1. When Berger’s talks about seeing he states it’s not as simple as we might think which he certainly makes a good point. He states what we do see now is determined by habits and conventions which isn’t “natural”. He refers to the invention of the camera playing this role of changing the way we see now as things that weren’t possible to see in front of us can now be seen from anyplace for anywhere. Artworks can now be affected by our surroundings that can be seen on different screens,papers,magazines,etc which is surrounded by different objects,sounds. This is significant as the perspective of us viewers which we see these artworks for instance like paintings can be now altered and affected. We no longer have to travel see what was once considered an original in a single place as it now can reproduced to be seen from anyplace around the globe. The way viewers now perceptive an author artwork can vary very different from what the author intended it to be interpreted as.

2. In the opinion of Berger the camera has changed the way we perceive and engage with art, now seem to differ to us as we are affected by our surroundings that are familiar to use in our own lives in the location we are with people we may know. Artworks were often unique to a certain place like a church which would be part of the church history, which made up its interior and life of the building memory. Now such paintings and images from anywhere in the world which was unique to one certain place can be displayed from the comfort of your own house or any place familiar to you. The meaning no longer is attached to it’s original origin of where the painting is. By making it reproducible it’s abolished it’s unique original meanings and has multiplied other possible meanings.

Berger states that seeing an artwork on screen or in an book is different compared to seeing one in a museum since a screen and books are alike where they are never still. Such as when he demonstrates the paintings in the video with silence in my background I am not able to fully concentrate or grasp what the meaning or point the author of the painting was trying to create, neither would I have been with a book as I would be distracted by the other context within a book all of which can only be done with as within his own terms of “stillness” and “silence”.Thus such an experience can’t be experienced without being in front of the painting itself as it can’t be replicated.

Berger also makes a claim describing the experience of being in present of an authentic artwork at a museum which also can be described by his terms mentioned earlier but as well that a reproduction just doesn’t reflect it’s authenticity of of the original painting which is unique as they look different from screens or elsewhere, which can distort the image. The artwork isn’t anything alike in the world , is authentic and can be admired for it’s beauty for that reason alone.

3. Berger refers to the production of paintings as becoming a “form of information”. When he made this statement he meant to define These artworks can be manipulated in and used having and interpreted with a far more different meaning than what the author originally intended it to be. Making it to easy to manipulated and make argument and that could be very different meanings from their original meaning. The meaning of the image can change according to what comes before or after the image on screen like a television or perhaps a magazine or newspaper which can be used by anyone for any purposes. This is can be trouble if such purposes were nefarious.