PCS Vanessa Bolt
The handout on Visual Perception discusses how differently people perceive images. Everyone sees things differently & there are many factors that contribute to how/why we perceive things a certain way. The chapter
Cultural & Environmental Factors explains how your culture/environment effects your perception. Basically it is asserting that the way your surroundings operate determines a lot of how you view and understand imagery. Rural vs. urban, architectural vs. organic, and western educated vs. culturally traditional education are all factors. For example, when people who live in the forest, and do not use depth perception, are brought to a cliff overlooking a field of animals they will see them as tiny animals rather than far away animals. Basically this means that the skills you use, the way you typically see/understand things in the context of your dailylife, determines how you see/understand things outside of your daily life. If you have no depth perception, you not be fooled by the illusion of depth in a photo or picture. In the studio this information can be helpful because it allows you to better understand how you can control images. It is important to be aware of and able to understand different perceptions of your work in order to be responsible for its content. However, in studying this reading I've been thinking a lot about this : If everyone perceives things differently, which one is true? Is the artists intention for the work the ultimate truth? The example of the black man who was perceived as wielding a knife in a white mans face (when in reality the white man had the knife at his hip) made me wonder about this because even though the truth was that the black man had no knife, it was almost more real because so many people saw it that way & that kind of perception is so detrimental to society that it creates its own new reality. So, which one is real!???
The second reading describes how powerful images can be. In the section on Images & Ideology the author states that images can be (& are) use in order to persuade or perpetuate an ideology/ies. The most powerful example in the reading was of the darkening of OJ Simpson in order for him to be perceived as guilty & criminal. This information can be taken into the studio in a similar way to the first. It is important that one is aware of the power of the form(s) they choose to create. We must be aware of the iconic elements in our imagery and what they represent, whether it be an ideology or anything else. This is also so closely linked to politics. I was instantly reminded of the anti-abortion posters I've seen that show giant pictures of grotesque fetuses, their strange and pathetic bodies that shock people into believing that abortion is the murder of a "wittle baby" when in reality most abortions occur when the cells are smaller than a pinky nail and have no resemblance to any "human" characteristics. In the studio, it is important to understand how manipulative an image can be, and to have control of that manipulation.
The NOVA segment we watched also dealt with a way of interpreting an image. This was more about the way the brain "sees" things, and the connections the brain makes when watching someone or something else. The experience of viewing something is so powerful that the brain responds almost as strongly to it as if the body were doing it itself. This information is incredibly valuable for use in the studio, it is another way to understand the power your work has over your viewer. This also reminds me of a science experiment in which the results are changed simply by its being observed, because this function of the body is another thing that could be incorporated into the works. Understanding your ability to control another person by your imagery can be a valuable part of a project and can be used as a factor of the project itself.
Links to this Page
