That is just the science of it. Skin color meant, and still means so much more than just the level of melanin. Skin color determined ones intellect, his biological superiority.

I understand his comparison, but this is a pretty simplistic comparison. Earwax is not visible, it is not what you immidiatly notice when you see a person. The color of his skin is.

He seems very critical and pessimistic about the modern technological progress and

Is it lost or just changed?

I am sure our parents never imagined the possibilities the internet provided us. Maybe technology can in the future do much more than what he is assuming it can do.

So, does according to him whatever we see through the webcam is not a mechanical reproduction? Since we still see it in his original place and time? On the other hand, since the observer can be in a different place, it has elements of a mechanical reproduction.

Is he comparing VR with dreaming?

When i was reading this I had to think about Marx, and is superstructure and base. VR would be indeed an amazing tool to control the people. It is an easy way to maintain the power dynamics in a society. If it is possible to give people a fake, better, and new reality, the masses will be happy. They will not even realize they are being controlled and by the power elite.

I wonder if that is even possible. Can VR become so real that it is impossible to differentiate VR with our physical reality?

Invisible to the outside, hyper visible on the inside

Reporting crime like that will make people believe crime is everywhere, they will rely more on the government to take care of this and keep them safe. Giving the government more power ( think Patriot Act). Is this comparable with the hate sessions in 1984?

Invisibility versus hyper visibility

Making them invisible

Is that nor partly the job of art, to draw a reaction?

I tried to look it up but could not find it. Is the originally physically lost without a reproduction?

That is part of white privilege, when a white person does something he never has to wonder of his actions will reflect on his whole culture. When a black person does something he always has to wonder of his actions will be generalized to create a stereotype.

Hyper-visible versus invisible

Where he stands out because of his color he becomes invisible. Because people ignore him. Where he stands out because he has a different occupation he is hyper-visible. This seems contradiction.

This will make you hyper-visible anywhere

Working wonders, when people don't wonder what he is doing in that apartment building. Has has stopped being hyper-visible and basically invisible. Almost like he blends in. I wonder if he really blends in or is just not noticed?

The opposite of Foucault and his panoptican

A fact that makes theater a very powerful medium

Here the spectator becomes an active person

I never thought that going to a theater would make me a passive spectator. But now that I think about it, there is little interaction between the actor and observer. This depends on how seeing is considered, is seeing an passive or active act?

This made me think of the Patriot Act (not the movie). How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to be safe. Actually the question is; how far are we allowing the government to infringe in our freedom before we say, "no more?" In our time, terrorism, fear of terrorist attacks have the same qualities of the plague. It is used for the same reason.

In sociology this is called hegemony (“predominance by consent”). It is hard to rule by force. Ruling without force, by consent for instance is much easier.

Divide and conquer.

IV

When a piece of art is mechanically reproduced, the is separated with its tradition, aura, original use value and its cult. It also creates a situation where art is no longer dependent on its ritual function. Because of this art just becomes art with no other function. Originals are no longer important, reproductions are and can now be used for other means.

X

When filming an actor, reproducing his personality, his fake personality is reproduced and not who he really is. Whoever he is when filmed has to be attractive to the people watching. Just like a commodity. When watching, sport, or anything else on TV, people can claim to be experts. Everybody can become an artist, writer, actor, lessing the gap between artist and observer.

XIII

Films allows a deeper analysis of what we see, trough close ups, freeze frames, slow motions. It allows us to see more, but also to deeper analyses our own actions. The camera opens our eyes for things that would normally remain unnoticed.

XIV

Arts was created on demand, dada created a situation where the message of art was more important than the value. Dada created art for the public, to shock the public.

XV

Art, film can create two situations, it can distract, where the work of art is absorbed by the masses, or it can concentrate where the observer is absorbed by the work of art. Buildings have a purpose of shelter, so architectural art will remain

the beginning of mass production of art, the beginning of the end for Berger.

The reproduction of art is older than the reproduction of texts.

