I think it is difficult to write on such matters as vision
because what I am gradually learning in class is that I do not think we see at
all, only imagine to see what is provided to us by the dimension humans are
give, that being the 3D. When we look at a screen (camera or moving picture)
it’s a 2D image that we give depth to and create the illusion of 3D image.
Tovee goes on to explain how the muscle controls the eye, which then determines
the value of angles, and these angles capture images, more so, objects,
converge them, and create something that the human observer becomes familiar
with. It is more complex then that, as we all learned in the beginning of class
when focusing on the biological aspect of the visual system. We are given
sight, a tool to understand, manipulate, function, and most of all, survive
with in this subatomic world we are all composed of. Tovee states, “So if the
viewer is familiar with the size of an object, the size if its retinal image
can be used to judge how far away the object is… can be judged by reference to
the size of the familiar object.” (Tovee 161) The viewer scales objects to
compare to a relative size he or she has seen before, which makes me wonder how
the viewer can see at all when he or she is constantly comparing object’s sizes
to other sizes that have no define/ given size. Each person is his or her own
observer, therefore, each objects size must be different to each person, which
is why there couldn’t be one exact size for each object. On top of it, there
are other factors that contribute to what a viewer sees, such as linear convergence,
texture gradients, shading, and of course the amount of light given to that
object.
I think the clip that Sarah provided for us is a perfect
example of how some of us (maybe a majority of us) see in a more common agreed
upon way, while others in a unique perspective unlike anything most viewers can
relate to. This can only reveal to me that each person is his or her own
observer of each phenomenon within space and time. Through this, a larger
reality is constructed by individual realities combined together. These
realities contribute into a more productive reality that many of us are
familiar with, because either we contribute to this reality or it affects the
individual observer’s reality. Temple Grandin sees in pictures, very detailed
pictures that the average eye cannot depict. Why is that? How can it be that a
certain glitch in genetic makeup can cause one person to have an entirely new
vision? How many artists then,
have or had some sort of mishap within their functioning system that gave each
artist the vision to see beyond the conceptualized form? Van Gogh with
schizophrenia, and De Kooning Alzheimer’s, Chuck Close with faceblindness, and
I am assuming there are more artist with something particularly unique to them,
but I am referring to these artists since they were in our readings.
Most of all, I am astonished to learn that the viewer is
stuck in a 3-dimension world and does not have the capacity to go beyond this
dimension, simply because he or she is incapable of doing so. I wonder if artists
aim to simplification because of this. Arnheim continuously refers back to
theory of simplification in every chapter and I think is extremely crucial in
all art forms and non-art perceptive ways of viewing life. More so, because it
appears that we relate better with objects at their purest essence of form
(geometric shapes) and from there can relate these objects to other objects
easier. For example, to understand 3d form we begin with 2d shape of it, and
gradually lead up to 3d form because in the 3d world, there is more freedom to
explore these objects. However, due to being binocular creatures, when these
images converge, information will be lost. Once again bringing into question
the legitimacy of what one can or cannot see. Yet, I think the human compensates
with this default by using one’s imagination, and through this push beyond
realms that fear us, are non relatable, and most of all question life. Art
questions life depending on how far the artist’s wishes to see it like this.
Art is not only provided to the visual creator. I think Temple Grandin is an
artist in her own right, as Oliver Sacks is. I now wonder if artists are about
pushing the realms of our dimensions by the simple aim to understand the world
around them. If so, then the only limits rest within our dimension.
Helpful for understanding dimension but the cartoon is a tad
bit silly.
No comments:
Post a Comment