Re: Dr. George's querry

[P3D <Al_Razutis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear George Themelis (et al),

Since photo-3D appears in an "edu" site, one can presume that the
administrators are educators
and that site activities are monitored with that preference in mind.  This is
not a Nobel hot-line,
nor are the curious prevented from seeking out references (from their
libraries, faculty advisors,
etc.) with regards the discoveries in the physiology and psychology of
perception.  A
"differentiated" viewer - sexually differentiated, culturally differentiated,
physically differentiated
in terms of 'abilities to see' - is a given.  (On this bulletin board, for
example, there seems to be a
preponderance of male readers.)  Female and male "subjectivity" in viewing
(and producing)
photographs, film and video, has been the subject of numerous essays and
these are all
accessible to interested parties. Especially if the host institution has a
department of media
studies.   So, in answer to your querry, and without invoking (that is,
citing) the specifics of
"saccadic eye movement" and "feature rings" (well known to physiologists of
perception), I offer
a quote from Paul Virilio's essay "The Vision Machine" (Indiana Univ. Press,
1994):

"The veracity of the work therefore depends, in part on (the) solicitation of
eye (and possibly
body) movement in the witness (viewer) who, in order to sense an object with
maximum clarity,
must accomplish an enormous number of tiny, rapid movements from one part of
the object to
the another.  Conversely, if the eye's motility is transformed into fixity
'by artificial lenses or bad
habits', the sensory apparatus undergoes distortion and vision
degenerates...the snapshot's
image-freeze or rather image-time-freeze invariably distorts the witness's
felt temporality, that
time that is the movement of something created."  (p.2)

This appears in a discussion of late 1800 and early 1900 sensibilities by
sculptors (such as
Rodan) towards the emerging medium of photography. It's commentary on the
effects of fixity -
and we have a lot more fixated viewing stations today then in the early
1900's - seems to me a
valid commentary on our computer-tv culture today. I am also unaware of any
research that has
proven the non-existence of saccadic eye movement and its role in graphic and
spatial
perception and cognition.  Looking through a tunnel (viewer), at a
fixed-distance screen (SVGA
monitor or TV) obviously denies 'the eye's motility'.  If you consider for a
moment, that we
individuals are not only sexually-culturally-perceptually "differentiated"
from one another but
have embraced (and in the case of stereoscopic-photo-3D, valorized)  the
'transformation of the
eye's motility into fixity' -- that is STARING at a fixed scene in a
viewmaster...- then appropriate
questions arise as to whether this process encourages "distortion" and the
degeneration of
vision...and whether "motion-picture" (eg. video) 3-D is an attempt to
correct for some of the
loss.  Admittedly, all of this resides in the highly differentiated and
subjective realm of the image-
producer and image-consummer with the net result that styles and technologies
will be fiercely
defended, while others will be strongly denounced.

My personal experiences in ongoing screenings of 3D video to a variety of
individuals confirms
that there is no 'typical' viewer, no predictable perceptual response, no
collective subjectivity, no
standard receptor (physiological or psychological) by which one can guage the
results.  Some
people see better stereoscopically, some can't see it at all(!)  One produces
stereo work with a
certain assumption that 'most' people will be able to see it 'more or less'. 
I have yet to hear that
fixed-gaze viewing of stereo-pairs or stereoscopic viewing of motion-picture
scenes would
conform to the viewer's previous experience of perceiving the world of
objects and things(!)  It
would only be possible in a world where peripheral vision and body motion was
'outlawed'.
(Now, there's a topic for some future paranoid sci-fi novel!: "Abducted by
the netizens of the
planet Stereo!")

In the making of stereo-3D art there is a compromise enforced by the viewing
apparatus which
becomes as important as the selection of subject matter, a compromise further
compromised by
the range of perceptual abilities on the part of the viewers.  In related
mediums like holography, I
noticed that viewers exposed for the first time to holographic images in the
early 70's had less
problems 'seeing' a virtual image (behind the plate) of a concrete-looking
thing than they did a
pseudoscopic 'real' image (appearing in front of the plate) of the 'thing'. 
Their difficulties
increased if that thing (image) was cloud-shaped or 'abstract'.  Similar
problems occured in
computer graphics where the viewer was less certain of a 'point-cloud' image
and more certain of
a wire-frame and surfaced image as 'object', especially if the presentation
is in stereo-3D.
All of these issues are fascinating to me as an artist and worth pursuing. 
The specifics of these
disparities may prompt some "edu" reader to refer to published papers (I'm
interested).  The
science of perception can add to our understanding of 'how we see' but it has
little to say about
'what it means to see' and 'why we interpret what we see as meaning such and
such...'.  These
issues and their philosophical counterparts are part of the mystery of
artistic expression.


------------------------------