Berger's Lens

[1] Looking at the operation of ideology throughout Western art history and visual culture, Berger points out the unequal relations between men and women as well as the difference between their social presences. Unlike a man, whose presence is tied to “the promise of power which he embodies” (45), a woman is being noticed by how she appeals to men. She is seen as nothing more than a “sight” or an object to please the “the ideal [male] spectator” (64). In Chapter 2, other than many images of women, Berger includes a few photographs of raw meats and soup ingredients (41). What is his intention here? Why would he put these photographs next to the highly erotic and sexual advertisements? What’s their association with the gendered gaze?

Although “nude” and “naked” are often considered synonyms for each other, Berger clarifies the distinction between the two: “To be nude is to be seen naked by others and yet not recognized for oneself,” but “to be naked is to be oneself” (54). He sees Manet’s Olympia as a turning point, but he also states, “the ideal was broken,

The mere action of exhibiting can transform anything into art, which is termed the “museum effect”. The very placement within the museum context grants the object importance and validity. Who has the authority to define what is art? What mediates the relationship between the object and the museum visitor? How do we interpret the interesting assertion by Professor Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett—"[in the museum] objects are not found, they are made"? Do you find the “museum effect” helpful or not? Sometimes, isn’t it only in isolation that we can truly appreciate certain objects? How do we relate Alpers’s “museum effect” to Haraway’s essay—how does the African Hall rely upon display techniques to maintain its given ideological