on youtube

John Berger “Ways of Seeing” all 4

about the series and book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing

Hmm, quite long, isn’t it?

I’m not sure whether I’ll watch it or not.

He seemed a bit dogmatic in his alternative world view (from the first 2 minutes).

there are four parts

each 30 minutes long

look at the right hand side for the links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction

The essay opens with a quotation of Paul Valéry from Pièces sur L’Art (specifically from “La conquête de l’ubiquité”, “The Conquest of Ubiquity”) that argues that the art that was developed in the past differs from that of the present time and hence our understanding and treatment of it must develop in order to understand it in a modern context and develop new techniques. This opening statement sets the tone for Benjamin’s Marxist argument.

The preface introduces Marxist theory as applied to the construction of society and the position of art in the context of Capitalism. He explains the conditions to show what could be expected of capitalism in the future, resulting in exploiting the proletariat and ultimately making it possible to abolish capitalism itself.

The body examines the development of mechanical visual reproduction from copying a master’s work, Greek founding and stamping, woodcutting, etching, engraving, lithographs and photography demonstrating that technical reproduction is not a modern phenomenon, yet modern methods allow for greater accuracy across mass production. This process was ultimately more distinguished by the tracing of designs on stone rather than incision on blocks of wood.

Benjamin discusses the concept of authenticity, particularly in application to reproduction. ‘Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.’ He argues that the “sphere of authenticity is outside the technical” so that the original artwork is independent of the copy, yet through the act of reproduction something is taken from the original by changing its context. He thus introduces the idea of the “aura” of a work and its absence in a reproduction, a concept borrowed from earlier ideas developed by Ludwig Klages.

He looks at the changes in society’s values over time, “the manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well.” Benjamin goes on to describe shifts in taste and style in art history and how this interacts with his concept of aura.

From that above “..He argues that the “sphere of authenticity is outside the technical” so that the original artwork is independent of the copy, yet through the act of reproduction something is taken from the original by changing its context. He thus introduces the idea of the “aura” of a work ..”

The swiftness of human vision processing is impressive, the aesthetic appreciation (beauty too) is really of what the mind does with whatever, not unlike a joke is funny because of the gymnastics the mind does, like the classic frame of reference shift, for example.

Back in history, the EoEA (ancestral environments), other than the conjurings of imaginations, things seen were real 3D things of the physical world. Humans evolved within the physics of this world, and about that the importance of correspondence between or of senses couldn’t be overstated. Like a tree branch snaps under your feet you look down and watch yourself fall. A mouth opens, lips move and grunts are heard.

Related, humans have always done pretending. Acting. Too, and related again, story telling.

Our day to day lives in a way always involve something related to pretending, taking a position, a view, for whatever, it’s part of the projection of self, and there must be a self, of that there’s not much choice.

Much of sense processing (and mechanisms of reinforcement involved across senses – correspondence) are not easily mediated by thinking, in fact many things people enjoy didn’t exist in the EoEA, there’s probably not evolved cognitive tools (categories, domains, whatever – or composites of faculties) for dealing with them.

A lot of front-end processing barely yields to mediation, try experiencing the sensation of the colour denoted red as blue, for example.

There was a time that thunder and lightning resided of the territory of that not understood, yet we evolved with it. So there’re feelings associated with it and the weather. Recently developed was an understanding of electricity, charge, clouds, ionization, plasma trails, and much more, and ilightning/thunder still causes fear in me. And rightly so it’s fucken dangerous.

Lightning’s fast, variable, and unpredictable. Impressively so.

It has a few things in common with TV, the moving images and correspondence with sound we find entertaining.

Though many give less serious effort to what they view on TV compared to, for example, what they might if, of their children being out wandering around in a lightning storm. But never mind, the children are safely inside watching TV.

I’ve seen that technique of fooling the human body with the fake hand being stroked and our brain reacting with the sense of touch as if it was real, it seems actually quite easy to manipulate our brain. I do wonder if in the future we could reprogram or hack the human consciousness.