John Berger means when paintings become a form of information it is showing that the paintings is showing a significant i people that they want to copy the paintings the visually seen that intrigued  them. John Berger means when he says talking with reproductions is that he wants art to be visually used everywhere and how people will think or feel when they see it.

the real mood

changed

John Berger means when he says the process of seeing its not natural is when you see painting and you just focus on one particular object or thing that strikes you but you don’t see the whole picture itself. The camera really helped us see the habits and convection the way we look at things because it help to see deeper what earth loos like. It is significant when we think about art work for viewers because it maybe hope or  escape and thinking bigger out of the box and making the happy.

John Berger argues that the way we see art depend in our habits and conventions. Not everyone has the same thoughts when see art, some people may see some details that others won’t see. Now this is how habits influence in the way we see painting. For example, Berger presented some art to explain how a different perspective can change the meaning on a painting. If I go to the museum to see painting,

Berger’s states that painting can become a form of information. Berger emphasized reproduction makes the meaning of works of art ambiguous. This is not negative, it is necessary. The production of works of art can be used by anybody for their own purposes. The art book depends upon reproductions. For instance, children or adults pin up reproductions alongside snapshots. The works of art are reproducible, theoretically be used by anybody in art books, magazines, films or within gift frames in living rooms. The means of reproduction are used politically and commercially to disguise or deny what their existence makes possible

A large part of seeing is based on habit and convention. Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We perceive it in a different way. This difference can be illustrated in terms of what was thought of as perspective. Painting of the tradition used the convention of perspective. The convention of perspective is unique to European art and which was first established in early Renaissance. The conventions called those appearances reality. Perspective makes the single eye the center of the visible world. According to the convention of perspective there is no visual reciprocity. The painting on the wall like a human eye, can only be in one place at one time. Perspective makes the single eye the center of the visible world

think the form of information is an important way to spread and teach the people knowledge.

The appearance of the camera has changed our perception because the camera can copy the painting so that everyone can see it, but the camera can’t copy all the details. Some pictures can only show a part of the painting. Now we can easily watch the painting at any place and time. So we also reduce the number of exhibitions and museums. Because it’s very convenient to see on the mobile phone Any painting you want to see. However, the details and emotions that can only be found in the original works cannot be transmitted through the copied pictures  

Because everyone grows up in a different living environment, it can make us see things in different ways and express them differently. Cultural background and the living background will affect our ideas. Works of art mean that the audience can objectively feel the artist’s life or the feelings they want to express, and can also be used to inherit and teach us some experiences and lessons

it is a true record of the complete image, and painting is to use certain techniques to express emotions

However, people like to evaluate from their own perspective and experience

The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled. Each evening we see the sun set. We know that the earth is turning away from it. Yet the knowledge, the explanation, never quite fits the sight. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.

Berger explains that, with reproduction, meaning can be changed and a painting can be used by anyone to convey many different meanings

‘The invention of the camera changed not only what we see but how we see it. It has even changed how we see the paintings of the past’. Berger explains that an original painting can only be seen in one place at a time, and often, paintings were created for display in a specific building. The camera means that we can now see a painting anywhere, in any size and it can be reproduced for any purpose. When we look at an image on our computer screens, say of a painting, we see it with reference to its new environment: we see it in our room, surrounded by our things, and it is placed in the context of our lives. The original painting, however, still exists and can be viewed in a different context. This context informs our viewing of the painting, just as its new position on our computer screen does. We understand an image or painting presented in a gallery as an original and as worthy of serious attention, simply because it is there. Berger says that such an image ‘is beautiful for that alone’. He says that the beauty of such a painting is dependent upon it being a genuine original. Its value as an original is a ‘substitute for what the painting lost when the camera made it reproducible’. In the context of a gallery, we see the painting as still and silent, which is impossible on a computer screen. Berger says that the ‘stillness and silence’ of a physical painting can be ‘very striking’. The video at this point is muted to try to copy the feeling of stillness and silence of an original painting. I was surprised to become consciously aware of just how much noise is generated by my computer, and how much movement could be seen on my screen in the flickering and tiny movements of light as I watched. To appreciate the stillness, Berger says, one has to view the original since even the turning of pages in a book creates movement.

