John Berger first says in Ways of Seeing that an image was first made to conjure up the
appearance of something that was absent and that eventually the image will
outlast what it represented. He’s correct when he says, “no other relic or text
from the past can offer such a direct testimony about the world which
surrounded other people at other times” (Berger 10). I absolutely saw this in
Matt Chmielarczyk’s iPhone photo exhibit. The images of his daughter through
her pain and happiness were striking. In that moment you can see the love and
adoration a father has for his daughter. The light he sees her in and it
translates beautifully.
When Berger writes about
assumptions we make about art, he discusses that our learnt assumptions obscure
the past. They mystify rather than clarify (Berger 11). I saw this with one
photo in particular in Matt’s exhibit. He captured 4 images of his daughter in
the car, clearly looking like she was in pain. Following the series of images I
only assumed that it was from her struggles with her leg. Fortunately, Matt
happened to be at the gallery that day during our class. I was lucky enough to
overhear him tell stories of certain pictures. It put some of the images into a
whole new perspective. As for the image of his daughter in the car, it turns
out that she was in pain but not from her leg. She had just accidently burned
her finger and she was mad about it. As Berger said our assumptions could
obscure how we see things. I made an assumption on where the pain stemmed from
which is logical considering the timeline of the photos but really it was a
completely different catalyst.
No comments:
Post a Comment