Ways of Seeing

The biggest difficulty I ended up having with this reading was being able to look at it philosophically. So rather than cause myself undue headache, I read it as myself, a person who has read a lot of literature but isn't so great on the art aspect of things. The idea that images are more precise and richer than literature is probably true, although it is not a concept that I necessarily agree with. The beauty of un-illustrated literature is the ability to devise one's own images. While images are more precise, therefore, I believe that imagined images based on text are far richer. Also, I feel that the idea of "when we `see' a landscape, we situate ourselves in it. If we `saw' the art of the past, we would situate ourselves in history," is, if not antiquated, then not necessarily true of the majority (p.11). I can honestly say that I have never looked at a landscape and situated myself in that landscape. Perhaps I am the rarity, or I am just not understanding the basic meaning of this particular sentence. When I go to a museum and look at the "art of the past" and the pottery and items used everyday, I don't situate myself in history. I may observe history, but I don't personally feel as though I'm suddenly there. One of the big points in the first essay that I do agree with is that through art making the travel, its meaning is diversified. I don't know how many people look at a particular piece of artwork and feel the exact same thing as someone else. To me, that outlook would be incredibly dull. I don't necessarily agree that the only way that art can have multiple meanings to multiple people is to be shown through the television where it then becomes a part of another persons home amidst their belongings. I think, rather, that...

... middle of paper ...

...keting major. I wasn't a big fan of the idea of making up things that had nothing to do with the product in order to sell things that people don't need. Publicity proposes that by buying a certain product we will become better people. Is this really true in the long run? Why is it that people constantly fall for this? The fact that someone as morally reprehensible as Paris Hilton can tell us to buy something and we will do it? What does that say for us as a society? What is really important in this society? Why is glamour so important? Why is being envied a form of reassurance? Why aren't people comfortable with themselves without the inherent need to make others feel worse about themselves? I understand that we are a consumer society, and I understand that people rely on the principle of the more you have the more you are, but this just doesn't make sense to me.