I believe Berger is incorrect in saying that reproductions negatively impact art. However, reproductions introduce such great pieces of art to people who cannot readily observe it. So just like Milana said in a previous post, art is still thrilling even though you saw the reproduction before the original. Plus, the ceiling itself is beautiful because of the immense detail and color scheme created by Michaelangelo. It completes the pictures and creates a story for the observer. But if you visit the chapel, the view is completely different you see the connection of how God created Adam to other paintings on the ceiling of the chapel. If you google it, you can find an image of it in a matter of seconds. For example, in the Sistine Chapel painted by Michelangelo, the famous painting God creates Adam is on the ceiling. No matter how many reproductions you see, only the original contains the true artists mark. An original piece of work has its own aura. More information allows the person to understand art at a secondary level he can delve deeper into the reason why someone created this piece of art and relate it to his own feelings about it.īerger also states his views on the reproduction of art and while I disagree that it devalues a piece of art, I understand his opinion as well. Even though this does alter what someone thinks of a piece of art, I believe this has a positive effect rather than a negative one on one’s perception. In Ways of Seeing, John Berger mentions that a person’s perception of art can be influenced by outside factors, such as captions or information about the artist. When it comes to art, personal perception of a piece should be the principle driving force to understanding art.