I recommend the book over the series. It was written after the original series aired, and gives more space to some interesting topics. For instance I don't recall the series discussing museum goers beliefs about museums.
Interestingly, this is not copyright infringement, or at least not for the text being reproduced here. The original book (1972) mentions "The text of this book is not copyright" [1]. The image reproductions could invite copyright trolls though, so be warned.
Berger had no credentials or education in anthropology or any science whatsoever but invented a whole movement that I think doesn't carry any scientific weight. His reputation is truly undeserved.
I think the fact that his work has been largely adopted by media experts, and is taught as dogma in film/media studies course work at the college level should be a strong signal that our ideas as a society about sex and body image are severely distorted and deeply problematic. Not in light of his work but because of it.
Berger’s way of ‘seeing’ is to situate yourself in the time and place, less ocular than you may assume. And then he wrote the touching Cataracts, about how he lost his vision and gained a new way to see. He regained his vision and soon died. Possibly this is why you’ve been downvoted.
If that's true then the down votes themselves are beautifully and ironically tone def in regards to Berger's advocacy of awareness of context and medium in which the viewer is interpreting the content.
I found the youtube copy of the series to be great - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-4LwAuTw7k
I recommend the book over the series. It was written after the original series aired, and gives more space to some interesting topics. For instance I don't recall the series discussing museum goers beliefs about museums.
yep, and Sony Music Entertainment auto-ensured shareholder value was maximized
Interestingly, this is not copyright infringement, or at least not for the text being reproduced here. The original book (1972) mentions "The text of this book is not copyright" [1]. The image reproductions could invite copyright trolls though, so be warned.
[1] https://pengpedia.org/edition/ways-of-seeing-john-berger-471...
I found Berger's writing pretty hard to digest. But thanks for the inspiration — will try again.
I came to Berger through Sontag’s On Photography. An easier companion.
Berger had no credentials or education in anthropology or any science whatsoever but invented a whole movement that I think doesn't carry any scientific weight. His reputation is truly undeserved.
I think the fact that his work has been largely adopted by media experts, and is taught as dogma in film/media studies course work at the college level should be a strong signal that our ideas as a society about sex and body image are severely distorted and deeply problematic. Not in light of his work but because of it.
His work is most definitely not taught as dogma. I assure you, there are plenty of courses that will be happy to explain to you about the old masters.
I’m confused, so now that he is considered influential in the fields he lacked credentials for how is that in any way a negative
Unless you think those fields were scientifically rigorous until they decided to adopt his ideas?
Maybe you just disagree with the existence of “male gaze”
Can you expand on that and point me at resources in this topic? Interesting.
> It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world
Do blind people not have a place in the surrounding world?
Berger’s way of ‘seeing’ is to situate yourself in the time and place, less ocular than you may assume. And then he wrote the touching Cataracts, about how he lost his vision and gained a new way to see. He regained his vision and soon died. Possibly this is why you’ve been downvoted.
If that's true then the down votes themselves are beautifully and ironically tone def in regards to Berger's advocacy of awareness of context and medium in which the viewer is interpreting the content.
So you're just here to tone police
I think Berger is. I also think it's wrong and ridiculous.