1. John Berger’s use of the word “history” is used in relation to our subjective views of the past, rather than what has actually occured in the past. He says, “History always constitutes the relation between a present and its past. Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the past.” He also uses it in the context of something to be owned or possessed, and if we are prevented from seeing art of the past, we are therefore “deprived of the history which belongs to us.” History, according to Berger, is a matter of perspective. In the case of Frans Hals’ two works of art being described by an unnamed art historian, Berger criticizes his choice of vocabulary, saying that they “transfer the emotion provoked by the image from the plane of lived experience, to that of disinterested “art appreciation.” Here, history’s meaning has changed into that of a biased artist’s point-of-view. The definition of history has changed entirely here, because now, as readers, we are put into a certain mindset and somewhat forced to appreciate two works of art in which we otherwise might have had little or no interest.

2. The ways in which Berger looks at images and paintings depend upon his own relationships with the past and the questions he asks regarding the “power” of the pictorial images. Berger’s strong viewpoints on the use of cameras represent his theories that the meanings of images change when those images are placed in some kind of a different environment, or captured by a camera – “Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In its travels, its meaning is diversified.” When original artworks are replicated, they lose their status and meaning. Berger obviously believes that by reproducing or capturing artwork, one takes away that picture’s value, worth, and uniqueness.