“This is the first of four programmes in which I want to question some of the assumptions usually made about European paintings…” he says. By chance, they land on the image of a man with shaggy hair in a gallery, his back to the camera, cutting out a portion of Botticelli’s Venus And Mars with a pocket knife.
Picture someone, somewhere in England, switching channels on 8 January 1972. Given the ubiquity and influence of the book, it’s curious to think that there must still be a few people today who remember experiencing it as a bolt from the blue. There was plenty of evidence for that (in the murderous crimes of many communist countries) by 1972 when the book was written, and it wasn't honest even then to make such claims.For a text so suspicious of tradition, Ways Of Seeing has long been canon itself. are our human failings, not products of 'capitalism' : if you make one more scapegoat out of 'capitalism' (without having better alternatives), you just get destruction. I don't mind that it often blames 'property' (which certainly isn't always 'fair'), but I don't like that (only very near the end, talking about advertising) it goes so far as to say we have a choice between 'envy' and discontent on the one hand, and 'overthrowing capitalism' on the other hand.
(It allows that there are such things as 'beauty' and 'great artists', but doesn't really talk about them.)Īll this is linked to how our society functions. Instead, it's almost completely negative: about how art can be overvalued financially, how we can be over-respectful of art (especially 'oil painting') that may not always deserve so much respect, and how our misguided respect can be exploited by (visual) advertising. It's my mistake, but I was expecting a book that would make you keener to look at art works, by explaining a bit what can be worthwhile about them. This book makes strong statements, and forces you to think and argue - I think that is a very good thing.
0 kommentar(er)
