1. John Berger always relates the ways of looking at art in a cultural context. Viewing art in a deeper way than an art critic requires knowing the emotional impact on the viewer. The ability of art to convet an emotion is essentially what seperates good art from bad art. In order to understand a certian piece of art’s ability to convet emotion you need to realize the cultural context in which the art was made in: its history. This is why history is such a key concept in ways of seeing. It is like in an inside joke that you would have with your friends. You guys might think it is the funniest thing in the world but when you mention it to another person that isn’t in the original group of friends they bearly even crack a smile. This is because they don’t understand the emotional significance that the joke has to you, the same holds true for art.

2. The difference between Berger and the art historian is that Berger coments on the emotion in the painting rather than just the structure, beauty, and artistic skill that went into the painting. This reveals a deeper insight as to the reason a painting is sucessfull. In every good painting there is more than just paint on a canvass there is emotion and a meaning. It is the difference in a litteral and figurative meaning of a word. Often times there is a deeper meaning in art you just need to be able to see it, hence knowledge can change the way you see something.