Thursdays lecture was on figure and ground in its infancy, it covered the basics of the phycological study of perception and it’s growth in babies in particular. It began with defining the fact that perception is organising what you see into a visual whole; as we separate objects into solid and otherwise space. This began under the knowledge of Gestalt psychology theory of “The whole is more than the sum of it’s parts.”
Kurt Koffka was also mentioned with the study of differentiation from 1928, which looked at the ability to tell the self same difference of visual perception and understanding, “Not to say that the child sees a luminous point; but rather that the child sees a luminous point upon a relatively indifferent background; or in the case of touch, that pressure is felt upon the hand, which before had been lacking in phenomenal distinction.”
There are a few facts of human perception; namely that humanity if programmed to see faces, like the man in the moon; ‘ambiguity’ otherwise the grouping of objects, which allows us to make patterns and understand the correlation between background and foreground. Other factors for creating patterns and understanding different images in various scenarios of the proximity, similarity, orientation, continuity and closure.
There are few other ares of visual perception that otherwise effect the ability to separate the areas of images into solidity and relativity to reality. Francisco Varela claimed “cognition can only be understood in terms of how significance rises out of the auto totality that is the organism.” He studied the inactive/active cognition of the eye to brain function. Meaning that he correlated the way we see and how that effects everything else we do. “In short the world is not something that is given to us, but something we can engage in by moving, touching, breathing and eating. This is what I call cognition as enaction.”
I can apply this to the images of the project I am currently working on; as they are, for the moment, simple pointillist images of various tones of ink, merely something to look at. I wanted to make the work again but prominently for blind, if not only for them. I planned on making the image again in wax or glue; or trying through technology as soon as i figure out how. Although I did some research into trying to find if any one else had produced anything similar to help me along; Roy Nachum came up. A short video of his exhibition was played on tho site and after watching it, i realised i was trying to aggravate a situation that had already done so in the opposing way, however intentionally. I need to find a better way.