Celeste Brusati borrows from Svetlana Alpers and views art, particularly seventeenth century Dutch art, by using the perspective created by the artist to create active looking and regards the work as a pictorial experiment. By doing so Brusati allows the art to be seen not only how the viewer naturally sees it, but also how the artists intended for it to be seen in the most ideal setting.This contrasts with my personal way of looking at art because I tend to observe a picture as a whole first, and then slowly break it down and look at technical elements, such as perspective, last. However, I do see the merits in approaching art this way and think that it could provide me with new ways to approach works I have become familiar with. Berger’s methods of analysis resonate with my own, particularly with the providing of social and political historical context. I believe that is extremely important to understand the historical context of a painting when one is attempting to decipher the meaning of art. I also appreciate how he incorporated counterpoints to each of his propositions, because, no amount of theorizing by art historians can ever equal having the artist explicitly state their intention. I think that Brusati’s and Berger’s methods of analysis differ in their focused centrality, Brusati on technique and Berger on context, however, I do not believe that either would say that the others method is wrong or less effective than their own.