Marketing
Sugar and Spice & Trial run
'What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And everything nice,
That’s what little girls are made of.
What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs’ tails,
That’s what little boys are made of.'
Ponovno se malo pravim Englez.
Nekako kao da je sve lakše gledano iz te fotelje. Recimo... kad su nekakve drame u pitanju, il' se praviš da ne znaš, ili stvarno ne znaš.
Ja, evo, ne znam što je s ovim dvjema dramam iz naslova - nit' čitala, nit' gledala, al' to su naslovi Nigela Williamsa, jednako kao što je njegov i naslov iz prethodnog posta. Nakanila sam ih nekoliko iskoristiti, a ovaj put je biranje nasljednika bilo na - eci, peci, pec... pa ispali ovi o kojima blagog pojma nemam.
Al' dobro - kupiš jedan, dobiš dva.
***
’Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it
can speak.'
can speak.'
Došla mi je ovih dana pod ruku knjiga 'Ways of Seeing' Johna Bergera. Knjiga je o umjetnost, tj. o načinu na kojeg gledamo slike, a temelji se na istoimenoj BBC-jevoj televizijskoj seriji iz 1972. godine koja je svojevremeno digla puno prašine.
John Berger je bio engleski književnik i likovni kritičar, slikar, pjesnik i zagriženi marksist. Njegovo 'kritičko gledanje', tj. djelo 'Ways of Seeing' i danas je jedno od bitnijih naslova u obrazovanju iz povijesti umjetnosti.
'Školska knjiga' je 2021. izdala knjigu na hrvatskom jeziku:
''Načini gledanja' zbirka je sedam eseja o vizualnoj umjetnosti, od kojih su četiri tekstualna i tri isključivo slikovna. Knjiga se temelji na istoimenoj dokumentarnoj seriji BBC-a koju je uredio i vodio John Berger. Prvi put je objavljena 1972. godine i već je tada postigla zapaženu recepciju stručne i opće javnosti. Ususret pedesetoj godišnjici objavljivanja ovog kultnog naslova, po prvi puta donosimo inačicu na hrvatskome jeziku.
Cilj je knjige dekonstruirati tumačenje umjetnosti koje je zagovarao tada iznimno popularan televizijski serijal Civilizacija povjesničara Kennetha Clarka. Suprotstavljajući se takvom zanesenom diskursu o kanonskim djelima isključivo „velikih” umjetnika, Berger svoju naraciju temelji na čitanju umjetničkih djela kao kulturnih artefakata te time smiono intervenira u akademsko znanje o umjetnosti. Bilo da raspravlja o uljenoj slici, reklami za alkoholno piće ili muzejskoj prezentaciji umjetnosti, konzistentno upućuje na to kako umjetnost reflektira društveni i politički kontekst u kojemu je nastala.
U prvome eseju autor razlaže odnos između gledanja i znanja (spoznaje) pokazujući kako naše predodžbe utječu na način na koji gledamo i vidimo određenu sliku. U drugome eseju bavi se objektifikacijom žene, koja se iz realnosti prelijevala na slikarsko platno. Treći je esej posvećen tradiciji uljenog slikarstva, o kojemu se raspravlja kroz prizmu odnosa moći u društvu. Konačno, posljednji se esej fokusira na vlasništvo u konzumerističkom društvu, s naglaskom na prisvajanje simbola i korištenje slikovnih prikaza – poglavito fotografije – u promidžbi, odnosno reklamnoj industriji.
Karakteristično likovno-grafičko oblikovanje koje je knjiga zadržala i u hrvatskom izdanju odražava njegovo podrijetlo u televizijskom iskustvu, unutar kojega tekst i reprodukcije djeluju na promatrača istodobno, dinamikom u kojoj jedno drugo uvjetuju. Produkcija knjige u crno-bijeloj boji, u minimalističkom slogu i relativno skromna opsega i dimenzija predstavlja namjeran i radikalan odmak od ideje obimne, vizualno raskošne knjige (eng. coffee-table book) koja se nerijetko poistovjećuje s vizualnim umjetnostima.