Berger suggests that what we see ‘depends on habit and convention’ and is not, as we might think, simply natural or objective. He explains that if we look now at a 19th century painting, we see it as it has never been seen before we bring to our viewing of it, our personal life experiences and the context in which it is viewed. Our understanding of what we’re seeing doesn’t always goes with what we’re seeing in front of us. We can attempt to capture what we see, reproducing or recreating it for others so that we can try to understand how to perceive the world. To do so is to create an image. “ An Image is a sight in which has been recreated or reproduced”. In this quote, we seen what John Berger is talking about “ A way of seeing”. It’s a brief copy of how the creator saw the world. Images can preserve things as they once were and preserve how their creator once saw their subject. What really makes images extremely powerful is its value or how much it costs.

original vibes what they see in front of an original painting. As a result, original paintings lost their original meaning. Berger pointed out that an original painting can only be seen in one place at a time. Now we can see any painting at any place in different situations. So it just changed our thought what we should see in a museum with stillness and silence. With stillness and silence, we can focus our mind to understand the meaning of the painting. On the hand, paintings in books and magazines has different perspective. Here paintings are used for delivering specific information or message. The reason is now the movement of the camera changed the meaning of a painting completely such as “an allegorical figure becomes a pretty girl” what the video showed.

Berger says that the process of seeing is not “natural,” that it is shaped by habits and conventions. The reason is our daily activities/lifestyle shape our thinking/mind and perspective centers everything. A painting can be seen in different meaning for different age, such as between an adult and a child. A child and an adult have different life experiences. So, an adult can see painting in more detail than a child and it’s not natural. However, Berger described a point of view as reality shaped from the existence of a structure by our eye. Therefore, eye shows the world to us and impact on the tendency of our improvement. Then our tendency what reads the meaning of art.

Berger then mentions that talking with reproductions can manipulate an image into a different perspective by what comes before being handed the reproduction. These purposes include selling something, promoting an idea, or educating other individuals.

Our viewpoints are influenced by our environment, upbringing, age, gender, etc. The reason I write, it is because our perspective comes from many forms of standards created by society’s opinion on what is a social norm.

What you see it’s always influenced by the characteristics of the environment (music, place, things around it) in which you are, and by our background (culture, level of education, experiences); we may not realize it but that can change for complete how we see a painting, for example a kid will not see a painting in the same way an adult see it, the kid might point at physical details of the painting while the adult might try to analyze the painting.

Reproduction of painting is a form of information because we can change or manipulate the meaning of the art. For example, in the video with the painting by Caravaggio; if we use Italian opera or religious choral, the meaning of the painting change. He said in the episode 1 that pictures can be uses as words and we can talk with them.

arranged.

in the video Berger think that before or when seeing something, we arrange in our mind how we want this thing to be. That mean we don’t see art how it is, but we see it how we want it to be in in our reflection.

Saying reproduction of  painting can become a form of information because the image can be used to convey, persuade a certain ideas to the viewer or narrate an information .

According to Berger , the Camera has changed our senses of perception because not only it transferred any artwork to be seeing everywhere in the world at the same time but it could  also permit people to see what  they wouldn’t have chance to see and they could interpret it in different ways at the same time.Regarding artwork the camera could reproduce images in any size ,anywhere and for any purpose.

Berger said  that seeing is not natural and it is shaped by habits and conventions because what we see is not just the object or image itself  but our view or mindset of image or object we are looking at .our view or mindset is influenced by environment, society in which we lived , age ,gender, mentality and the way everybody  is supposed to view and perceive things .That mean people will view and have different  opinion or interpretation of a same piece  of Art differently

this is the reproduction of the meaning of any painting we make new meaning for any painting to serve our new purpose.

the painting will have the meaning of what we see beside it or what comes after it, or what purpose it been used for

with the camera, things changed and the meaning of the paintings is changed. with a camera, they can manipulate paintings by adding sounds and movement to them so the meaning change if you add opera sound, an argument sound, or zooming in on part of the painting and leave the rest of it and by doing this the whole meaning of a painting will change completely

the paintings are something from our life

Financial considerations are equally relevant to the challenge posed by the rise of global studies. University administrators are likely to see establishing or expanding global studies courses or centers as a cost-efficient way to consolidate area disciplines: cover the world and internationalize the curriculum, for less.

faces

eventually

International

and

literally

Association

his

Beto O'Rourke

Blake, or The Huts of America

WALKER'S APPEAL, IN FOUR ARTICLES; TOGETHER WITH A PREAMBLE, TO THE COLOURED CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, BUT IN PARTICULAR, AND VERY EXPRESSLY, TO THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WRITTEN IN BOSTON, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, SEPTEMBER 28, 1829.

