Some might say that lying through these pictures was a necessary evil. Without the support of the public, America would not have got far in the war. Instead, the government told the American people the way to view the …show more content… The main purpose of the camera was to get the public to do what the government wanted. It didn’t show the truth to the American people. This gave Americans a false view of the war, which influenced their way of seeing.The camera was used in World War I as a propaganda tool.
If the American people saw what was actually happening on the front lines, they wouldn't be as willing to join the fight.The government knew that they couldn’t show the American people the whole truth, and still get the support that they needed. The government wanted people to do their part in order to win the war.
The government needed the public to support the war.They needed people to sign up to join the fight. Also, no pictures were shown of all the soldiers who were injured or killed. There was no picture, shown to the public, that showed soldiers on the front lines. The American people would only see them smiling. They would only show happy pictures of the soldiers. The American government used the pictures of the war as propaganda. If Americans were somewhere else in the world, they may have had a different view on the war. The camera caused Americans to misinterpret …show more content… Unfortunately, the government used the camera to show the American people, only what they wanted them to know.“What you saw depended on where you were and when” (Berger 149).The government only showed people the non-violent parts of the war. They only saw the pictures of them looking brave and happy. During World War I, no one saw any pictures of soldiers dying on the front lines. A classic example of this is war photos in World War I. It may show what actually happened, or it could show parts of what actually happened. A picture may not be exactly what is seems. “My way leads to the creation of fresh perspective of the world”(Berger 149). The viewer sees through the photographer's eyes. Berger believed that the camera took away perspective of the way people see objects. “The invention of the camera changed the way that man saw “(Berger 149). Berger proclaims the lack of emotion and value for a recreation of a beautiful historic painting Virgin of the Rocks, and that the real thing is actually better for not just learning the past but also influencing the future.Show More In “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger says how the camera can change they way people see the world. Each one was …show more content… Any reader of Berger will see the reactions to Frans Hals masterpieces and many forms of contemporary art prove that everyone has different opinions and how each person views everything different. John Berger uses this example by the mention of a study done on Fran Hals showing the overall reviews of his artwork done by hundreds of volunteers. Berger strengthens that of logos, the rhetorical strategy that uses the persuasion of logic. John Berger also persuades us as well, he persuades through the use of rhetorical strategies of that logos, ethos, and pathos, to change our perspective on how we view the past and the possible long term never ending the influence of the future. Berger calls out to those who are actively doing so, the powerful upper class and the upper academicians globally. John Berger states the importance to keep original works of art, protected and not privatized.
Berger is sharing his view on how the reproductions of art, and through reproducing historical and contemporary art, that it is mystifying our direct correlation to the past. This has, in turn, revealed our history, through visual communication. Berger has conjured the fact that everyone has experienced their own view of the world, throughout time. In John Berger’s essay titled “Ways of Seeing,” he shines a light on the way we collectively and individually see the world.
0 kommentar(er)