Bergerova knjiga i pristup imali su golem utjecaj u povijesti umjetnosti, ali i u području humanističkih znanosti u cjelini. Djelo je u posljednjih pedeset godina prevedeno na više od trideset svjetskih jezika te ima antologijsku vrijednost.'
Cilj je knjige dekonstruirati tumačenje umjetnosti koje je zagovarao tada iznimno popularan televizijski serijal Civilizacija povjesničara Kennetha Clarka. Suprotstavljajući se takvom zanesenom diskursu o kanonskim djelima isključivo „velikih” umjetnika, Berger svoju naraciju temelji na čitanju umjetničkih djela kao kulturnih artefakata te time smiono intervenira u akademsko znanje o umjetnosti. Bilo da raspravlja o uljenoj slici, reklami za alkoholno piće ili muzejskoj prezentaciji umjetnosti, konzistentno upućuje na to kako umjetnost reflektira društveni i politički kontekst u kojemu je nastala.
U prvome eseju autor razlaže odnos između gledanja i znanja (spoznaje) pokazujući kako naše predodžbe utječu na način na koji gledamo i vidimo određenu sliku. U drugome eseju bavi se objektifikacijom žene, koja se iz realnosti prelijevala na slikarsko platno. Treći je esej posvećen tradiciji uljenog slikarstva, o kojemu se raspravlja kroz prizmu odnosa moći u društvu. Konačno, posljednji se esej fokusira na vlasništvo u konzumerističkom društvu, s naglaskom na prisvajanje simbola i korištenje slikovnih prikaza – poglavito fotografije – u promidžbi, odnosno reklamnoj industriji.
Karakteristično likovno-grafičko oblikovanje koje je knjiga zadržala i u hrvatskom izdanju odražava njegovo podrijetlo u televizijskom iskustvu, unutar kojega tekst i reprodukcije djeluju na promatrača istodobno, dinamikom u kojoj jedno drugo uvjetuju. Produkcija knjige u crno-bijeloj boji, u minimalističkom slogu i relativno skromna opsega i dimenzija predstavlja namjeran i radikalan odmak od ideje obimne, vizualno raskošne knjige (eng. coffee-table book) koja se nerijetko poistovjećuje s vizualnim umjetnostima.
Bergerova knjiga i pristup imali su golem utjecaj u povijesti umjetnosti, ali i u području humanističkih znanosti u cjelini. Djelo je u posljednjih pedeset godina prevedeno na više od trideset svjetskih jezika te ima antologijsku vrijednost.'
Kako se ja pravim Englez, i knjiga koju čitam je na engleskom jeziku, a pažnju mi je iz nje privukao ovaj dio:
'An image is a sight which has
been recreated or reproduced, it is an appearance, or a set of
appearances, which has been detached from the place and timin which it first made its appearance and preserved - for a few
moments or a few centuries. Every image embodies a way of
seeing. Even a photograph. For photographs are not, as is
often assumed, a mechanical record. Every time we look at a
photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the
photographer selecting that sight from an infinity of other
possible sights. This is true even in the most casual family
snapshot. The photographer’s way of seeing is reflected in his
choice of subject. The painter’s way of seeing is reconstituted
by the marks he makes on the canvas or paper. Yet, although
every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or
appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of
seeing. (it may be, for example, that Sheila is one figure among
twenty; but for our own reasons she is the one we have eyes
for.)
Images were first made to conjure up the
appearances of something that was absent. Gradually it
became evident that an image could outlast what it
represented; it then showed how something or somebody had
once looked ~ and thus by implication how the subject had
once been seen by other people. Later still the specific vision
of the image-maker was also recognized as part of the record.
An image became a record of how X had seen Y. This was the
result of an increasing consciousness of individuality,
accompanying an increasing awareness of history. It would be
rash to try to date this last development precisely. But
certainly in Europe such consciousness has existed since the
beginning of the Renaissance.
