Please, address the following questions:
What does Crary mean when he says that vision is severed from the human observer?
Who is the observer in modernity? What is the difference between observer and spectator?
“Most of the historically important functions of the human eye are being supplanted by practices that in which visual images no longer have any reference to the position of the observer in a “real” optically perceived world. ”. Do we agree with this statement? What becomes of the body under new technological conditions and regimes of observation?
What does this mean –“Observation is increasingly a question of equivalent sensations and stimuli that have no reference to a spatial location"?
Any other questions, comments?
I think what he meant by the observer in modernity is the observer or individual that is part of the constant change in society. A person that is involved in the 'post-historical features' and constant production on new inventions that enables them to feel the same. Furthermore, he explained the latin root of both teh word observer and spectator; spectator only means to 'look at'; however, observer is not just a passive onlooker. Its root means 'to conform one's actions, to comply with'. It is not just an individual who sees but rather one who sees within a prescribed set of possibilities as he explains; one who is part of a system.
ReplyDeleteCrary's statement that vision is severed from the human observer describes the contemporary shift in art from traditional media to new media where art exists outside of "real space" and the "optically perceived world," instead existing in fabricated environments as pixels and mathematical data. Alberti's techniques of viewing cannot be applied to this new kind of representation because the viewer's physical position and spatial relationship to the subject are no longer relevant.
ReplyDeleteCrary says that the observer of modernity is no longer a "self-present beholder." Instead, the observer is one who is a part of a broad social surface of the current social, political, technological, and philosophical terrain of today.
Crary says that the word spectator, being derived from spectare meaning "to look at," suggests a passive viewer and a subject that is a "spectacle." The observer, on the other hand, is more than simply "one who sees," but, as Crary defines it, "one who sees within a prescribed set of possibilities, one who is embedded in a system of conventions and limitations" (page 6). Therefore, the primary difference between spectator and observer is involvement – the spectator is passive and uninvolved, whereas the observer is rooted in a cultural, social, and temporal context and processes, senses, and perceives more than the spectator.
Crary’s statement about the functions of the human eye makes sense when applied to the many of the forms of computer generated images that he mentions in his introduction to the essay which are outside of the traditional realm of viewing. I would need to experience more of these computer images personally before assessing whether I completely agree, however when an observer views something that is electronically fabricated with no real ties to the tangible, physical world, and that is represented by pixels and data, the physical and spatial relationship of the viewer no longer seem entirely relevant. Additionally, the function of the human eye seems to be irrelevant in the traditional sense. If we think of the function of sight as described by Alberti, using metaphorical rays to view and assess spatial relationships in our environment, and we consider technologies like virtual reality and holography, the methods of sight which Alberti describes cannot be applied, because the planes which are being viewed lie outside of reality and the natural world.
With these new technologies, the role of the body and the physical observer is radically changed because visuality has moved out of the physical reality (of which the body is a part) and into a more abstract, electronic terrain.
Regarding the statement, “Observation is increasingly a question of equivalent sensations and stimuli that have no reference to a spatial location":
New technologies make it possible to develop imagery that is detached from physical space. The observer, rather than processing the image through traditional optical techniques of viewing, responds to digital visual stimuli that do not exist in the tangible world through visual and physical sensation.
I feel like the more we read the more we get into semantics. I understand the difference Crary points out between the passive 'spectator' and interactive 'observer'--truly our mode of perception, and perception itself has changed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to imply that new technologies have ordered a reality so far removed from Alberti's methods of sight is to give these new technologies too much credit.
While the idea of the completely passive and uninvolved spectator helps to clarify Crary's thesis, in truth there has never existed a completely passive spectator.
Methods of viewing (particularly art), regardless of the spatial relationship between the observer and observed, have always involved the factor of a willing suspension of disbelief, of an observer rooted in some culture/worldview or another--whether it is Alberti's humanist renaissance or today's information suffused dysphoria.
Not to discredit the dramatic change in status of the observer, certainly they are more empowered than their predecessors, but perhaps not so different a creature than we think.
who is Daily Sleeper?
ReplyDeleteWhen Crary expresses that vision is severed from the human observer, he is stating that the concept of vision falls independent of the human observer. He explains that the observer is always bias as he/she is altered by environmental forces, varying histories, different practices, or unique ideologies. However, vision is simply vision – whether continuously changing or completely static is of little importance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Crary states that the dictionary does little to differentiate between the terms spectator and observer, Crary clearly marks the distinction by drawing on the words’ etymological background and it’s cultural context. He notes that, unlike the Latin root for "spectator," the root for "observe" does not literally mean "to look at." In addition, Crary writes that spectator has a cultural meaning of one who is a passive subject at a show or spectacle. To avoid this underlying meaning, Crary chooses to use the term observer when addressing his subject.
I do agree the statement, "Most of the historically important functions of the human eye are being supplanted by practices that in which visual images no longer have any reference to the position of the observer in a “real” optically perceived world,” as it is the technology that is doing most of the work for us. However in this process do we lose something? Or is the technical vision more complete? If technology reproduces our vision, as a species, will our capability of vision weaken?
These thoughts remind me of this cutting edge technology that enables a blind person to see. A human being actually does not see through one's eyes but through one's brain, the eyes are simply the tool but they are not the physical sight. This technology surpasses the eyes and connects right to the brain enabling one to see the image. It is almost like it is simply transporting data directly to the brain.
This makes me question… what is categorized as data? And what is categorized as sight? And is the way we see simply data transmission as well?
Advanced technology, easy access to media, and the amount of consumption of images through internet and TV results in our generation experiencing more. This experience is not complete as it lacks a special location or point of reference. This excess of media stimulation causes a blasé attitude (becoming numb), which increases the want for more stimuli. Therefore media ends up only providing stimuli of a “limited-liability” (feelings that do not bind/ sensations that aren’t true feelings).
- Jasmine