There are merits on both sides. But if I were to be reductive, I'd say that Berger takes an essentially materialist approach to culture, whereas Gribbin believes in the existence of spirit - hence, (de)mystification.
I agree that the Berger passage on animals is fascinating and beautiful, but ultimately he turns away from them as "messengers and promises [...] magical functions, sometimes oracular, sometimes sacrificial" and is mainly concerned with the things "addressed to man."
Thanks for your comment Neil. I think reductiveness is one of the things that bothers me, to be honest. I'm not sure I agree that Berger turns away from the animals and is only concerned with "man". One of the reasons why Berger is so good on animals is that he spent almost his entire life living alongside them and advocating for the peasant farmers whose livelihoods depended on them. He comments somewhere that the peasant farmer loves the animal that he slaughters. That this is not a contradiction. He also is quoted as saying "There persists this illusion that everything can be resolved - and the great tragedies have been a result of this impatience with contradiction. It's interesting: the peasant will live with contradiction, the dualisms of life and death, hope and despair. And fiction is about this dualism. Perhaps this is why some of my readers have such a problem with my stories.'' My view is that Berger's contribution to culture has been immense and can't be dismissed in quite the way Gribbin attempts.
Thank you for engaging with this whole subject. It is really interesting to tease apart the contradictions. There is definitely depth and beauty in his work, but I can see how people might be turned off by Ways of Seeing.
I read the Gribbin piece and it did strike me as someone consciously attempting to surf on the cultural wave; the one that's seeking to "correct" the perceived overreach of postmodernist, identitarian, woke thinking. The "we" thing, I reckon, is a rhetorical strategy to appeal to a certain populist, common sensism, that when you look closely, is acutely reductive. Your piece beautifully articulates the scope and depth of Berger as an artist, critic but most of all, a translator of observance. Thanks for writing.
Let me thank you for this post first and foremost. I have seen Berger dismissed by people who follow the lead of radical (so they think) art writers. Without Berger, an immense chunk of ordinary people would still have no idea how to look at Renaissance or Baroque art. Ways of Seeing was revolutionary in its own right. I watched it very late after its original airing, because I live in Romania and I am not sure it was on any TV station, and I am also a bit younger than the generation it was created for initially, but watching it helped me a lot with my own photography, Needless to say I never could separate him from Sontag, in terms of basic introduction to, well, ways of seeing. I believe today Teju Cole might be the one who most reminds me of Berger. Wonderful writer and observer. Also, I will add Bento's Sketchbook to your listed books, A Fortunate Man made me try to be a better person as a doctor too (as much as a dentist can be a good person, haha)
Thank you. Having recently spent an hour in the dentist’s chair I can testify that mine is a very good person. Perhaps he is an avid Berger reader. I hope so. 😉
It’s only a point of view about a point of view.
Reading and listening to Berger gave me new eyes regardless of whether I can see what he sees.
Precisely. The gift of a great teacher.
Thanks Jon. Gribbin’s ‘we, we, we’ assertions really did get my goat. You should have seen the look it gave me.
"Wee, wee, wee" all the way home.
There are merits on both sides. But if I were to be reductive, I'd say that Berger takes an essentially materialist approach to culture, whereas Gribbin believes in the existence of spirit - hence, (de)mystification.
I agree that the Berger passage on animals is fascinating and beautiful, but ultimately he turns away from them as "messengers and promises [...] magical functions, sometimes oracular, sometimes sacrificial" and is mainly concerned with the things "addressed to man."
Thanks for your comment Neil. I think reductiveness is one of the things that bothers me, to be honest. I'm not sure I agree that Berger turns away from the animals and is only concerned with "man". One of the reasons why Berger is so good on animals is that he spent almost his entire life living alongside them and advocating for the peasant farmers whose livelihoods depended on them. He comments somewhere that the peasant farmer loves the animal that he slaughters. That this is not a contradiction. He also is quoted as saying "There persists this illusion that everything can be resolved - and the great tragedies have been a result of this impatience with contradiction. It's interesting: the peasant will live with contradiction, the dualisms of life and death, hope and despair. And fiction is about this dualism. Perhaps this is why some of my readers have such a problem with my stories.'' My view is that Berger's contribution to culture has been immense and can't be dismissed in quite the way Gribbin attempts.
Thank you for engaging with this whole subject. It is really interesting to tease apart the contradictions. There is definitely depth and beauty in his work, but I can see how people might be turned off by Ways of Seeing.
WoS contains some uncomfortable truths to be sure.
A great piece Jon - thank you
Thanks Neil.
I read the Gribbin piece and it did strike me as someone consciously attempting to surf on the cultural wave; the one that's seeking to "correct" the perceived overreach of postmodernist, identitarian, woke thinking. The "we" thing, I reckon, is a rhetorical strategy to appeal to a certain populist, common sensism, that when you look closely, is acutely reductive. Your piece beautifully articulates the scope and depth of Berger as an artist, critic but most of all, a translator of observance. Thanks for writing.
Let me thank you for this post first and foremost. I have seen Berger dismissed by people who follow the lead of radical (so they think) art writers. Without Berger, an immense chunk of ordinary people would still have no idea how to look at Renaissance or Baroque art. Ways of Seeing was revolutionary in its own right. I watched it very late after its original airing, because I live in Romania and I am not sure it was on any TV station, and I am also a bit younger than the generation it was created for initially, but watching it helped me a lot with my own photography, Needless to say I never could separate him from Sontag, in terms of basic introduction to, well, ways of seeing. I believe today Teju Cole might be the one who most reminds me of Berger. Wonderful writer and observer. Also, I will add Bento's Sketchbook to your listed books, A Fortunate Man made me try to be a better person as a doctor too (as much as a dentist can be a good person, haha)
Thank you. Having recently spent an hour in the dentist’s chair I can testify that mine is a very good person. Perhaps he is an avid Berger reader. I hope so. 😉