View  Edit  Attachments  History  Home  Changes  Search  Help 

visperWILLIAMS, BARBARA S

I enjoyed both packets, and I thought they were very thought provoking in their methods of explaining visual perception. The Visual perception packet reminds us of the thought processes that go into viewing the world. The author made a interesing point about intelligence and vision. We, as humans often do relate intellience with seeing, but this concept never occured to me until I read this packet. I also thought the 3-dimentional art of the packet was quite informative. I had no idea that the concept of 3-D is a learned cultural trait. To think that people could see object on a page and not appear to them as 3-d is amazing.
All different factors go into how we percieve things in the world, even our own moods, goal and expectations. Interesting how this could be possible, because it seems that logically we are viewig the same world. Our eniviroment dictakes what we see, and how we see it. For example: we canot imagine a different color in the color spectrum because we are incapable of seeing it. It would be the same as trying to explian colors to a blind person who has never seen. It is impossible. So we try to explain things we see by other things, or a mixture of familar things. Another idea I found interesting was the concept of the right brain, left brain struggle. Words are oftened revered as more imortant than the color of the text. Therefore when ask to pick between the two, a typical person would choose the actual word over the color. Even people who would be considered "right brain" still have issues dealing with this.
In the Practices of Looking packet, I thought the ideas of representation were interesting concepts. i especially enjyed the picture by Rene Magritte, and his "Treachery of Images." When this thought occurred to me that he was trying to portray, I thought, "What a brillant idea." I relize that represntation is not always universal in meaning.
A intersting fact of photographs is the beliefs that a picture is truth. We often forget however that there is a photographer behind that photograph. He only shows what he wants you to see. So often, we want to believe the photograph is true. So our own expectations often could our true reasoning.
Values of images often depends different factors. The artist itself is a huge factor. Van Gogh is a great example of the stero-typical artist, moody, sensentive, and borderline crazy. The public repays this fact by makeing his art more valuable. Even simple facts that an artwork is in a muesum, then it must be art. I find this fact quite laughable, because it so true. Even I would fooled by a glamourous frame and a slot in a famous muesum. Mass production of this picture plays an important role also in it's worth. the more prevalent in society, the more it is known, therefore mking the original rare. There some sort of mystery to the original, being that fact that very few have seen it, yet everyone has seen it.
The interesting concept of icon is the fact that we cannot define what exactly it is, yet we use that word prevalently. Are icons- icons because we are told so? Is this a fact because they are massed produced and widely shown across America? and what about other cultures? Icons are not univeral; they mean different things to different cultures. I really enjoyed Andy Warhol's picture of Marilyn Monroe. It expresses the idea that she is an icon because she is mass produced.
Until I read this packet I did not relize the genius of Madonna, and her lay on both a mother figure and a sexual icon. (I really didn't know much about her in the first place. Overall, these packets have given me eyes to what is seen and can be seen. I really enjoyed learning these not so new concepts.


By: Barbara Williams

-----------

Link to this Page