The meaning of life (as related to dentists)

Rick Politician
Christian Stuart
English 131
June 8, 2005
SA2.1: New Meanings Find Old Works of Art
In his book, Ways of Seeing, John Berger, a British novelist, painter and art critic, argues that “The art of the past no longer exists as it once did” (Stygall 174).  He relates how paintings, drawing and sculptures were previously unique and appreciated for their “direct testimonies about the world which surrounded other people at other times” (Stygall 157).  For instance, Michelangelo’s David was first displayed to the public in the year 1504.  It was a testament during the Renaissance period to the advancing understanding of anatomy, the interest in Biblical history and the conflicts between individual Italian city states at that time (Lorenzi; Michelangelo’s).  The David was originally a reflection of Italian society in the early 1500’s.
Berger goes on to describe the how the ability to reproduce images of works of art through the use of a camera changed the art world.  The image of the art piece is no longer unique and wholly owned by the art piece itself.  Instead, reproduction in the scale that it exists today allows for everyone to have access to the image of an art piece.  Since anyone can own the image, the image has lost its material value.  Or, as Berger states, “For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free” (Stygall 174).
Along with increased accessibility of images, the interpretation of the image has changed.  No longer is an image of a painting only framed on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  Now this image can be plastered onto t-shirts, billboards and web pages.  The meaning of the image can be wholly changed by the context in which the image is placed, an accompanying description, framing only a certain section of the image, or physically altering part of the image to fit one’s needs (Stygall 168).  The meaning of a painting assigned by the viewer of the image has also developed in that “What we make” of a painting “depends today upon how we have already experienced the meaning of painting through reproductions.”  Each time one sees a reproduction of an image, one attaches new meaning to the image based upon the situation within which the image is presented.  Furthermore, one does not see the image anew each viewing, but has already learnt assumptions attached to the image that carry over from viewing to viewing.
Berger also discusses the mystification of original art work by present day art critics.  Mystification can be defined as “the process of explaining away what might otherwise be evident” (Stygall 161).  Art critics mystify a work of art by over enthusiastically assigning awe-inspiring traits to the art work or artist of the art work.  For instance, Frans Hals’ was a 17th century Dutch painter who painted portraits of the middle class citizens from his hometown of Haarlem for commissions to support his wife and ten children (Hals).  Berger uses a critic’s description of artist Frans Hals’ paintings to typify mystification:
Hal’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 (Stygall 161)
This quote mystifies Frans Hals and his paintings giving one the false impression that Hals had the financial freedom to paint with a “commitment to his personal vision…to give us a close view of life’s vital forces.”  If one looked at Hals’ financial situation, one could see the forces at work may have been the desire to feed his family.  Thus, Frans Hals portraits may have been painted in line with the desires of his benefactors, and not his own “personal vision.”
I think Berger complicates Fish’s idea of interpretive communities giving meaning to a text.  Berger describes how the meaning of an art work’s image has become transmittable based on the context in which the image has been placed, not the interpretive communities’ interpretations (Stygall 168).  Berger’s “individual” seems to have the power to shape meaning.  I think the most interesting idea of Berger’s is that great works of art are used to legitimize authority.  This idea can be taken further to say that current day governments use remarkable monuments and institutions to legitimize government.  Without a strong ruling power the most amazing monuments and institutions would not exist today.  Some examples include the Great Wall of China, the Great Pyramids, NASA, the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Internet.