Coming to Terms/Ways of Seeing

The idea put forth in Ways of Seeing seemed to be primarily that the interpretation of a piece of art greatly changes once mass production alters the context of it; That a painting is not just a visual recreation or a symbolic representation, but also a physical, singular construct that has its own background and history. Seeing a painting as an object with an understanding of why it was created/commissioned and the story of how/when/why it has changed hands gives the viewer perspective.

That said, I take issue with the overlooked fact that this belief in itself is a single outlook. It's a scholarly outlook, but also self-serving to the importance of critical studies and condescending to "the masses" (sarcastic quotation functioning as projection of intent of point of argument from Ways of Seeing as suggested in Rewriting (Harris, 2006, Utah State University Press)). Ways of Seeing suggests that mass production has altered the possible interpretations of a work of art. It suggests this, but implies that these new interpretations are sub-par in comparison. I argue that my underwhelmed reaction to seeing an authentic Van Gogh at the London Art Museum--when compared to my greater, emotionally-invested reaction at an authentic Manet in the next room--is not less valid because each is available to view at the click of a button nor because I'm unfamiliar with the paintings' backgrounds. Neither is the reaction of someone looking at one of these painting via a grainy, reproduced photograph less valid. Solipsistic as it may be, my purely aesthetic response to an artist's ability to capture the impression of light on canvas holds far more value for me than an art scholar dismissing the same painting because the style is too similar to the artist's predecessor.