FREE ESSAY ON VISIT TO ART MUSEUM

VISIT TO ART MUSEUM

Looking at Pictures (Berger) Final Draft
Upon receiving the assignment to visit the Museum of Fine Arts and pick a painting that
"seems silent and still yet invites conversation" I was originally frustrated and wanted
to just get it over with and pick out the first painting I saw. However, once I entered
the museum my stress and frustration decreased and I wanted to take the time to
appreciate the artwork and find a piece that thoroughly grabbed my attention. The classic
quiet building put me at ease and I began my search. I passed many European paintings
until one particular painting struck my eye. It was a painting that "spoke" to me and
induced conversation among the other visitors of the museum as well. The painting
possessed a beauty and a magnetism that I was drawn to. It was an oil painting by
Francois Joseph Navez titled "Pilgrimage in the Roman Campagna". The painting wielded
mystification. By Webster's definition mystification means to perplex or bewilder.
However, it is not the painting in itself that causes confusion, it is the perception of
the observer to the painting in collaboration with the meaning the painter intends to
portray. In this case Berger's definition of mystification as "the process of explaining
away what might otherwise be evident" seems more appropriate (Berger 112).
"Pilgrimage in the Roman Campagna", also titled "Visit to the Miraculous Shrine",
instantaneously forces the spectator to see the painting in two different ways, before
even looking at the painting. The person could perceive the painting's significance as
being the actual pilgrimage that was taken, or could deem the importance as being the
"miraculous shrine". Navez forces this elucidating division in several ways. Firstly, the
painting has many focuses. One of which is the imagery of the peasants. A melancholy
sensation emanates from these peasants. As a spectator myself, I found difficulty in
diverting my attention away from this particularly somber setting. My ardent
concentration on the peasants' expressions and the underlying meanings they provoked
prevented me from seeing that perhaps the meaning Navez was trying to convey was quite
different from anything having to do with the actual presence of the peasants. Perhaps
the painting had little to do with the peasants' journey at all. Maybe the true
significance of the painting lied in the "miraculous shrine", hence the reason for the
double named painting. Were the two titles, "Pilgrimage in the Roman Campagna", and
"Visit to the Miraculous Shrine", possibly another ploy to stupefy the onlooker of the
painting? The aestheticism alone was enough to divert the attention of the observer away
from the artist's true implication. Navez's painting mystifies the spectator and coerces
him/her to decipher the true meaning of the piece of art. When I looked at the painting,
I saw many things. There were five female peasants dressed in exotic peasant like attire.
The facial expressions of the peasants seemed to express distress and longing for
something. Perhaps the expression exuded from these peasants is Navez's way of
illustrating the tormented and arduous lives they led. The colors were vivid, yet the
aura was somber. What seemed to be that main character in the painting was kneeling down,
facing the shrine wit her hands clenched together as though she were praying. This shrine
could have symbolized the solution or miraculous occurrence that was anticipated by the
peasants. Another woman looks into the sky with her finger on her chin, as thought she is
gravely foreseeing what is about to happen. There is a male peasant kneeling on the
ground as well, who appears to be praying or searching for salvation. One of the female
peasants is holding a long cane-like object and stares at the ground. The other female
peasant is leaning over a wreath holding her hand to her head in sorrow. She is holding
the hand of a little bow behind her, (perhaps her son) whom looks very concerned.
Everyone in the painting is barefoot. It seems like everyone is "visiting this miraculous
shrine", to await a response to their prayers. The peasant's appearance of a search for
salvation was perhaps Navez's way of exhibiting their spirituality. According to
Webster's dictionary, "spiritual", is defined as "of, like, or pertaining to the nature
of spirit, relating to religion; sacred". This sanctified scene, if you will, sets the
tone for Navez's intriguing work of art.
After observing the painting with my own eyes, I listened to comments from other people
passing by. I heard several comments regarding the appreciation of the painting
aesthetically. However, nobody commented on the significance of the painting. It would
have been interesting to hear comments from bystanders so that I could compare my
interpretation with theirs and perhaps hone my knowledge of the painting. Since I was not
successful in that aspect, I looked to the plaque beside this beautiful painting to see
what Francois Joseph Navez was thinking when he created this masterpiece. To my dismay,
the plaque gave a brief biography of Navez but no discussion of its true significance. 
After reading John Berger's essay titled "Ways of Seeing", he helped me to better
visualize and comprehend the meaning behind the painting. Perhaps it is not the meaning
Navez implies but the meaning with regard to the perspective of the creator of the
artwork. Berger discusses mysticism in his essay and how every painting along with every
photograph entitles everyone to his/her own perspective. Berger states, "An image is a
sight which has been recreated or reproduced. It is an appearance, or a set of
appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its
appearance and preserved for a few moments or a few centuries. Every image embodies a way
of seeing" (Berger 116). It is after reading Berger's interpretation of ways of seeing
that I have learned to appreciate the distinct divisions of interpretations and messages
that Navez intends to elicit in "Pilgrimage in the Roman Campagna", or "Visit to the
Miraculous Shrine". Perhaps Navez himself had a reason for providing the interpreter of
the painting with so many paths to mender. Perhaps he only had one reason as to what the
meaning of the painting was. Whatever the case may be he is entitled to his perspective,
just as myself and the visitors of the Museum of Fine Arts are entitled to theirs.
Whatever the reason may be for the appreciation of Navez's artwork, whether it is for
aesthetic beauty, for what it means to the observer, or what it means to the artist, is
irrelevant. I must agree with Berger's theory in that there are infinite possibilities of
how that painting could have been seen as well as how it could have been done
differently. The real significance of the painting lies in the eye of the beholder.