British constitution-alism a`la Mansfield was a threat to slaveholders’ property and the power ofcolonial legislatures to protect or regulate slavery or anything else.

Surely there must be a better way. .Needed are approaches that can lo­cate digital work within print traditions, and print traditions within dig­ital media, without obscuring or failing to account for the differences between them. One such approach is advocated here: it goes by the name of Comparative Media Studies.^ As a concept, Comparative Media Studies has long inhabited the humanities, including comparisons of manuscript and print cultures, oral versus literate cultures, papyri versus vellum, immo­bile type versus moveable type, letterpress versus offset printing, etc. These fields have tended to exist at the margins of literary culture, of interest to specialists but (with significant exceptions) rarely sweeping the humanities as a whole. Moreover, they have occupied separate niches without overall theoretical and conceptual frameworks within which Comparative Media Studies might evolve.

To evaluate the impact of digital technologies, we may consider in over­view an escalating series of effects.

Gutenberg

This is one of the important ways in which information differs from knowledge, which always requires a knowing subject — an individual, a collectivity, or at the limit a text, which serves as a proxy for its author.

"Objectivity" is a complex notion here. It refers, first, to a kind of perspectival objectivity, the impression that information gives us its content in the "view from nowhere," without reference to private states or privileged points of view. This perspective-neutrality is the feature of information that gives it a more-or-less uniform exchange value, so that a piece of information that I give you can in principle be as comprehensible or as useful to you as it is to me.

hese claims to inclusiveness in turn permit us to attach a significance to exclusion — to an event that doesn't appearing in the newspaper, a word that doesn't appear in the dictionary, a historic site or restaurant that doesn't appearing in a travel guide, and so on. But of course this kind of claim is only possible when the boundaries of a document or building impose a manifest physical limit on the amount of material it can contain.

What I want to show in this section is how all the properties we ascribe to information — its metaphysical haeceity or "thereness," its transferability, its quantized and extended substance, its interpretive transparency or autonomy — are simply the reifications of the various principles of interpretation that we bring to bear in reading these forms.

he trope is crucial to the claims of enthusiasts of the technology that it will usher in a new and epochal discursive order. We have to believe, that is, that the substance that computers traffic in, "information" in the technical sense of the term, is the same sort of stuff that led to the Reformation and the French Revolution, whether or not contemporaries talked about it in those terms. But the fact is that the use of information that people have in mind when they talk about "the information age" or say that information brought about the Reformation is not

Agre is certainly right, for example, to say that part of the work that information does for librarians is to flatten and obscure the subjective social topographies of content that are implicit when we speak of the holdings of a library in terms of "literatures."

In this essay, I want to show that these metaphors play false to the truth; we are rather in the situation, as Paul Duguid puts it, of breaking the banks and hoping still to have the river.

But there is a difficulty even in speaking of "intertextuality" when the individuation of texts themselves becomes so problematic: what could débordementsignify when there are no bords in the first place?

Electronic publication implies a new calculus of reputation, which I think no one has yet come to grips with.

But the assumption implicit in that phrase — that the magnitude or breadth of someone's reputation is proportional to its farthest geographical extension — has no relevance in the electronic world, where it takes no greater investment of resources to make a text available to distant readers than to local ones.

When theorists talk about the power of the new media to make everyone an author, for example, or to provide everyone with universal access to potential audiences of millions of readers, they invoke a notion of authorship and a model of access that is more appropriate to traditional print media than to electronic communication. What is an author, after all, if the new media no longer support the legal status or institutional privileges that have traditionally defined that role? And what real increase is there in the ability of the average citizen to affect public opinion if anyone who wants to gain the attention of a mass audience has to compete for attention with

There will be a digital revolution, but the printed book will be an important participant in it.

For the present it's enough to observe that there is nothing in the economics of publishing as a whole or the body of practice surrounding the use of the printed book that militates for its disappearance, even over the long term.

Nothing betrays the spirit of an age so precisely as the way it represents the future.

The second misapprehension is the opposite of the first. It comes from a failure to appreciate, not how durable some features of the material setting will turn out to be, but rather how contingent and mutable are some of the categories of social life.

The first and most obvious comes of taking some recent innovation at the steepest point of its curve and projecting it linearly to a point where it has swept all its predecessors aside.