Just a Matter of Perspective

Zettl writes a chapter entitled “The Two-Dimensional Field: Forces Within the Screen,” in order to explain spatial fields in the digital media world.  Zettl describes the many different perspectives of how we see the world in movies, television, and on computers.

According to Zettl, “There are six major types of field forces: main directions, magnetism of the frame and attractions of mass, asymmetry of the frame, figure and ground, psychological closure, and vectors,” (123). 

These six field forces define what our eyes are immediately drawn to, and how artists orientate their photos or shots to be aesthetically pleasing to viewers.  By human nature, we are attracted to the arrangement of certain objects in a certain way.  For instance, in the article, Zettl displays an original photo, and it’s asymmetrically flipped duplicate.  We focus consistently on the object on the right side.  Businesses utilize this strategy in marketing products to customers.  In what other ways do businesses attempt to focus our attention on the product?               

One important type of field force is figure and ground.  There are five defining characteristics to determine the figure in contrast to the ground.   

  

·      The figure is thinglike. You perceive it as an object

·      The figure lies in front of the ground

·      The line that separates the figure from the ground belongs to the figure, not the ground.

·      The figure is less stable than the ground; the figure is more likely to move.

·      The ground seems to continue behind the figure. (113)

For example, the optical allusion below is a classic example of figure and ground.  Can you determine which is the figure and which is the ground? Is it possible for both images to fit both criteria?

The Impact of Technology on Relationships

The Question of Perception

Virilio focuses his final section of Open Sky on images and how we interpret them.  On the topic of how we see such images, he poses one important question: “Can we still talk of images when there are no longer any pixels, the laser beam directly stimulating the retinal rods and cones of the eye?”

I believe these impressions without pixels will still maintain their place as images in our world.  So long as they stimulate our brains, make us feel emotion, and can be differentiated from another impression, images will continue to be an important part of our daily lives.  With technological advances, these laser beams may even push our brains to strain farther than we ever thought before.  So, how might these new laser beamed images enhance our abilities to collect information?

“’It is in the nature of the French not to like what they see.’ Well, are they right or wrong?  That is indeed the question: the question of choice in perception.  Are we free, truly free, to choose what we see?”

Virilio makes an interesting point.  The question of choice is in perception.  We perceive things differently and therefore must act on those images.  How we make our choices defines us as a person.  One who likes a sunrise may also like a sunset.  However that same person may not find the rolling hills to be attractive.  What defines good taste from poor taste in viewing images?

A Sunrise at Pretty Place, Camp Greenville

Is Less Really More?

Virilio’s Part II of Open Sky takes on more manageable topics for the everyday audience.  One of his major points reads: “If the recent evolution of post-industrial machinery is anything to go by: less is more” (54). 

Virilio is commenting on our industrialization as a society and how more is not always better.  For example, iPhones, televisions, radios, all of this new technology…is it beneficial to our society? Or detrimental to our livelihood?    

Ultimately, “The burning question is: if less is more, to what extent?” (54).  What justifies as enough?  If people really were happy with less, as opposed to more, why do inventors continue to expand their horizons and improve technology?

I can assure you that Apple isn’t planning to discontinue innovations anytime soon and Toyota is going to continue to continue to make more efficient hybrid cars for consumers.  What Virilio is overlooking is the consumer.  If there is a market for products that are bigger and better and more high tech, I would presume there will be an audience that wants such a product.

The last ever MacBook?

If we all have “enough,” what more is there to strive for?  Without aspirations of achieving greatness, I would argue that society, as a whole would become unproductive and complacent.  Our relentless attitudes and determined spirit is what we, as a society, utilize in order to keep moving forward.  

Time as a State of Mind

Beginning Part I of Paul Virilio’s Open Sky was an eye opener.  Not only because of its difficulty to understand, but once I conquered the language barrier, I learned what Virilio has to say is fairly radical.     

Part I is based on the idea of time and an individual’s time in a specific space.  He dictates the importance (or lack thereof) of near and far, and here and now.  While these spaces of time may have been important previously, Virilio asserts that soon there will be no difference between these spaces. 

For instance, teleportation is not far off when telecommunication (such as conference calls) is a medium of today.  Business executives in Hong Kong can videoconference the chief executive officer of a major corporation in New York City to discuss international trade.  Consequently, the businessman in the United States is in two places at once, as is the foreign trader.  These assumptions erase the present man, and take their position as telepresence and tele-existence.  Can we really be two places at once, even if only via technology?

I believe the most drastic claim Virilio makes is in his last few pages of the section. He states: “Whether we like it or not, for each and every one of us there is now a split in the representation of the World and so in its reality,” (44).  Has our world, specifically how we view the world, changed this drastically?  Virilio believes it has, but what argument does he make for this dramatic division? 

Maybe there is a drastic divide between reality and how we represent reality, but can we go as far to say there are two separate realities?  Virilio thinks we can.  I’m not completely convinced that our means of communication and technology can intermix so far as to create separate realities, but I will be interested to see how the rest of his argument pans out.

He concludes, “We thus find ourselves faced with a sort of great divide in knowing how to be in the world,” a task that may be more difficult than we imagined (25).  We must determine whether we will exist as a civilian or as a nomad on a journey.  For Virilio, it is this decision that determines how we will interpret representations and reality in the future.       

Before and After: Technology at Furman

Before: Dark glow

After: Brighter, sharper

Before: Overexposed

After: Darker Contrast, All Black Screens

Before: Overexposed, Wide Shot

After: Zoomed in, Colors Darkened

Before: Wide Shot, Bright Image

After: Cropped, More Contrast

Before: Underexposed

After: Brightness increased, T added

Technology at Furman

Created with flickr slideshow.