Ways of Seeing by John Berger
On Tuesday, June 5th 2012, I went to the Museum of Fine Arts. The atmosphere was peaceful and quiet even though there were a lot of students from a high school. If you decide to go to a museum you have a special attitude. First of all it is your choice to go there. The museum will not come to you.
I spent quite some time walking around to find a picture that was “speaking” to me. Then I came across the “Behind the Scenes: Caring for working of art” room. It is an electrical room with a touch screen under the picture. The screen explains a lot of the different things about the history and background of the painting (picture 1).
The painting was of Mrs. Timothy Rogers (Lucy Boylston). I was intrigued by the historical background of the Boylston Family and the timeline (1766 – 1767) during which John Singleton Copley painted six portraits of the Boylston family. It reminded me of a line in John Berger’s essay: “They are declared art when their line of descent can be certified” (150). I wonder how many wonderful and beautiful paintings were just thrown away because they were not of someone important, rich, or famous.
There was also information about the cleaning of the painting. I was able to see the difference in the 1921 unclean portrait and the 1950 clean portrait. First, I just saw a nice painting of a woman, but now I can see and appreciate the portrait of
Mrs. Timothy Rogers. “The meaning of an image is changed according to what one sees immediately beside it or what comes immediately after it” (156). How very true.
After the electrical room, I continued to walk around and found myself paying much more attention to details. Each picture frame is a piece of art in itself! All these intricate details were incredible. “We only see what we look at. To look is an act of choice” (141).

Picture 1:
The electrical room in the MFA with the portrait of Mrs. Timothy Rogers on the left hand side and the touch screen below.

When I was searching for a reproduction of this portrait (picture 2), I found a lot more information about Mrs. Timothy Rogers and the Boylston family on the homepage of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (MFA, www.mfa.org) than in the electrical room.
I did not realize that Lucy Boylston was already dead when John Singleton Copley painted this portrait. She was born in 1725 and died in 1759 at the age of thirty-four. As I mentioned above, the artist painted the six portraits of the Boylston family between 1766 and 1767.
Copley was the leading painter of the colonies at that time. He was used to creating posthumous portraits of famous people. In some of these cases, he could use his own previous paintings as a guide. It is unknown what Copley used as his point of reference to paint the portrait of Lucy Boylston. Perhaps there was a miniature or another picture of Lucy that he used as his inspiration. Beside this portrait of
Mrs. Timothy Rogers, there are no other known pictures of Lucy Boylston that survived.

Picture 2
Mrs. Timothy Rogers (Lucy Boylston)
John Singleton Copley, American, 1738–1815
Dimensions: 127.63 x 101.92 cm (50 1/4 x 40 1/8 in.)
Medium or Technique: Oil on canvas
Classification: Paintings
Accession Number: 1976.668
On view: Dola Hamilton Stembert Family Gallery (Behind the Scenes: Caring for Art)

At the museum, I could not put my finger on what I found awkward about the portrait. Now, I realize that Copley had to figure out the right proportion by himself! That is the reason why the head seems too small for the body and the left hand looks disproportional; however, it is very obvious that the Boylston family was (and maybe still is) one of the wealthiest families in Boston. I guess that is the reason why Copley alludes to the wealth and good taste of the portrait’s subject through clothing and furniture. He dressed Lucy in a gray golden robe trimmed with lace and surrounded by a shimmering pink satin scarf. Furthermore, she is sitting in a stylish French chair, which might have been made in Boston or imported from England. One thing I find very interesting and mysterious is that even though the Boylston family was very wealthy Lucy is not wearing any jewelry. I was not able to find an answer to this question.
The brown background of the painting is also very intriguing. The curator of the museum discovered that the brownish paint was used to paint over the previous background. In the museum, they tried to reveal the original background. They even tried X-ray and ultra violet techniques, but they were unable to solve this mystery. Berger’s statement: “Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before” (147). He probably did not mean in the literal context, but I think the statement does apply to Lucy Boylston’s portrait. Even with all the modern techniques and high-tech equipment, we cannot go back in time and find answers to questions that are hidden in the past.
Even if the proportions are a little bit off, thanks to Mr. Copley we have a good idea what Mrs. Timothy Rogers might have looked like. The artist used a picture of
Lucy Boylston’s face to paint this portrait. Actually, it is interesting that we now know that the method of reproduction was used back in the 18th century. Of course, Copley’s reproduction of a painting is different from the kind of modern day reproduction Berger refers to in his text.
If I could change something in this picture, I would make sure that Mrs. Timothy Rogers wears some gorgeous jewelry. Diamonds are a girl’s best friend, are they not? I would also change the background. She is sitting in the dark. I would position her in a room that is just as fancy as her clothing. Maybe Lucy was sitting in a room draped with heavy, red velvet curtains and with a view to a luscious garden. There is a hint of sadness in her eyes. To lighten the mood of the painting, I would love to see a puppy sitting in her lap (Picture 3).

Picture 3

Mrs. Timothy Rogers (Lucy Boylston)
Reproduction using my own language of images

Through my research I found additional historical and background information. With each new puzzle piece, my perception of the painting kept changing. The picture seemed completely different now compared to the day I first saw it at the museum. I guess I understand now what Berger meant when he said “The spectator may need time to examine each element of the painting but whenever he reaches a conclusion, the simultaneity of the whole painting is there to reverse or qualify his conclusion” (154). Certainly, I did not have the same impression in the museum, but with the information that I found on the MFA homepage I get a clearer image of
Mrs. Timothy Rogers. The painting on the homepage is the same as in the museum; however, with all of the family history and details about the painting and the artist, everything falls into place. Berger tells us in his essay that reproductions of art create a new language. Copley’s “reproduction” of Mrs. Timothy Rogers did not necessarily create a new language, because Copley’s painting is still an original piece of art. What I found interesting is that the historical background information helped me to understand the language of images, as Berger refers to it, more clearly.
I do not know a lot about art. I just know if I like something or not. Similarly to a glass of wine, I usually cannot tell if it is an expensive bottle of Bordeaux or just a $5 bottle. Like Berger said “…although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing” (142). From this we can understand that it is almost impossible to say that one person’s interpretation of the language of images is right or wrong.