John Berger, as an art critic, is an enigma; even within the same article written about him by the same author, it is not unusual for him to be categorized in two totally divergent designations. Keeping Berger's unique perspective in mind, this essay will specifically discuss Berger's commentary on the unknown art historian's assertions about a Hals painting. Additionally, the essay will comment on Berger's perception of this specific work of art.
             In a bold argument, Berger makes the point that the account of the Hals painting by the unknown art historian is a case of "mystification", which is to say the process of explaining away what might otherwise be evident. Berger's account of that same painting is quite the opposite, in that he uses perception to assess and describe the painting- seeing what is "really there", and that perception may have been possible for the original critic who wrote about the Hals painting, but that the circumstances of that time made literal interpretation unacceptable for a variety of reasons.
             Another key point in Berger's writing is the explanation of why it takes an expert to "see clearly". Seeing clearly is, in the theory of Berger, the ability to reproduce the exact image of what one has seen, much as the camera does, and in the case of an art commentator or critic, to keep that mirror image firm in the mind when sharing thoughts and critiques with others. Berger also made the assertion that "The way we see things is affected by what we know or believe". This being the case, a logical explanation of Berger's mindset harkens back again to the issue of perspective; for example, if a work of art is viewed in its contemporary context, it will be more likely to be purely seen, whereas an art work viewed from the point of history will have a view influenced by history, which of course is a second hand view of a time, place a
             ...