I walked through the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston in search of a conversation. As I wandered I saw many spectacular works of art but I was looking for something more than beauty, I was looking for an emotion, something that couldn't be explained in words. I wanted to be provoked to question the paint and artist with excitement and not because I was required to. Berger states that a painting remains silent, until a person approaches it willing to ask questions, but in my experience the reason you approach art to talk can be just as important. There are many ways to start a conversation with a painting; it is dependant on what one is trying to get out of it. Art can be viewed for pleasure, wandering without expectation; to study it, as in an art history class where the painting becomes more historical than beautiful; because of its reputation, like tourists going to see the Mona Lisa because they are in Paris; and so on and so forth. Is there a certain way in which we are to see art? Is the way we question art dependant on the way we see it? After the silence is broken the observer then becomes the critic and interprets the painting according to her. Is her interpretation right? Are there multiple ways to interpret a painting? I think that an individual should experience a painting for herself in any way she prefers. What defines an experience though? Will those who cannot look at the original still get a full experience?
             After spending a good hour in the museum I had seen most of the paintings available and though many where beautiful I had not yet been awed until I passed by The Fog Warning by Winslow Homer in 1885. My initial feeling is indescribable, much in the same way that Berger explains the feeling of love, "When in love, the sight of the beloved has a completeness which no words and no embrace can match" (106, Berger). Without realizing it I was suddenly facing the painting and observing it. The power and str...