No other kind of relic or text from the past can
offer such a direct testimony about the world which
surrounded other people at other times. In this respect
images are more precise and richer than literature. To say this
is not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art,
treating it as mere documentary evidence; the more imaginative
the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the
artist’s experience of the visible.
Yet when an image is presented as a work of art,
the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learnt
assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning:
Beauty
Truth
Genius
Civilization
Form
Status ~
Taste, etc.
Many of these assumptions no longer accord with
the world as it is. (The world-as-it-is is more than pure
objective fact, it includes consciousness.) Out of true with the
present, these assumptions obscure the past. They mystify
rather than clarify. The past is never there waiting to be
discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is. History
always constitutes the relation between a present and its past.
Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the
past. The past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusions
from which we draw in order to act. Cultural mystification of
’~he past entails a double loss. Works of art are made
unnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewer
conclusions to complete in action.
When we "see" a landscape, we situate ourselves
in it. If we "saw’ the art of the past, we would situate
ourselves in history. When we are prevented from seeing it,
we are being deprived of the history which belongs to us.
Who benefits from this deprivation ? In the end, the art of the
past is being mystified because a privileged minority is
striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify
the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can
no longer make sense in modern terms. And so, inevitably, it
mystifies.'
been recreated or reproduced, it is an appearance, or a set of
appearances, which has been detached from the place and timin which it first made its appearance and preserved - for a few
moments or a few centuries. Every image embodies a way of
seeing. Even a photograph. For photographs are not, as is
often assumed, a mechanical record. Every time we look at a
photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the
photographer selecting that sight from an infinity of other
possible sights. This is true even in the most casual family
snapshot. The photographer’s way of seeing is reflected in his
choice of subject. The painter’s way of seeing is reconstituted
by the marks he makes on the canvas or paper. Yet, although
every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or
appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of
seeing. (it may be, for example, that Sheila is one figure among
twenty; but for our own reasons she is the one we have eyes
for.)
Images were first made to conjure up the
appearances of something that was absent. Gradually it
became evident that an image could outlast what it
represented; it then showed how something or somebody had
once looked ~ and thus by implication how the subject had
once been seen by other people. Later still the specific vision
of the image-maker was also recognized as part of the record.
An image became a record of how X had seen Y. This was the
result of an increasing consciousness of individuality,
accompanying an increasing awareness of history. It would be
rash to try to date this last development precisely. But
certainly in Europe such consciousness has existed since the
beginning of the Renaissance.
No other kind of relic or text from the past can
offer such a direct testimony about the world which
surrounded other people at other times. In this respect
images are more precise and richer than literature. To say this
is not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art,
treating it as mere documentary evidence; the more imaginative
the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the
artist’s experience of the visible.
Yet when an image is presented as a work of art,
the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learnt
assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning:
Beauty
Truth
Genius
Civilization
Form
Status ~
Taste, etc.
Many of these assumptions no longer accord with
the world as it is. (The world-as-it-is is more than pure
objective fact, it includes consciousness.) Out of true with the
present, these assumptions obscure the past. They mystify
rather than clarify. The past is never there waiting to be
discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is. History
always constitutes the relation between a present and its past.
Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the
past. The past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusions
from which we draw in order to act. Cultural mystification of
’~he past entails a double loss. Works of art are made
unnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewer
conclusions to complete in action.
When we "see" a landscape, we situate ourselves
in it. If we "saw’ the art of the past, we would situate
ourselves in history. When we are prevented from seeing it,
we are being deprived of the history which belongs to us.
Who benefits from this deprivation ? In the end, the art of the
past is being mystified because a privileged minority is
striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify
the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can
no longer make sense in modern terms. And so, inevitably, it
mystifies.'
Zanimljiv u svakom slučaju, no moram priznati da još uvijek nisam sve izanalizirala i nema jasan stav o svemu.
A kak' se vama čini?
Mrmlj... ne da mi ubaciti video
Sam' bi se nešto ograničavalo :I
Post je objavljen 11.07.2025. u 12:54 sati.