The Shape of a Pocket (edition 2003)

When I started reading this book, I didn’t expect to think about Richard Dawkins. It’s Berger’s fault. About midway through the book, there's an essay on a portrait of an unknown man by Gericault. Commenting on the painting, Berger states that “[c:]ompassion has no place in the natural order of the world, which operates on the basis of necessity.”When I was in college, I wrote a paper about the role of altruism in natural selection. Richard Dawkins is the champion of the idea of the “selfish gene.” His theory suggests that altruism exists only to ensure the future of one’s genetic material. This is why bees will sacrifice themselves to protect the hive. They’re all related. By killing themselves, they give the future of their genetic material a better chance at survival. I disagree with Dawkins. The idea of the “selfish gene,” at least in the case of altruism, seems to lose steam when applied to humans.The theory of group selection makes a lot more sense to me. This idea suggests that individuals will commit acts of altruism for the good of the group, not exclusively for their genetic material. Adoption, for example, is an altruistic act that benefits someone else’s genes without any selective benefit to the adopter.What does all of this have to do with a painting? Perhaps I’m romanticizing things too much, bringing natural selection in and all, but the relevance seems to be there. Gericault, Berger claims, painted a compassionate portrait. Compassion is the BFF of altruism. The viewer of this portrait, in this case Berger, feels compassion when looking at it. Berger doesn’t know who the man in the portrait is, but if he can be moved to feel compassion for another person simply by looking at a painting, what potential does art really hold? Is art actually furthering our species, contributing in some way to our relationships with each other? I have a hunch it is.While Berger’s line of thought is essentially at odds with everything I’ve expounded upon here, I can’t help but attribute my thought process to him. Each of these essays was clearly a labor of love. He speaks of these artists and their work in such a way that makes it painfully obvious that their contributions are something far more than nice things to look at. My only real complaint about this experience was that, other than Kahlo and Degas, I wasn’t really familiar with the artists or pieces Berger was talking about. I hope to remedy that one day. ( )

Excellent approach to the process of art creation. The author shows a delicate and sensitive vision of all the forms of artistic expression, making the reader feel an intimate and private bond with the book and the author. It's almost as if reading about the way her understands art one is stepping into the author's feelings. Brilliant, specially the first part ( )