In this essay, I will discuss two works: a chapter of John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing” and Susan Bordo’s “Beauty (Re)discovers the Male Body” which I will refer to as Beauty from now on.
To compare, first, both works cover the topics of art, how it is viewed, how it affects culture, and the relevance of these topics in the modern world (although the two authors were speaking of two different modern times as there was a significant temporal gap in their writing). I will look into the points on which the two authors differ, I will try to keep this as brief as possible but as long as it needs to be.
While Bordo takes a rather non-descriptive standpoint on older art as it is reflected in today’s society, Berger says quite clearly that the meaning has been “mystified” over time. Bordo does mention Berger’s work in her essay, demonstrating an awareness of his work, but specifically quoting a section out of the chapter I read thus making it unclear how much of Berger’s viewpoint she agrees with. Taking this into consideration, and despite the many nuances of agreement in their separate writings, as a whole there is a great difference in mentality among these two authors.
For example, the comparisons Bordo makes are always rooted in a cultural backdrop of her own experience; i.e. the way we view the male body in direct correspondence with the way we view the female body all based on her own perception of how we view both and how this view has changed in a relatively small amount of time. Berger, on the other hand, lays out a basis of a philosophy for viewing art and objects that could be applied, seemingly, to any culture at any time, and a basis that is not rooted in one inherent method. When Bordo quotes Berger as saying “A man’s presence is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies…what he is capable of doing to you or for you,” she uses this quote to say that men are not typically represented as the true object of the viewpoint, but the agent in action within the viewpoint. This is an obvious mystification of Berger’s words, when he says doing “to you or for you” for example; one cannot assume that Berger was indicating that men can not be photographed or sculpted in a sexual manner. Bordo uses the quote and the author’s name to support her point, which is not relevant to the author’s words. You’ll notice Berger quotes only on a few occasions and gives a more full quote; he does, however, end up of being guilty of the same mystification, adding in his own italics as I’ve done here to support his point. It’s almost impossible to quote someone without doing this, and both authors are guilty, but Berger seems more aware of the problem.
Thus, there’s no way of saying Berger would agree or disagree with what Bordo is saying, and both seem to share an interest in maintaining a logical approach to examining and using art in culture. Berger’s thoughts on identifying the value and interpretation of art are clearly not based in its monetary value, but Bordo seems to indicate that because of the marketing success of Calvin Klein’s ads they were a “success.” She says also that because of their reaction from culture they were successful, but Berger would state that the value must be examined from the point of view of the person taking the photograph (or ordering the photograph to be taken) as well as by the way the person who views the photograph reacts. Bordo makes a lot of assumptions about Klein’s goals when making his ad campaigns based on her interpretation of them. This is one example of how she mystifies the works of another person, which she does quite often in her work, commenting on many pop culture movies, events, and using them to make her point, offering no counter-point. Berger would also say to look at the many ways of seeing, where Bordo offers one linear way of seeing the topic (hers). This isn’t to say anything of Bordo’s point or the meaning of her essay, which I won’t examine, but it is to say that their methods are very different inherently.
Now, as I said, the two pieces differ through method, but it is obvious that the two authors are working toward the same goal, which could be interpreted basically as preserving the meaning of art (preventing mystification), understanding art, and using it correctly while incorporating mass production and reproduction. At least, at no point in either piece did either writer say they wanted to stop reproduction or mass production of art, but both admit it devalues the work and distorts its perception. Berger’s example of viewing a classic work of art on your television in your home with the backdrop of your living room is clearly not the way you would see it in the place it was created, while Bordo makes the same point when stating that homosexual males watching Klein’s ads and heterosexuals (male and female) watching the same ads are perceiving two different things entirely. Allowing these mis-conceptions or differing conceptions of art is nearly impossible unless the viewer is able to understand their own perception. Berger states that the camera shows you a world only that camera can see at that moment, even if it’s a human taking the picture, and Bordo says that the man taking the picture shows you a new world that originally only he could see. Both are correct, and Berger would most likely agree with Bordo on that point, but make the distinct differentiation between that camera’s exact position in the world and that man’s, even if both are relatively close they are not exactly the same.
This difference in style may be indicated by both author’s place in time and their intent for writing. Berger is largely defending and explaining his style of critiquing art, as he was a well-known art critic, while Bordo’s modus operandi was to express a single point she herself created through the writing and persuade the writer into understanding her way of thinking on the topic.
My conclusion is that the obvious similarities in the two author’s works would appear misleading, initially leading me to believe they were speaking almost in unison; but the greater differences in their technique and mindset on the topic outweigh any general singularity in their work.
