Milton 1

Artificial History

by
Scott A. Milton

English XXX, Honors Section

Professor XXX
25 September 2007

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 2
The entire art of the past
has now become a political issue.
--John Berger
Politics and art. The combination might seem a little strange to most people, but there is
an important political side to art that becomes evident when one considers the issue of
accessibility. John Berger is a renowned English art critic and novelist. He has written a number
of books over the years that deal with, among other things, the relationship between the visual
arts and politics. One of his best-known works is Ways of Seeingan influential and
controversial text that encourages readers to think critically about traditional and accustomed
ways of looking at art. The book itself has a decidedly political characterBerger is a Marxist,
and he wants to bring attention to the issue of class struggle. He argues that art offers a clear
window to history and that modern technology has made it available to everyone, but contends
that art historians keep the masses from accessing their history by promoting a nostalgic view of
art that perpetuates aristocratic values. Although Berger seems to base this thesis on personal
opinions and assumptions, his views are engaging, insightful, and persuasive on many levels.
In the introductory chapter of Ways of Seeing, Berger argues that art offers a direct
view to what people saw historically and claims that reproductions have made it freely available,
but he insists that the current ways of promoting art prevent the average person from accessing it
(Berger 105-127). He explains that knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions affect how a viewer
interprets art. Berger suggests that many traditional assumptions about art are outdated and
obscure its interpretation. He feels that this obscurity keeps people from seeing their history and
learning from its valuable lessons and insights. He alleges that art historians promote these
assumptions by portraying the aristocracies and social hierarchies of the past in a favorable light.

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 3
Berger observes that in modern times, people view art differently than they did in the past. He
notes that when the camera came along, it reproduced images of unique paintings. He asserts that
because the originals are no longer unique for what their images show, art culture has chosen to
focus on their immense monetary value and on who has owned them historically. According to
Berger, this emphasis is nostalgic and represents the lingering traditional values of the
aristocracy. He believes that it propagates the idea that art is for the wealthy and discourages
common people from visiting museums. He points out that reproductions have made art free and
available for everybody, but maintains that most people do not realize this availability because
the means of production are used predominately to reinforce traditional notions about art. Berger
stresses that correct usage of reproductions would provide people with the ability to see their
history and relate their lives to it. He declares that cutting people off from access to their history
limits their power and concludes that, for this reason, art is a political matter.
It is easy to see that Bergers argument is very opinionated. Throughout his essay, he
presents his opinions as support for his thesis; but since opinions are open to disagreement, they
do not really strengthen his case. For example, while discussing what he feels are the problems
with a book on Frans Hals, Berger criticizes the author, Seymore Slive, for avoiding the only
confrontation that matters [...] A drama of an unforgettable contrast (Berger 112, 127). The
contrast that Berger speaks of is a contrast between Hals, a pauper, and the wealthy people he
painteda contrast between the rich and the poorbetween the haves and the have-nots. Berger
believes that such a contrast is the key issue and belongs in any proper discussion of Hals
painting. However, this is merely Bergers personal opinionnot a factand anyone else, Slive
included, might disagree with him on this point. In a later instance, Berger states his opinion that
personal bulletin boards containing, among other things, reproductions of paintings should

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 4
replace museums (Berger 122). He wants more people to have access to art so, apparently, he
would prefer to do away with museums and replace them with personal collections of images in
the home. Of course, this may be taking him a bit too literallyBerger might not actually be
suggesting that museums be closed down, but rather that home bulletin boards replete with
images should surpass museums as the popular means of viewing art. Since he provides no
explanations or examples to clarify or support his opinion, many readers will probably take his
statement at face value. Bergers support is insufficient, which makes his opinion less
convincing; and even if his idea has merit, it is still only an opinion and not a fact. While there is
nothing inherently wrong with expressing opinions in a written argument, at best, they can only
make the conclusion more convincingthey cant make it true.
Furthermore, much of Bergers argument is predicated on his particular set of
assumptions, and these underlie and ultimately undermine the foundation of his argument.
Consider the following case as an illustration. Berger points out that assumptions influence
interpretation of art. He then claims that many of our traditional assumptions about art are faulty,
since they dont accord with modern thinking (Berger 108). But what he really seems to mean is
that they dont accord with his way of thinking: Marxism. When Berger says that mystification
prevents people from seeing the past, he means that it prevents them from seeing the past the
way he wants them to. Berger feels that the current ways of teaching art and the assumptions
they promote are flawed because they tend to distract people from looking at art the way he
doesas a record of the socioeconomic disparity of the past (Berger 108-112). But although
much of his argument rests on the ideas and beliefs of his political philosophy, Berger makes no
efforts to highlight or discuss their merits. He just assumes that the reader with agree with his set
of underlying political and socioeconomic assumptions and doesnt even bother to defend them.

