Blog 3

  1. The primary focus of the film in correlation to the Berger’s argument is the idea of seeing art. This is constantly brought up in the film as art and money are consistently seen in the same area. With the question being what art is in accordance to money. Is money what make art pleasant? These questions I see are consistently brought into view as the film goes on. According to the film an artist will have a long and steep road ahead of them if they wish to the pursue the career.
  2. From the intersection that I chose, which is the seeing factor of art. I’d have to say I agree with Gerhard that art literally will please who it will please and one should not try to like art that they don’t internally personally enjoy. It is also mentioned that many people don’t really know what they are buying themselves and some will simply get art just because their neighbor has art as well. But back to the point ethnically speaking there really isn’t a per say filter on art as everyone, will like what they like even if it doesn’t agree to all taste. A perfect example would the painting of a woman’s and please forgive me for saying ” pubic hair” this is a painting that would attract some but at the same time repel others, and the artist who painted literally commented that she knew that would happen once people realized what they were looking at. To answer the the other question of to what extent should Art and Capital be encouraged to co-mingle. My response is that art should be created from its own purpose, this is influenced by the thoughts of the artists in the film who would look at art and gauge its value but never say that it should have been made purely for the sake of money itself. That said the real extent that art ought to be to held to capital is only to the end product of the art work an never before that.
  3. I agree with the argument that seeing art vs simply hearing it or agreeing to art without actually seeing and knowing it is better. This applies to my answer in question heavily due to the film, the common theme in the film was art to money, and that the common artist was typically broke, that it is a profession that is quite literally a make it or break it point that if you fail to live up to expectations your done. In the book Berger exemplifies the act of seeing art- that it can allow one to deep dive so to speak into what they are seeing taking the experience to a new level, my favorite part is when he uses the example of photography although it is not drawn you are still pulled into the perspective of the one who took and can the picture as they had seen it, and then if one would like they could compare the image to the countless other ones that the person could and than contemplate why they chose that specific one. From both the film and the book it is clear that perception has a powerful hold on the direction art.


  1. kathrynchuc says:

    This was a great post, and I’m so glad that you were brave enough to point out that one artist that was painting “pubic hair” in her painting. As I was watching this scene, it made me wonder at what point does art become pornography? I didn’t think it was beautiful, but perhaps she was wanting the shock value? Anyway, art shouldn’t be considered art because it is expensive and everyone else has it. Art should be considered art based on itself!


  2. debcort says:

    Art should not be created with the purpose of pleasing a buyer, as not all buyers will agree on the definition of what is beautiful; instead artists should create something that they find inspiring or beautiful.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s