This is the problem Berger is concerned about, that art will be used for political, personal, or financial profits.

Stop using art for other ends that that it was intended for.

Not the daily reality

I think this is exactly what Berger has a problem with, A copy not based on the reality, something Virtov is trying to create

It is interesting to see how he indeed in his movie uses that camera point of view as a separate identity. Because he actually films his cameraman, he transforms the camera into an eye that is watching how things are filmed. It adds a layer to what filming is able to do, it allows people to see the past, and actions in different places. It brings time and place together to be seen at a different location and at a different time. Something I think is a very powerful attribute. The connection with Berger is interesting since Virtov wants us to show a reproduction of a typical Russian day without any factors that could influence the viewer.

I disagree with that statement. I don't think the art of the past is lost. It requires more effort to discover, but it is not lost. The reason why it might become lost is because people do not take the time to go to a museum, see the original and take time to look at the painting in a setting the painter intended the painting to be watched. It speaks volumes about, us, the modern people.

I agree, that indeed the meaning of a painting can change depending on the context you put it it. When seen in a different setting the meaning can change. But I see this as a good thing, a painting should be able to express different meanings for different people. That does not mean that the original meaning should be forgotten. But it seems a bit selfish that a painting should only be allowed one interpretation. It think it adds to the power and beauty of art, to have multiple meanings in different circumstances.

Supporting the Claims of Plato and Descartes. That seeing is our most important sense.

Indeed, but I do not believe this only happens in a one-way direction. yes, the way we see is affected by what we know and believe. But we gained that knowledge by what we saw. So what we believe and know is affected by the way we see.

They are not able to think otherwise because they have not seen anything else, except for shadows. I think the curiosity urge to discover of humans is somewhat underestimated here. It is not because we have not seen anything else, that our imagination is not working.

We see only what we are allowed to see. In order to see the real truth one needs to be able to look around and see things from another perspective. Hmm this totally sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy documentary. " The government has the truth about aliens and the creation of the universe. But it is holding us with our head faced to the wall, just like Plato's cave people. They are keeping is uninformed."

The whole analogy is about the connection between seeing and learning. We learn our reality based on what we see. But it is not because we can see it, that it is automatically reality. It just means whatever we see determines what we think is OUR reality.

I interpret this claim from an empirical point of view. We should conduct our life based on what can be seen, heard, or touched. According to Descartes, sight is the most important contributor to our empirical world. Inventions like the telescope were used to make sense out of things that were until then unexplained. Making these invisible objects visible, made then part of our scientific world. This knowledge rendered other, non-visible, non- ocularcentric explanations invalid.

He was allowed to teach it trough hearing (verbally) and trough vision (writing). An interesting fact especially considering that the church was not ocularcentric and science was.

Both are claims that are based upon what was believed, and not on what has been seen. I believe this is evidence of how important vision is. Something that was held as truth, could be disproved by just using our vision.

So this is where the word "Argus-eyed" comes from. It is a word that is commonly used in Dutch. (Keeping a close eye at someone, or something).

According to this claim, the Western world had no other choice than to become ocularcentric. Both sides to the argument support ocularcentrism. Sure, it is an opposing variety of this phenomenon, but it is still ocularcentrism.

Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim that the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.

Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.

Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.

Interesting point! Vision, seeing, and the eye are so instrumental to our lives. But they become useless when there is no light. People can still feel, hear, or taste in the dark.

God, give men eyes to make sense out of things they could not understand. So we would be able to look at the example (order of the heavens) and reproduce it. That is a pretty strong supporting statement of ocularcentrism.

So according to Plato, sight was the first sense that was created. While in reality it is the last sense that is developed in an unborn baby

I have noticed that I think, react and see the world around me differently depending what language I use. When I am in my native mindset, I think, speak, hear and experience the world around me in the Dutch language. This is totally different when I am in my English mindset. I think it is all about what is available in that specific language to describe certain objects, or events.

Clearly, the eye and seeing is not only important culturally and socially. Also biologically it seems to be the best developed sense.