Well, I'm stuck again. I hate my writing, it's never been good. Yet it's a G.E.R (gen. edu. req.) and I must do it.. So without further adue, here is my 1 page paper due tomarrow.
If you could make any corrections/fragment-grammer-sentence structure fixes/or just give quick fixable suggestions I would appreciate it. I'll check in tomarrow morning and read what yall have to say.. I know it sucks, but as I said.. Im no writer.
Reflective 1 Page Paper From an Essay we read, supposed to be for people who may have never read John Bergers "Ways of Seeing", or the film: Dziga Vertov's "Man w/movie Camera"
===================================
-------------Going back to when we started reading John Berger?s ?Way?s of Seeing?, I remember reading through it the first time with the impression I knew what Berger was talking about. It took a few weeks of re-reading the essay and discussing it with the class, to help me understand what Berger was trying to get across. Even now, I cannot be certain, but at least I have a better understanding of what he was trying to say.
-------------In the beginning, after reading Berger?s essay for the first time though, I thought that Berger was trying to say that art was simply getting more expensive to buy, and that the poor could never amount to own such a prized possession. After analyzing it the first time in class, I saw the contradictions between the rich and the poor, the educated and the non-educated. To be brutally honest I don?t even remember even seeing the book?s chart on education, reading it the first time through. After we started taking the essay apart, only then I knew that there was much more to be learned from this essay. It took me some time of looking back into the essay to find the answers to some of my questions.
-------------As luck had it, we were charged with re-reading the entire essay and basically re-analyzing it ourselves. This time, I was more aware of what to look for in Berger?s explanations. An example would be that at some point in the essay, Berger was talking about how replicated pieces of art are ?Structured images of reality that address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time.? (Berger, 141) Initially, I thought that to be an excuse for those financially privileged in our society to continue making replica?s of art for those with royal stature in order to give the general public a constant reminder of who was in power. It took me another read though the entire essay to understand more from what he was saying. We did just that.
-------------After the third read through of the essay and discussion with our class, I believe I finally started to understand what this essay was talking about. In fact, the essay?s main point may have very well been the exact opposite of what I thought it meant. We even watched Dziga Vertov?s film ?Man with the Movie Camera? to future help us understand Berger?s main point. The video was a compilation of video footage strung together to simulate the camera?s ?eye? by trying to follow the world?s everyday happenings from morning until night. The video had been trying to say that a camera could be anywhere, at any time, and could just as easily portray something positive as negative, but it could not be in two places at the same time.
-------------That brings us back to the original quote, ??who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time.? (Berger, 141, second half of quote). Simply watching that movie helped make sense of Berger?s essay. Berger even referred to the video within his essay, showing that he too, was influenced by this film. By further analyzing this essay, we come to realize that it is not about the rich trying to spread their influence, or how bad this is, but it is about how it helps society and how good it really is. Sure art may be more expensive through its original form, but replications allow art to continue to influence the lives around them. Allowing people create their own opinions on ?what? exactly that piece of art really signifies. If an artist can make someone think, I believe that then they have the right to call themselves an artist. After taking the time out to re-read this essay a number of times, I believe that this is easier to understand now than it was when I first read it. The ability to understand something takes time, and this concept applies even today.
If you could make any corrections/fragment-grammer-sentence structure fixes/or just give quick fixable suggestions I would appreciate it. I'll check in tomarrow morning and read what yall have to say.. I know it sucks, but as I said.. Im no writer.
Reflective 1 Page Paper From an Essay we read, supposed to be for people who may have never read John Bergers "Ways of Seeing", or the film: Dziga Vertov's "Man w/movie Camera"
===================================
-------------Going back to when we started reading John Berger?s ?Way?s of Seeing?, I remember reading through it the first time with the impression I knew what Berger was talking about. It took a few weeks of re-reading the essay and discussing it with the class, to help me understand what Berger was trying to get across. Even now, I cannot be certain, but at least I have a better understanding of what he was trying to say.
-------------In the beginning, after reading Berger?s essay for the first time though, I thought that Berger was trying to say that art was simply getting more expensive to buy, and that the poor could never amount to own such a prized possession. After analyzing it the first time in class, I saw the contradictions between the rich and the poor, the educated and the non-educated. To be brutally honest I don?t even remember even seeing the book?s chart on education, reading it the first time through. After we started taking the essay apart, only then I knew that there was much more to be learned from this essay. It took me some time of looking back into the essay to find the answers to some of my questions.
-------------As luck had it, we were charged with re-reading the entire essay and basically re-analyzing it ourselves. This time, I was more aware of what to look for in Berger?s explanations. An example would be that at some point in the essay, Berger was talking about how replicated pieces of art are ?Structured images of reality that address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time.? (Berger, 141) Initially, I thought that to be an excuse for those financially privileged in our society to continue making replica?s of art for those with royal stature in order to give the general public a constant reminder of who was in power. It took me another read though the entire essay to understand more from what he was saying. We did just that.
-------------After the third read through of the essay and discussion with our class, I believe I finally started to understand what this essay was talking about. In fact, the essay?s main point may have very well been the exact opposite of what I thought it meant. We even watched Dziga Vertov?s film ?Man with the Movie Camera? to future help us understand Berger?s main point. The video was a compilation of video footage strung together to simulate the camera?s ?eye? by trying to follow the world?s everyday happenings from morning until night. The video had been trying to say that a camera could be anywhere, at any time, and could just as easily portray something positive as negative, but it could not be in two places at the same time.
-------------That brings us back to the original quote, ??who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time.? (Berger, 141, second half of quote). Simply watching that movie helped make sense of Berger?s essay. Berger even referred to the video within his essay, showing that he too, was influenced by this film. By further analyzing this essay, we come to realize that it is not about the rich trying to spread their influence, or how bad this is, but it is about how it helps society and how good it really is. Sure art may be more expensive through its original form, but replications allow art to continue to influence the lives around them. Allowing people create their own opinions on ?what? exactly that piece of art really signifies. If an artist can make someone think, I believe that then they have the right to call themselves an artist. After taking the time out to re-read this essay a number of times, I believe that this is easier to understand now than it was when I first read it. The ability to understand something takes time, and this concept applies even today.
Facebook
Twitter