John Berger's 'Ways of seeing'

'Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.'
This quote from John Berger's book 'Ways of seeing' clearly identifies the relation between  'seeing' and  'words'. We can seet things and can't describe them with words, when you see something you are thinking about it, about the subject about the person, you don't think how to describe it with the best words. This is Magritte's painting called 'The key of dreams' and shows the relation between words, seeing and memory, because like John Berger says in that book, 'The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe'. Like in this painting for example the subjects are related only by one word but you already know what is it about, of course every person has different experience and different understanding about the subjects because they are related to our memories and the way we link one subject with our knowledge or our memory. For me particulary in this painting in the first square with the hourse and the word 'the door' I understand that it is about freedom, the hourse is sign of the free soul well at least the wild ones that run around the forest with they mane waven by the wind and the door is also sign of freedom, the releasing of something. The second square with the clock gives you the idea of timeless, like the time is just passing by. The jug and the bird are related to me because the two of them use in one or another way water.The last one is different from the others because it dosen't make you think why that word is related to that subject it just gives you the name of the object, which connects with travelling.
 John Berger's 'Ways of seeing' and in particulary the first chapter of it gives some really good ideas about paintings like 'Regents of the old men's alms house' by Hals, 'Regentesses of the old men's alms house' by Hals, 'Venus and Mars' by Botticelli and talks more about how the invention of the camera and the video camera radically changed humans lives from the time it was invented by now. In the book it states that with the discovering of the camera the art were no longer the same, that the camera 'destroyed' the art as it was used to be in the past. I think that when it comes to that there are good things, too. Most of the people can't go and see the originals in the museums, maybe because they don't have the money for it, but with the pictures of them, with the reproductions of the originals now they are available to the all world and everyone can see and get touch even a liitle part from the art. In that way the art can be shown at the books and studied by the students. Of course I agree that in that way the paintings and the art are no more like the past, that now they don't tell their story the same way as before, that now the painting has million meanings and the worse part of that is that the paintings are no more valued because of their author or the quality, but because of the 'market value', on how searched is that painting. You can feel and see the quality of the painting only when you see the original, then you can feel the smell of it, you can see the colours and the canvas as when it was like thousand of years ago when the painter painted it. For good or for not the camera had been invented and the art is nothing like in the past, although like everything it has its good and bad sides.