John Berger is no more; the first intellectual casualty of
2017. For the Indian art students Berger was a primer and he would remain so
for many more years to come. Those who have not even heard about Marxian view
of/on art would also read and see Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ without any
ideological counter critique. Ernst Fischer obviously was a Marxian art
historian but Berger was not openly so. He used the methodologies of Marxian
history but was not always pitching on art as an extension of labour. For him
it was something more than labour and religion; it was an outcome of the
social, emotional and intellectual lives of the human beings. In a way, art was
a product of the social milieu for Berger and he definitely thought it was a
tool to democracy. A staunch believer in the democratic values of art, Berger
stood for a people’s art and if they failed to understand art as art he told
them how to see art through a famous BBC serial titled ‘Ways of Seeing’ which
later on became a pivotal book with the same title in the modern art historical
discourse. His second take ‘About Looking’ though did not get the acclamation
that his seminal work on seeing had gained.
Indian art history students even today pass pen drives
containing the whole episodes of the Ways of Seeing serial and many of them
watch it in youtube where you could see a rather young looking Berger who
strangely resembles Alberto Giocometti and an Italian mafia don at once
explains away art first by a blasphemous incision made on a print of a
Renaissance painting. I do not remember the details of the serial that I had
seen much later since reading the book in early 1990s as a student in Baroda. I
had graduated from the more ‘Moorish’ Herbert Read who had written a lot on
Henry Moore and the story as well as history of art. When I was reading Read I
thought it was the ultimate book soon to be disillusioned by a shocking
introduction to Berger and Fischer. I was yet to learn art history
methodologically but I knew the crux of art history that the way I liked was
there in Berger’s book, ‘Ways of Seeing’. When he describes three young but
unknown men in their Sunday best going to church, he says that they must be
from the working class for their hands showed coarse webbing on the upper skin.
Yes, definitely it was a way of seeing art! Later when I was reading Heideggar’s
take on Van Gogh’s ‘Shoes’ (peasant shoes), I understood it better because I
had already read Berger.
(Berger in Ways of Seeing Series in BBC)
Two books by Berger became important as far as understanding
modern art history; one was, ‘Success and Failure of Picasso’ and the second
one was ‘Art and Revolution: Ernst Neizvestny’. The first was on Pablo Picasso
and the second was on a Russian artist who stood against the acclaimed
socialist realism supported by the propaganda machine of the Communist
Government in the erstwhile USSR. I understood about Picasso through Berger but
what I remember today is him talking about the etchings, artist and the model
series and the famous Vuillard Suit. I do not remember much from the book now.
The second one was more appealing because, Berger spoke of making the works
inside out. Neizvestny had externalised the internal things that went into the
surface of art and which was quite new. This was literal take of turning things
inside out. Neizvestny’s art did not become so famous despite the good efforts
of Berger. The other books like the Permanent Red and the Moment of Cubism and
Other Essays came and went. He was the undisputed master of a different kind of
art history but it was soon discarded by the market orientation of art. The
philosophical bend of Berger was no longer needed for the art world to move and
shake a work of art; his place was taken over by suited and booted museum directors
and high flying curators, art consultants and the representatives of the
auction houses. Berger couldn’t stand this onslaught. Personally speaking I was
not looking for Berger either these days.
The art critic in Berger was brought forth by the artist in
him. He was an artist in 1940s and had several shows in London. But his
critical practice soon turned him into a full fledged and popular art historian
than an artist. Perhaps this is the same fate of the expatriate Pakistani
artist, Rasheed Araeen who migrated from Pakistan to Britain and became one of
the pioneers in conceptual art practice. But history was not in favour him;
Araeen’s Asian identity problematized by his Muslim identity and his close
perusal of the socio-political developments in Britain in the turbulent 70s and
80s made him a controversial figure to begin with and soon he turned to his
critical practice by establishing Third Text, one of the highly acclaimed
journals for art and culture, which eventually pushed his art behind and Araeen
became more of an ideologue for the radical left from a migrant community which
stood no chance in the extreme right liberal Britain in 1980s and 90s. Berger’s
art gave way to his writing and his art historical contributions have also
affected his readership for other works including novels, screenplays, short
stories, poems etc at least in India. I had to read his novels but because of
my prejudice about him as an art historian, I never succeeded in reading his
other works. There is a problem with very famous novels like G by Berger. Take
any extremely famous novels which are actually collected but hardly read. For
example Orhan Pamuk’s ‘My Name is Red’ and ‘Museum of Innocence’ (while his
Black Book, Istanbul, New Life, Strangeness in Mind and so on remain widely
read books), Catch 22, Ayan Rand’s Fountain Head, Vikram Seth’s ‘Suitable Boy’,
the later novels of ‘Salman Rushdie’; people talk about them but fail in
reading them.
(cover of Ways of Seeing)
John Berger belonged to the age of Sartre when the
philosophers were art lovers and art writers in their own rights. Novelists
were great music lovers. Artists read and followed intellectual discourse. They
never discussed real estate, branded clothes, cars and parties. Americans
screwed up everything with Warhol and co, later Britain picked it up the
degenerating tendencies from the US. Perhaps, Berger’s escape to Paris was a
sort of seeking asylum, finding refuge and for leading a hermitage’s life.
Berger would remain so long was there art students who would like to see how
others saw works of art theoretically. But when art becomes tourism projects, I
am not sure whether Berger would last or not. But there will be always a
minority who would like to look at things for the beauty of it; I had my first
copy of Ways of Seeing as a photocopied and hard bound one, which I still
treasure. Those people who create installations with art books and never care
to read them rule the art scene but the legacy of people like Berger scare them
pretty well forcing them to scream in their sleep. May god bless them and may
John Berger rest in peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment