----------In two different points of view, Michel Foucault?s ?Panopticism,? and John Berger?s ?Ways of Seeing,? essays explain both discipline and art; they both have a strong statement.
----------Foucault illustrates this idea by discussing on how one theoretical establishment called the ?Panopticism,? would centralize the use of learning, discipline, and detention in a confined space. The Panopticon was an idea of a single establishment that would allow the ?abnormal? to be seen by placing people in ?cells? in an auditorium like fashion that would all face a large pedestal. On this pedestal would be a man that could look into the eyes of those inside the cells but those inside the cells could not see that who was on the pedestal, because sunlight was brought in such a way that the person could not see. Workers, school children, laborers, inmates, people from all walks of life would be in these cells, for both learning and punishment. It seemed like the answer for everything, however: ?The Panopticon must not be understood as a dream building: it is the diagram of a mechanism of one power reduced to its ideal form; its functioning, abstracted from any obstacle, resistance or friction, must be represented as a pure architectural and optical system: it is in fact a figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use.? (Foucault 223) That however, instead of one centralized place for these ideals, transformed into dozens, if not thousands of establishments ranging from: the workplace, schools, and prisons, to even hospitals. The future holds many different types of establishments that we don?t even think about today. The freedoms we all exhibit now, could all be classified as something else tomorrow, perhaps even eventually against the law.
----------Ironic if you think about it, what gives a person the right to deem someone ?unfit? or ?abnormal?? An example would consist of someone telling a homeless person, ?Well, stop lying on the street and get a job!? When this person has always had a job and has no idea what it is like to be homeless. That person might be trying to get a job but hasn?t been able to. So for someone to call someone else abnormal and unfit for society, unless they have been in that situation, should have no right making distinguishments between the two. However, in the way Foucault presents this essay, he uses that ironic way of thinking to define his point.
----------In contrast, Berger discusses how artists are now behind paid to create something, and thus the artwork was not coming from their heart. As time progresses creativity goes down and the freedom to express one?s self diminishes. The value of the art that was created from the free spirited artist long ago has risen throughout time and is now worth thousands if not millions of dollars. Now the freedom of expression can be illustrated, for example, by that of graffiti, its free form of art and allows the artist to express themselves. The not so financially privileged toward original pieces of art are deprived from their right to own anything original. The financially underprivileged people that live in poor countries have very low education rates. ?In the end, the art of the past in 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.? (Berger 136). Berger here is saying that the meaning of art is changing because the rich could have an original pieces of art created in their name and then have that art duplicated to spread their influence, and their wallet.
----------Between these two essays, they both explain how people are limited to how much they can do at any given time. What was once the idea of one institution to help everyone, turned into thousands of establishments. So instead of having a single building for everything, it is now split up into factories, schools, prisons, and even hospitals. From a world where anyone could be an artist, keeping their creative and open-hearted minds at work, to a world where many artists are now being paid by advertising agencies to make a living. This gives some people the feeling that in order to break off from this form of society, they must rebel and put graffiti in a public place in order to express themselves. Where have these idea?s gone? With a society founded upon equal rights and freedoms, this society is slowly but surely taking away all to that was given to us.
Facebook
Twitter