November 4, 2012

Images inside Images

I don't really know how I feel yet about this essay. I am still trying to digest it. All of these essays this semester have sort of blown my mind and really just made me have so many thoughts and have brought in so much new information, I feel like I have a lifetime of thinking to do to work these things out in my mind. I am a thinker. I will toy with these thoughts for the rest of my life. It's not a bad thing. I am excited about it. I love food for thought.

One thing that stood out to me about the double picture photos was the idea that you could not see both images at one time. I thought about the mother in law and the duck rabbit. Some of my friends, when shown the images, could not see one and could only see the other. I, on the other hand have always been able to see both. I'm not sure if I see them at the same time, but I feel like It's possible and I may. But maybe it's switching within a split second in my mind without me noticing and never really seeing both images at the exact same time?

I thought of those pictures from when we were younger where you have to get really close to the image and then you have to cross your eyes and move back slowly. You receive a picture shown in depth perception. Some people can not, for the life of them, get to the point of seeing that image. What makes us able to see optical illusions and why can some people not see them??


Joel Bergholtz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joel Bergholtz said...

I definitely agree with you that such complex reading material blows my mind and makes it all the more difficult in separating one argument from another. After a while, a lot of the theories seem to mesh together.
As far as the double picture photos, I have to disagree with you that its possible to see them at the same time. I, of course, could be wrong as well, but to me it seems your eye can only see it one way at a time because every single line has a two-way function. In the duck, the two lines are the mouth. In the rabbit, the two lines are the ears. Sure, you can switch between both images almost instantaneously, but you cannot see an image with two lines functioning as the ears and the mouth at the exact same time. In connecting this with recent readings, I think it shows how much is dependent upon ones interpretation of something. When one reads something, there are several ways of interpreting, each interpretation using various lines to support itself. As one is crafting this interpretation, there are certain points that can mean so much to them, that they can only see it in that way. However, someone else may interpret it completely different, using the exact same lines to support a different interpretation. What does this mean for authors purpose if several people can deduct several different interpretations from one essay? What about a piece of art being interpreted? Definitely important questions to ponder in our strive for understanding text.

Rdexheimer said...

Yeah, I'm also going to have to agree that I do not feel as if I can perceive both images simultaneously. I knew that the pictures contained two images but I doubt that the images can be "read" in a fashion that accounts for both images at the same time. There seem to be distinct layers of meaning embedded in both the work and our interpretation of it. In a way, it seems as if one's immediate perception a work may be something utterly distinct from their knowledge of the work (after writing this out I feel that this probably isn't much of a revelation).

With respect to optical illusions, I think there are a number of reasons some people cannot see them. Some manipulate aspects of our vision such as depth perception which may need to be somewhat refined in order for the illusion to even be noticeable. Other times the limitation is mental rather than physical, and an individual can "see" the optical illusion without being able to comprehend it or interpret it as meaningful. This is understandable given though some of the representations embedded within optical illusions are highly abstracted and could be interpreted a number of ways. Sometimes the individual needs to be directed as to what they are even looking for because an illusion could be read as any number of things.

Josh Johnson said...

The Metapictures Essay has by far been one of the most interesting reading that we have had so far. I too find it confusing at times but the thought of the image inside of an image fascinates me. The Duck-rabbit is an example that i feel confuses u the most. Although in my opinion the Rabbit is the dominant part of the image. I feel like if i looked at the image for the first time and someone told me it was a rabbit, i believe that the rabbit would be the only thing that i see. I feel like knowing that the picture is supposed to be a "meta" image kinda pulls my imagination and my thought to that direction. Do i see the duck, yes i do but its not dominant in my opinion. its almost like when you were younger and you looked into the clouds and you could almost see images in your head of what the clouds looked like. You would try to explain it to someone else but they swore that they could not see what you were talking about. On page 51 it explains how the Duck-Rabbit is a multi stable image that reveals the presence of the minds eye. Also comparing your eyelids as photographic lens. I definitely agree with the essay when they explain that you can see one or the other and even both but never at the same time.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.