Seeing Through Our Culture

As I observed Daniel Sheas art piece called Plume for the very last time, I was
astonished that every time I saw this piece, I found more ways to interpret the artists
message. I stood in front of the three-part art piece for approximately fifteen minutes
trying to discover what the artist was trying to say. Since I was told that the art exhibits
theme was environmental issues, my first instinct was to determine which issue was
presented in this particular piece. This made me realize that the concept of seeing is not
as simple as I thought it was. My prior assumption was that everything we see on the
surface is exactly how we should interpret the message; however, I now realize that there
may be subliminal messages that can to be deciphered. I believe seeing is a choice and
is most often distorted from our preconceptions of our culture, society, and the context. I
will explain this by sharing my experience of observing the Plumes piece in the art
museum along with other personal experiences with the act of seeing with the differences
of looking and seeing.
There was three parts to the series of the Plume piece. The first one to the left
was a photograph of a beautiful, all-American brick home with a faded shadow of a coal
plant in the distance. In the middle, there was a photograph of a sunny day with a
telephone pole in the midst of a forest. The photograph on the right was a picture of a
man gazing towards a coal plant while walking away. When I first saw this piece, I
already was aware that its message was about environmental issues. Instead of looking at
the picture and only seeing what was given to me, I tried to depict what the
environmental issue was beyond the fact that it had to do with a coal plant; I judged the
piece without just looking at its composition, but also the contextual meaning as well.
According to Annie Dillard, she argues, The difference between the two ways of seeing
[choosing or letting go] is the difference between walking with and without a camera
(1). She used a perfect metaphor for the ways a person can see. For example, when
using a camera, I can be in power to change the setting, the flash, the object, the angle,
etc. This often can make a person forget their surroundings but absorbed to the act of
taking a picture instead of observing what is in front of your face. However, walking
without a camera is a chance to fully intake what we see; this process is known as letting
go, as Dillard mentioned. When I looked at the Plume piece, I did not let go and see
the art for what it was but I had an imaginary camera in my face trying to scope for the
environmental issues. At the end when looking at these pieces, we should get a sense of
what the artist wants to convey. The very first process should be looking at the objects
and observing what they are and not what it means to us or the artist.
This brings up the issue of not observing our surroundings by just purely looking
at the pieces but having a pre-notion of what we think it is. So, isnt there a difference
between observing an art piece and going about our daily lives and seeing what is in front
of our face? I think for the most part it is the same. When looking at an art piece, I
observe it through the lens of my personal background and what I think the artist is trying
to convey. The artist sets up their pieces to send a message to the public. Often, even the
smallest detail such as the placement of the art piece can make a huge difference in the

message. The context can throw off the whole piece. John Berger says in the Ways of
Seeing that We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation
between things and ourselves (9). For instance, I remember when I had class with this
one particular student and I saw her couple of days a week in our school setting for some
time. One day, I saw this same person again but in a different setting outside of school
and I had the hardest time remembering where Ive seen her face before. When I finally
realized that she was fellow classmate, I was surprised to see her outside of the classroom
because I always saw her in class. Often, when I see, the context of my surroundings
plays an important role in seeing. If not, I choose to ignore it or I am perplexed.
The Plume series played with the placement of the photographs very well. For
example, if I saw the piece in the middle with a telephone pole by itself, I would assume
that its a simple picture of a telephone pole surrounded by nature. Since the other
photographs were placed on either side of the middle picture, it created a different overall
message that focused on the environmental issue instead of the aesthetics of the picture.
Ideally, I wanted to look at each piece and analyze the photograph individually so I could
get a sense of what each piece wanted to say. However, this couldnt be done because I
kept trying to depict the bigger picture and see the relations between each other. This
distorts the actual process of letting go. Often, when I look at the big picture, I dont see
individual objects, but I see a message that I have processed already and I believe almost
at all times that my judgment is correct. Since the whole point of looking at art piece is to
understand and interpret the message, I dont think this can be done if I cant just look at
an individual object for what it is.
When I looked at the Plume series, I notice that it had an eerie vibe to the piece.
However, I was fooled when I saw the coal plant in the background of the grand house.
It was such a picture-perfect house that belonged on a set of a movie that should have
belonged to the Brady Bunchs. It had perfectly trimmed lawn, healthy, big trees in the
background, and the brick home just exuding with wealth. This house seemed to be
located in a small town that I thought was less polluted than the city, and a town where I
felt some sort of innocence because everything was so clean-cut. This is where John
Berger argues from the Ways of Seeing that The way we see things is affected by what
we know or what we believe (9). I believed that a small town such as this is always
cleaner, less polluted, and a happier town in general. But I was wrong; that town is a
base for a big coal factory. My perception of the artists message is to not be fooled by
the appearances of a town since it has a big environmental problem in which we cannot
fathom.
I personally see artwork with my very own perception which is derived from how
I normally see. I see things and I already assume I know the meaning, or truth behind
everything. For example, when I see a stranger walking towards me she looks to be the
epitome of an all-American girl, I automatically assume that she probably came from a
wealthy nuclear family; shes probably social, very likable, and stress-free from
everything. Is this true? There is a possibility that she could be all of the characteristics,
or she could be the complete opposite. Since I saw her for a split second, I already built
up this grand assumption of who she was instead of observing her from what is true

which is merely just looking. I couldnt help to compare her to what culture has
embedded the looks of an all-American girl. I was raised with Barbies, T.V. shows and
other peoples assumption as well. Culture is such a mass influence in our senses that
often an act like seeing by letting go can be a foreign concept. Now that I look back at
judging this girl, I feel foolish to assume all these characteristics. Its almost like on
Halloween when people dress in costumes and portray fictional characters, its silly to
believe that who they truly are is represented through those characters. Halloween is just
a day for dress up; judging a random girl from what I see based on my culture is about
the same.
After observing the Plume series, I have come to a conclusion that I can never be
one hundred percent sure of what I see. Even though I tried to not let my pre-notion in
the way, it was hard to observe this art piece without it. For now, I can only see with a
camera in front of my lens because letting go is a form of seeing in which the concept
seems so simple that it becomes so difficult. Its not just the way I see that is distorted
but the mass public as well. If seeing for the object is that simple, then people wouldnt
hold stereotypes or hold judgments. The concept of seeing is often distorted by our
previous knowledge, and letting go to see is very hard to discover.

Resources:
Berger, John. "Ways of Seeing." British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.
7-33. Print.
Dillard, Annie. "Seeing." from Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, HarperPerennial. (1974): 1-3.
Print.