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 5
Clearly, many readers will disagree with at least some of them. Berger fails to recognize and
discuss alternate viewpoints and possible objections to his own assumptions, at least in this
section of his text. Therefore, his support is one-sided and overlooks other ways of seeing, which
serves to make his argument less convincing.
In spite of these shortcomings, Bergers argument remains compelling by bringing forth a
number of interesting points and observations. Surely, he is right that an interpretation of a
painting is influenced by what the viewer knows or believes (Berger 106,108). The veracity of
this point is aptly illustrated by his discussion of Hals paintings and the different ways that he
(Berger) and Slive see them (Berger 108-112). Bergers political beliefs influence him to
approach paintings differently than the typical art historian. He views art as a tool for social
criticism and with an eye for the social injustice and economic disparity it reveals historically. I
agree with his point that art is an important historical recordand perhaps the most direct
window to the past in certain respects (Berger 108). After all, as he points out, words can never
fully capture a sight the way an image can (Berger 105). Paintings from the past can reveal visual
detail with greater accuracy than other sources from the same era; and unlike literary texts and
history books, the art of the past has not been translated or rewritten and thus offers an untainted,
direct view from the very people who were there. Additionally, history books are generally
written about the lives and deeds of great menkings, nobles, conquerorsthe rich and
powerfulthe few and the privileged. Part of the importance of using art as a window to history
is that it sometimes reveals the views and viewpoints of people from the lower classes.
What these views show about the economic realities of the past is important to Berger,
and in another engaging example, he reveals a conspiracy theory that suggests such views are
marginalized by those who write art history. At first, I found rather dubious his claim that a

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 6
privileged minority is conspiring to create a version of history lenient toward the upper social
classes of the past; but after a good deal of consideration, I find his charge somewhat more
plausible (Berger 108). I must say that I cant completely rule it out. After all, at least part of
modern art culture does tend to represent the interests of an elite group: the culture of the super
richwealthy art patrons, billionaires and millionaires who buy and sell art, as well as
appraisers, museums, and auction houses. Those who are associated with this culture of wealth
and privilege are probably likely to look favorably upon the wealthy of the past and the social
position they maintained. In addition, those who have a current stake in this culture of privilege
might be likely to try to protect their interests by commissioning research and scholarship that
improves the image, value, and esteem of the artworks and the culture that surrounds them. Bad
publicity could add negative stigmas and devalue precious investments. Since most art experts
probably work in the industry, they might fear tarnishing the image of the establishment or
challenging the entrenched interests of the rich and the powerful that support it. Repercussions
for doing so could conceivably include the possibility of losing ones job, losing favor in social
circles, or even being completely ostracized and losing the ability to work in the industry at all.
Thus, it is not entirely unreasonable to imagine that there may be at least some degree of truth to
Bergers claim.
Overall, Bergers argument is profound and thought provoking despite the fact that it is
heavily opinionated and predicated on unexamined assumptions. Ways of Seeing is an appeal
to modern society that urges people to think critically about their traditional and accustomed
ways of viewing art. Berger makes the case that the art of the past can be a good source for
seeing history. He reminds readers that modern technology has freed this art from stuffy
museums and the exclusive mansions of the wealthy. He argues that the conventional approach

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 7
to viewing art both discourages people from accessing it and distracts people from viewing it as a
window to history. He contends that this faulty approach is the result of a concerted effort to
glamorize the rich and powerfulboth in history books and in the media. However, Bergers
methods rely on his personal opinions and assumptions for support, and this detracts from the
overall validity of his argument. Nonetheless, he does bring up many good points, and perhaps
his conspiracy theory is not completely unreasonable. Ultimately, Berger succeeds in making
readers more conscious of their own assumptions; and for this reason, his essay is a tour de force.
Once a person reads it, chances are, they will never look at art quite the same way again.

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved

Milton 8
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Ways of Reading. Eds. David Bartholomae and Andy
Petrosky. Boston: Bedford St. Martins, 1999. 105-127.

2007, 2013 Scott A. Milton All Rights Reserved