John Berger's

Ways of Seeing is a philosophic necessity. It is one of those books I was told to read many times during undergrad, and never did. Now that I have read it, I realize I was indirectly taught it a few times. But if you have not read it, it is a wonderful, subversive intro into why most art prior to 1900 was actually the opposite of the intellectual pursuit that we now consider to be art. And if you don't think that, well, you should read it. Berger touches on many topics provocatively, including Walter Benjamin and Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, objectification of women in painting, and the similarities between art that is commodity and "publicity," which I think could be more aptly called "advertisement" to better serve his argument, though maybe his argument is a little more extreme if he uses "publicity," because then he could even be talking about the marketing plan of a nonprofit whose sole purpose is to feed hungry children. A quote from Berger:

"The pursuit of individual happiness has been acknowledged as a universal right. Yet the existing social conditions make the individual feel powerless. He lives in the contradiction between what he is and what he would like to be. Either he then becomes fully conscious of the contradiction and its causes, and so joins the political struggle for a full democracy which entails, amongst other things, the overthrow of capitalism; or else he lives, continually subject to an envy which, compounded with his sense of powerlessness, dissolves into recurrent daydreams. It is this which makes it possible to understand why publicity remains credible. The gap between what publicity actually offers and the future it promises, corresponds with the gap between what the spectator-buyer feels himself to be and what he would like to be. The two gaps become one; and instead of the single gap being bridged by action or lived experience, it is filled with glamorous daydreams."
!

It is important to note that this book was written in the 70s. So. It is still relevant, and I am backtracking a little bit in my reading right now. It's not that this concept of "whose side are you on?" is anything wildly revolutionary at this point, but Berger articulates its connection to art in a way that I can really grasp.

"Pulicity does not manufacture the dream. All that it does is to propose to each one of us that we are not yet enviable--yet could be. Publicity has another important social function. The fact that this function has not been planned as a purpose by those who make and use publicity in no way lessens its significance. Publicity turns consumption into a substitute for democracy. The choice of what one eats (or wears or drives) takes the place of significant political choice. Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society. And it also masks what is happening in the rest of the world."

Berger expects that readers will see that this argument works with an ad for deodorant or an oil painting of grapes and cheese, which is an illusionistic representation of wealth or things that can be bought.

So... do I (we, you, etc.) participate in the capitalism of "art"? How can my work subvert it? How can it suggest the overthrow of it? The artists who have used the tradition to either secretly or publicly subvert capitalism in art (such as Rembrandt, Mel Chin, etc.) are the most successful ones, Berger proposes, and I agree. This is the trajectory I am attempting with the books. To be continued...