What proposes did the study of vision, and specifically, the objective analysis of subjective vision serve to in the 19th century?
In your opinion, what were some of the conditions under which the 19th century subject felt the need to invent new devices of mimetic representation, such as photography.
What are some of the differences between the stereoscope and photography?
How does the stereoscopic device mark a break from the classical observer?
What are some of the repercussions (in terms of the status of the observer as well as the relationship between the body and visiom) of the triumph of photography over the stereoscope?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete1. The objective analysis of subjective vision in the 19th century had several outcomes. The first was scientific. Scientists were able to understand "subjective vision," such as afterimages in a new way. Previously sight was considered very straightforward: the eye recording what it sees, much like the camera obscura. In the 19th century, scientists began to understand vision as a more piecemeal process where sight is blended with remembered perception. As scientists sought to understand how the brain and eye work together to assemble vision, they created devices, such as thaumotropes and the phenakistiscope, to study how the brain blends images. With thaumotropes, they were able to demonstrate how an image recorded on the retina is not erased before the eye sees the next image, thereby enabling the viewer to see both images at once.
ReplyDeleteThe second major outcome of the study of subjective vision had to do with popular culture. The various devices that were created to study sight were sold as entertainment commodities. People were fascinated by these "philosophical toys" which were the first "moving" pictures, or rather sequences of images that resulted in the appearance of continual motion due to retinal persistence.
And the third outcome was the resulting shift in the relationship between the viewer and the object. With these new technologies, particularly the stereoscope and zoetrope, there was no "point of view" in the traditional sense, and the illusion of depth (or movement, depending on the device) was nonexistent without the viewer. The images were transformed by the viewer's sight.
2. I think that the conditions that made photography a necessity in the 19th century were related to existing technologies and the availability of new materials. Part of photographic technology is derived from the camera obscura which was already in existence. With the industrial revolution, new metals and checmicals were more available and people began to experiment with combinations to permanently fix the images they captured. Additionally, with the widespread urbanization that occured in the 19th century, the rise of commodity culture and capacity for mass media would have created a society that would have greatly benefited from the invention of new mimetic representation devices that would enable mass production of imagery and that would be relatively inexpensive to produce.
3. The stereoscope creates the illusion of depth, while photography captures an image in two dimensions. They also differ in the role of the viewer. The stereoscope requires a viewer in order to be fully activated -- the illusion of depth, the stereoscope's primary function, is nonexistent without being processed by the human eye and brain.
They also differ in that photography, while requiring a camera to take a picture, can be viewed by the naked eye without the aid of any special apparatus. The stereoscope, however, requires the viewer to use the apparatus in order to convert the dual images into a single image. The stereoscope is less portable and less functional for widespread applications. Photography, being unencumbered by a viewing device, is able to be used in mass-media since it is easily circulated.
4. The stereoscope marked a break from the classical observer because it required the viewer in order to be fully activated. It gives the observer a new, more involved role in relation to viewing the subject because the illusion of depth created by the stereoscope does not exist except when viewed by the human eye.
5. With the triumph of photography over the stereoscope, the relationship between the observer and the object shifted back to the more traditional role. The role of the body is diminished because while the sterescope required the processes of sight to fully activate the image, the image captured by photography is static, and in its final form without interpretation by the human eye.
Subjective vision is the intangible form of vision that is found within the human body, not within the camera's database. As Crary states, It is subjective in that, "there is never a pure access to a single object; vision is always multiple, adjacent to and overlapping with other objects, desires, and vectors."
ReplyDelete19th century "realism" of mass visual culture was based on new concepts about the human body and it's relation to social power. The knowledge resulted in an attempt to make the observer a subject that can be calculated and normalized. During this century human vision developed certain standards and norms.
This concept of vision and scientific/mathematical construction of what is normal is closely associated with what images and subject society views as "normal." I am reminded of the Saartjie Baartman, also known as "The Hottentot Venus." Baartman was a woman from the Khoikhoi community, who after being tricked to leave her homeland of South Africa, became an object of scientific and medical research. Juxtaposed against European norms, the study of Baartman's body formed the foundation of European ideas about black female sexuality.
The stereoscope’s function is to record and display 3-demensional imagery. It recreates the perception of depth by providing the viewer with two differing perspectives of the same object. Although, it is almost as if the stereoscope is tricking the brain to recreate the 3-D image, the eye still holds the predominant role of recreating the image.
Yet, in photography, the camera obsura forms the image for the viewer. Photography translates a 3-D image into a 2-D image, excluding the concept of depth altogether. Unlike the stereoscope, this method of transmitting data presents the viewer with a singular viewpoint of the object.
With the triumph of photography over the over the stereoscope a key aspect of vision is lost. The eye's ability to recreate an image is replaced by the device of the camera obsura.