"Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.
But there is also another sense in which seeing comes before words. It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it. The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled." -John Berger.
'Ways of Seeing': a book of 7 essays, 4 of which are words and image and 3 are image only.
The essays raise questions with regard to how we see our surroundings, ourselves and others. Reading this for the 2nd time I noticed it affected my world quite completely; train journey's became more interesting as I questioned my surroundings and the people in it. I thought I was always quite observant, however I became obsessed with how people might view themselves to the point wereby I would make notes according to what they choose to wear, make-up, nails, hair? Whether they were conscious how good or bad they looked or did they even fit into either catergory? Or could they be average? What is average? Would I like to be considered average? It troubled me that I should even be thinking this way, what gives me the right to judge someone on their appearence, then again I'm not judging, merely speculating. But seriously is Berger right, are we as women watching ourselves as if we are men? Who are we trying to please? Do we consciously dress or act a certain way to please ourselves or for someone else? Is it even about what we wear or how our make up is applied, is it more about a presence. Do we as women, question who is watching us, and does this mean that our actions are calculated according to who might be looking? Is it an unconscious natural 'thing' that we have grown in to? Is it true as John Berger states that, "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at....The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female." I think there is something about the women in the paintings Berger refers to, in that, they are so aware of their appeal with regard to the viewer that they must see themselves as a man might see them. In some of the paintings talked about, the painter, has an emotional attachment to the woman, she looks at the painter in an almost lustful way, but does this mean she is aware of looking at herslf as a man would. I think women are aware of how they are perceived, however, is this not true of men too? I suppose when refering to paintings Berger is dealing with naked women who appear to be very conscious of their sexuality. Berger also refers to "a man's presence dependant on power" and by contrast a woman's presence is defined by "her gestures, voice, opinions, expressions, clothes, chosen surroundings, taste," he goes on to say, "there is nothing she can do which does not contribute to her presence." I would like to think that women act and are what they are because it is who they want to be. However, the environment we live in, thanks to the media, places huge pressure on women to be some kind of super woman; to look amazing, to be great mothers, cooks, cleaners, wifes, partners, to have a career, to keep a nice home. All these things contribute to success, but success in who's eyes? Or is the pressure to be perfect something we place on ourselves, a way of validating our worth? Ultimately I think what we do and how we behave should be because its who we are. Deep within us I think an aura does exist, something we contain and carry, possibly from childhood, it surrounds our being and constitutes who we are.
