The four modes, in my opinion, are nonsense because they can't be distinguished one from the other to any clear degree. Yet Berger has, at least, tried to signify objective traits in his four modes, even as they result from the subjectivity of the artist. But Miller privileges his own subjectivity, and blames Berger for not asking Miller what his (Miller's) own four or more traits might be.
Berger is identifying certain material conditions anyone can see in the works he assigns to one of the four modes. He is trying to be objective. But Miller's question does have some fundamental merit, that of "objectified reception theory" although Miller uses it as an excuse to slip over into purely subjective zones; his reception theory. He could have questioned if any one of the four modes has neutral, and equal descriptive, merit. I would say they do not, since the texture mode, for instance, has art historical prestige (the painterly fracture) that may be greater than, say, the "graphic" mode until the spread of photo reproduction minimized its presence. No matter how objective Berger tries to be, his modes are smothered in cultural subjectivity (one of his interests). But at least they are not so subjective as to be aimed only at Miller's aesthetic requirement that an art work must please him, and perhaps him only, regardless of its culturally determined artistic merits or faults. Even smoothly painted paintings have texture; that is, the surface is notable for its smoothness and thus it captures the eye (stands between the image and the viewer) just as readily as one slathered with pasty paint. The modes are arbitrary and that tells me that Berger should stay away from serious art discourse of an analytical sort. I'll agree with Miller to the point of saying that what counts about art is how it's experienced, by artists and anyone else in history in whatever iterations there may be. I do think that the cultural "reception" is very complex and can't be easily subtracted from ay individual experience of art. It pre-determines how one experiences anything, including art. Objective descriptions of artworks, their measure, are partly determined by the attitude that defines those descriptions or chooses them. Duh! Berger could have achieved his goal for modes by listing different sizes of portrait paintings instead of style and surface modes and would have been closer to his overall aim of finding the "portrait" in the cultural context. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 9:58:01 AM Subject: Berger Chapter One: Technologies "I distinguish four modes of painting as the constituents of the early modern system and give them the names decorative, graphic, optical, and textural" (page 42) As Kate already noted: " The decorative mode emphasizes symbol and embellishment. "In the graphic mode,things are painted as they are known or thought to be."... "In the optical mode,things are are painted as they are seen,or more pointedly, painted in such a manner that the way they are seen modifies,obscures, or conflicts with their objective structure and appearance."... "In the textural mode the qualities of paint and the traces of the painter's hand are interposed between the eye and the image. Textural painting represents the activity of painting and the sensuous material qualities of paint as intrinsic parts of the image one can see." and "the great majority of paintings share in one or more modes." Or, as they say in music theory, they are "polymodal" For example, in the 16th C., Florentine painters emphasized the graphic mode over the textural and optic modes - while Venetian painters did the reverse. But is it possible to have a painting done in only one mode?(as a musical piece might be only in the Dorian mode) And is it possible to have a painting that is completely missing any of them? Are any of these four modes absent from any representational painting whatsoever- whether from "the early modern system" or anywhere else in world history? I also wonder, what "modes" Berger has left out. For example, the "longevity mode" -- where paintings are made to be permanent - or the "magic mode" where paintings are made to save the soul, heal the sick, or manifest the presence of the divine (which Berger specifically excluded from the "decorative mode" which he specified as liturgical, but not magical) And most importantly, at least for me, the "rapturous mode", where paintings are made to enrapture the imagination and provoke feelings of wonder and joy. Without that mode, paintings with only the decorative, graphic, optical, and textural modes just don't interest me. I'd rather look at a beach or a garden - or even the snow covered tree outside my window. Berger's four modes are for people who like to talk about paintings, but not especially to look at them. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=1vRNRHTYz3bSl3MDdyv-YgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
