This paper offers a rhetorical analysis of John Berger's essay "Ways of Seeing," exploring its dual purpose, central claims, and persuasive strategies. The analysis examines how Berger moves from a broad consideration of human visual perception to a narrower argument about the political nature of original versus replicated art. Using the classical framework of ethos, pathos, and logos, the paper evaluates how effectively Berger supports his claims — including his use of Frans Hals as an emotional example and his logical progression from vision to photography to artistic meaning. The paper concludes that the essay would benefit from being divided into two more focused arguments.
The paper demonstrates rhetorical criticism: analyzing not just what an argument says but how it attempts to persuade, and evaluating the success of each persuasive mode. By separating ethos, pathos, and logos into discrete sections, the writer shows how to decompose a complex text into analyzable components while maintaining a unified critical stance.
The paper opens with an introduction that identifies the essay's subject and signals the analytical framework to be used. A second section outlines Berger's purpose and major claims, including his treatment of Frans Hals and photography. Three body sections then apply the ethos, pathos, and logos framework in turn, each anchored by a specific textual detail. The conclusion synthesizes the analysis by arguing that "Ways of Seeing" reads as two essays conflated into one, and questions whether Berger's political conclusion is adequately supported.
The interesting thing about art and artistic expression today is the many different ways in which it can be interpreted. Today's variety of cultures, perspectives, and means of communication lend themselves to a myriad of interpretations. Essays such as "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger appear, at first glance, to cater well to this variety. What is most interesting about the essay is that it seems, initially, to provide an interpretation of human perspective in general. By the end, however, this purpose appears to be supplanted by a more exclusive, narrow viewpoint regarding the political nature of original and replicated art. To offer a more in-depth interpretation of the author's viewpoint, this analysis considers the essay's purpose, claims, and persuasive strategies through the classical framework of ethos, pathos, and logos.
At the start of the essay, its purpose appears to be a consideration of the various ways in which people might see things. This is related, first, to the concept of image. The author points out, quite correctly, that "Seeing comes before words" (p. 7). This means that the image is the primary means through which we interpret the world around us. Quite logically, Berger follows this in-depth consideration of image and its meaning — in terms of the human relationship to the world — with a consideration of various visual art forms. At the end of the essay, however, this purpose appears to be subsumed by an exclusive focus on art before and after its replication.
The claims of the essay correlate well with its apparent purpose, although that purpose does seem dual in nature. First, the claim that vision precedes an awareness of words and writing is well supported by the way in which children perceive the world. The author notes that "The child sees and recognizes before it can speak." This is followed by a consideration of the vision offered by art, which in turn leads to a discussion of how photography changed the concept of perspective. The author discusses art and the perception it implicates by means of a lengthy consideration of Frans Hals and two of his works depicting the "regents" of his time. From Hals's perspective, the author claims, a negative, non-neutral vision might be interpreted from his depiction, given the artist's position as a pauper. On the other hand, the perspective of the contemporary art critic would impose its own background and assumptions on the work.
The author then uses this as a basis for furthering the discussion regarding photography and the ways in which visual perspective shifted because of this new interpretive technology. Photography meant that art could be replicated, which shifted the meaning and value attached to works of original art. This argument then becomes the foundation for Berger's rhetorical strategies, which can be examined through the lenses of ethos, pathos, and logos.
Ethos is related to the language the author uses to convince the reader of his viewpoint, and it represents one consistent thread throughout the essay. Berger employs a level of academic language that his peers can relate to. As such, the work is aimed at a certain audience assumed to possess intellectual sophistication and strong critical thinking skills. Concepts such as the "compositional unity of a painting" (p. 13), for example, assume that the reader will at least have access to this level of academic art discourse. This is also, however, where the author risks making a fundamental mistake. Any reader with a relative degree of critical thinking skill will likely begin to lose confidence toward the end of the essay. Why spend so much time and energy on considering the diverse ideas of perspective only to conclude with something as relatively simplistic as the claim that "original art is political?"
In conclusion, there appear to be two fundamental claims within the essay. First, that there is a variety of possible perspectives in the attempt to appreciate and interpret art, and second, that the possibility of replicating art at least distracts from its fundamental interpretation. The essay would have been more concise and clearer in its purpose had it been divided into two separate pieces. One could have focused on the fact of interpretive variety. A second could have focused more clearly on the effects of replication on art, thereby providing more room to explicate the relatively sudden claim that all art is political. This is a claim that is difficult to accept, especially as it appears rather abruptly as a conclusion. The author fails to provide adequate foundations for it, and a reader with strong critical thinking skills is likely to remain unconvinced.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.