Perception and Reality

I find the discussions about perception the most interesting—In particular the parts about luminance that Livingstone discussed. She stresses that luminance is a perceptual measurement, not a physical one. Our perception of depth and movement is based on luminance, not color. This separateness makes sense when you consider the areas of the brain that process color and luminance are as anatomically distinct as vision from our other senses. I find the primitive nature of luminance intriguing. When I look at a physical scene in front of me or stare at a painting my brain is analyzing part of it in a way I was never conscious of until now. I am beginning to understand those instinctual feelings I have when something strikes me as fascinating because it generates a sensation inside. I am not usually conscious of what specifically is causing this sensation.

Humans are lucky that our visual system evolved the way it did—with our “what” system overlaying onto our preexisting “where” system. This makes analyzing what vision is and what seeing entails that much more fascinating to study. It makes me question how one evaluates what sight (seeing images or colors) is? If completely blind people can see images that are as real as what I see, then how do we explain the process of seeing? Vision seems to be more than our brain and eyes. Thinking about perception also causes me to consider the different visual disabilities a person can have (such as the patients Sacks writes about). How does our brain remap itself when it loses an ability? Does something neurologically happen in the brain to replace lost senses when the loss occurs?

How we perceive luminance, and how this differs from individual to individual is a topic I would like to explore more. In low light setting reds become darker and blues become brighter. I am curious if this shift is less or more extreme in some individuals and what the implications of this shift are in artwork. The uncertainty that comes to mind when I hear the word “perception” causes me to contemplate what is real? (i.e. Some disorder cause people to see objects that are not there, but this does not mean that they are not seeing these objects?) Is seeing images in this abnormal way still considered sight? Luminance perception alters how we see objects, but those objects are still considered real regardless of how they change. Shouldn’t certain “hallucinations” resulting from brain traumas be as well? As Arnheim says, color is determined by its context, but this seems to be true for vision in general and not just color.

The reading I struggled with the most this week was Arnheim’s explanation of generative and fundamental colors. Generative complementaries are colors that in combination produce a monochromatic white or gray, and fundamental complementaries are colors that require and complete each other. I had a difficult time understanding all of the details, but I did gain a better understanding of the overall relationship between colors. My previous understanding of color was basic: three primary colors, three secondary colors, and three pairs of complementary colors. I mapped out diagrams for each complementary pair so that I could visualize it better, and for the first time I realized how connected all colors are. I don’t see colors as separate from each other as I previously did—they are all related.

Also, I wanted to share this TED video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5otGNbkuc

(Fundamental complementaries top, Generative complementaries bottom.)