integral part of thecamera showed that the notion of time passing wasbuiiding for whrich they were designed. Sometimes in an earlyinseparablefromtheexperionceafthevisual (exceptinRenaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that thepaintings).Whatyou Saw depended upan where you wereimages an the wall are records of the uilding's interior life,when. What yau saw was relative ta yourposition in time andthat together they make up the building's memory-so muchspace.lt was no longerposaible to imagine everythingare they part of the particularity of the building.converging an the human eye ag on the vanishing point ofCHURCHOFinfinity.This is not to say that before the invention of thecamera men believed that everyone could see everything. ButSTFRANCISperspactive organized the yisual field as thaugh that wereindeed the ideal. Every drawing or painting that usedperspective proposed to the spectator that he was the uniqueATcentre of the worid. The camera --and more particularly theASSmovie camera -demonstrated that there was no centre.The invention of the camera changed the way menSaw. The visible cametamean somethingdifferent to them.This was immediatelyreflectedinpainting.For the Impressloniststhe visible no longerpresented itself to mon in order to be seen. On the contrary,the visible, in continual flux, became fugitive.Forthe Cubiststhe visibie was no longer what confronted the single eye,butthetotality ofpoasible views taken frompointsall roundthe object (ar person) being depicted.STILL LIFE WITH WICKER CHAIR BY PICASSO IB8ITheuniqueness of everypainting was once partof the uniqueness of the place where it reaided. Sometimes thepainting was transportable.But it could never be seen in twoplaces at the same time. When the camera reproduces apainting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result itsmeaning changes.Or,more exactly,its meaningmultiplies andfragmentsinto menymeanings.This is vividly illustrated by what happens when apainting is shown on a television screen.The painting enterseach viewer's house, There it is surrounded hy his wallpaper,his furniture,his mementoes.It enters theatmosphere of his1819

The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless. Or, to put it another way, the camera showed that the notion of time passing was ~nseparabie from the experience of the visual (except in paintings). What you saw depended upon where you were whan. What you saw was relative to your posit~on in time and space. It was no longer possible to imagine everything converging on the human eye as on the vanishing point of infinity. This is not tO say that before the invention of the camera men believed that everyone could see everything, But perspective organized the visua! field as though that were indeed the ideal. Every drawing or painting that used perspective proposed to the spectator that he was the unique centre of the world, The camera - and more particularly the movie camera - demonstrated that there was no centre. The invention of the camera changed the way men saw. The visible came to mean something different to them, This was immediately reflected in painting. For the impressionists the visible no longer presented itself to man in order to be seen. On the contrary, the visible, in continual flux, became fugitive. For the Cubists the visible was no longer what confronted the single eye, but the totality of possible views taken from points all round the object (or person) being depicted, The invention of the camera also changed the way in which men saw paintings painted long before the camera was invented, Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes in an early Renaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that the images on the wall are records of the building’s interior life, that together they make up the building’s memory - so much are they part of the particularity of the building. The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera repr’oduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings. This is vividly illustrated by what happens when a painting is shown on a television screen. The painting enters each viewer’s house. There it is surrounded by his wallpaper, his furniture, his mementoes. It enters the atmosphere of his

family. It becomes their talking point, It lends its meaning toHaving seen this repraduction, one can go to thetheir meaning.At the same time it enters a million otherNational Galleryto look at the original and therediscoverwhathouses and, in each of them, is seen in a different aontext.the reproduction lacks. Alternatively one can forget about theBecause of the camara, the painting now traveis to thequalityof the reproduction and simplybe reminded,when onespectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In itssees the originai, that it is a famous painting of whichtravels,its meaningis diversified.somewhere one has aiready seen a reproduction. But in eithercase the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being theoriginalof a reproduction.Itis no longer whatits image showsthatstrikes one asunique;its firstmeaningisno longer to befound in what It soys, but in what it is.This new status of the original work is theperfectly rationel consequence of the new means ofreproduction.But it is at this point that a process ofmystification again enters.The meaning of the original workno longar lies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquelyis. How is its unique existence evaluated and defined in ourOne might argue that all reproductions more Orpresent culture? It is defined as an object whose valuelesa distort, and that thereforethe originel peintingis still independs uponitsrarit,Thisvalueisaffirmedandgauged bya sense unlque. Here is a reproduction of the Virgin of the Rocksthe price it fetches on the market. But because it isby Leonardo da Vinci.neverthelese 'awork of art'_and art is thought to be greaterthan commerce-its market price is saidto be a reflection ofits spiritual value.Yet the spiritual value of an object, sdistinctfromamessage oran example,can onlybe explainedin terms of magic or religion.And since in modern societyneither of these is a living force, the art object, the'work ofart',is envelopedinanatmosphereof entirelybogusreligiosityWorks of art are discussed and presented as though they wereYARINGETALOCK Y LONARDO DAVINCTIA52-SIShoiyrelics:relicswhichare firstand foremost evidence oftheir own survival, The past in which they originated isstudied in order to prove their survival genuine. Theyare declared art when their line of descent can becertified.Before the Virgin ofthe Rocks the visitorto theNational Gallerywould he encouraged by nearly everythinghe might have heard and read ehout the painting to feelsomething like this:'I am in front of it.I can seeit Thispeinting by Leonardo is unlike any other in the worid. TheNational Gallery has the real one. If I look et this painting hardenough, I shouid somehow be able to feel its authenticity.The Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci:it is authentic andtherefore it is beautiful.'2021

fami|y. It becomes their talking point, it lends its meaning to their meaning. P~t the same time it enters a million other houses and, in each of them, is seen in a different context, Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In its travels, its meaning is diversified. One might argue that all reproductions more or less distort, and that therefore the original painting is still in sense unique. Here is s reproduction of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci. ~o Having seen this reproduction, one can go to’the Natienal Gallery to look at the original and there~iscover what the reproduction Jacks. Alternatively one can forget about the quality of the reproduction and simply be reminded, when one somewhere one has already seen a reproduction. But in either case the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the origins/of a reproduction, it is no longer what i~s i~age shows ~ha~ s~r~es one as unique; i~s f~rs~ meaning found in what it says, bu~ in what i~ This new status of the original work is the perfectly rational consequence of the new means reproduction. But it is at this point that a proce~ mystification again enters. The meaning of the original work no longer ]ies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquely is. How is its unique existence evaluated and defined in our present culture? it is defined as an object whose value depends upon its ~ariW. This value is affirmed and gauged by ~he pric~ it fetches on the marke~. But because neve~heiess "a work of a~" - and art is thought to be greater ~han commerce - i~ market price is said [~s spiritual value. Yet the spiritual value of’an object, as distinct from a message or an example, can only be explained i, terms of magic or religion. And since in modern society ,ei~her of these is a living force, the art object, the ’work a~’, is enveloped in an atmosphere of entirely bogus religiosity. Works of art are discussed and presented as though they were holy relics: relics which are first and foremost evidence of their own su~ivaL The past in which they originated is studied in order to prove their survival genuine. They are declared a~ when their line of descent can be certified. Before the Virgin of the Rocks the visitor to the National Gallery would be encouraged by nearly e~erything he might have heard and read about the painting to feel something like this: "1 am in front of it, ! can see it. This painting by Leonardo is unlike any other in the world. The National Gallery has the real one. If I look at this painting hard enough, ~ should somehow be able to feel its authenticiW. The VJrg~ of th~ Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci: it is authentic and therefore it is beautifuL