Thoughts from the library

Have spent the past three days like a sponge in the library, trying to find some sort of pattern or structure for my thoughts so far and how this might fit into a 'thesis'.

It goes something like this...

All visual perception could be said to be an illusion - drawing conclusions from sketchy qualia or stimulus through a process of inference: comparing 'top down' knowledge and rules with 'bottom up' or physical input.

We are constantly negotiating uncertainty or ambiguity - the co-existence of multiple possible meanings (ambo = two). This tension / mechanism is embedded in our physical structure- judging distance and direction from comparison between left and right eyes and ears for example.

Ambiguities could be considered along a scale that ranges from the indeterminate and the accidental (there is just not enough information to make a decision or it is completely random - objects seen through mist or dragons seen in clouds) to the intentional and binary (two alternate and equivalent meanings have been encoded as a puzzle for the initiated or the dedicated - vase-face, duck-rabbit et al and satirical / political imagery from the Reformation and French Revolution for example). To this could perhaps be added the world of potential or latent images such as holograms and anamorphic toys (where the image is only assembled / perceptible from a particular angle or with the help of a viewing device - analagous to digital / screen-based arts).

Different disciplines have developed a theoretical framework to describe this basic 'truth' of lived experience.

Philosophy of science (see Popper) - theories of truth, idea of verification vs. falsification (does one black swan trump all the white ones?) - contrast with Gregory idea of Bayesian logic of probability.

Biosemiology (von Uexkull and Seboek), idea of the 'umwelt' - collection of signals that provide relevant information for survival. Unwelt of the tick centres on simple light reception for 'up / down', 'in/out', temperature for presence of warm-blooded prey and texture for least hairy / easiest to puncture skin area.

Quantum physics 'uncertainty principle' - process of observation affects outcome, location of atoms in time as distribution of probability. Wave vs. particle theories of light.

Literature - seven types of ambiguity, see Empson - metaphor and allegory; pun and code; conflict, confusion and vagueness.

Theology - idea of mystery and multiple meanings and 'revelation' - through religious experience (Atman, holy trinity, revelation through dreams and signs... et al). Interest in / willingness to accept ambiguity / multiple interpretations of texts....

Visual arts - see Gamboni, Hofman, Weber. Accidental images as original catalyst of creative activity (cave paintings, Leonardo's sponge paintings et al), 'automatic' images / gestures and writing as route to deeper / essential nature (Romantics, Dada, Freud), semiology or vocabulary of signs created by the artist (representational / Symbolists, cubists and abstract / formalists / synaesthetic- synaesthetics) , semiology or vocabulary of signs adopted / adapted by the artist (Dada, pop art et al), rejection of semiology to interest in 'pure' / physiological response (op art, constructivists - I think...)

Common principle - the idea of a unity, framework or umwelt (as developed by Husserl) in which this ambiguity can safely be negotiated, the idea of a grammar or language of signs and signals that are understood within that world.

Changing views of the relationship between these worlds (of maker, viewer / consumer and object) reflect deeper attitudes to power and the tension between inner and outer worlds. In art theory, ongoing debate between 'perceptual' approach - Gombritch emphasis on viewer as intelligent (but unchanging) eye, vs cultural  determinism where all meaning is determined by social / historical / political / technical and commercial context. To these two classic positions, could perhaps add increasing interest in 'biological' or physiological' readings. Perhaps a development from 'process as art' to 'artists as art': studies of impact of loss of hearing on Beethoven's work, mental illness on Van Gogh, failing sight on Monet et al. Fine art practice increasingly interested in art as performance in which physiological state of the viewer is managed / engaged (not new - prehistoric structures suggest clear awareness of the need to 'prime' viewer).  Perhaps Fried's discussion about the impact of scale on perception of objecthood is relevant here. May also point to an increasing elision between the status of the artist and the viewer as 'makers of meaning', especially with a growing number of artists writing about their own work as part of their practice - either to disambiguate or to operate in a different mode- Duchamp 'c'est le REGARDEUR qui fait les images'.

This has implications for generating meaning from 'truths' proposed by artists / the 'art world', writers, philosophers, scientists et al. e.g. Lacan's contention that all scientific activity is essentially a social (and even aesthetic) endeavour.

Resolving ambiguity, then, is a process of evaluating and comparing cues within a given world or paradigm.
This could be seen as a process of identifying edge or significant change in the midst of 'noise' or signals that are not deemed relevant to the task in hand.

Cues for depth are based on a set of assumptions that arise from how the natural world usually presents itself: lighting from the sun (from above to create shadows), diffusion (effect of light dispersed through air so that the tonal and textural qualities of near objects appear more distinct than those further away), perspective (objects of the same type that are further away will appear smaller on the retina than those that are close), occlusion (closer objects will block out those that are behind) and convergence (parallel lines that are angled away from the viewer will appear to get closer together with increasing distance). Most of these cues work when a scene is viewed with one eye alone ('monocularly'). But far richer and more accurate understanding of the relationship between objects in space can be gained through comparison of information received by the two eyes gathering information from slightly different view points - around 6.5cm apart - binocular vision In particular, an object may be partially hidden to one eye, while it is fully visible to the other etc. As the head moves relative to the object, the brain compares the changing information to work out the relationship between the object, its environment and the viewer.

Gestalt offers a framework to understand default / preferred perceptual grouping. Growing understanding of physiological mechanisms of threshold sensitivity and 'noise' to generate edge. Basis of moire pattern / amplified illusion of depth.

New class of illusions being developed to test and play with subtler understanding of the effect of the quality of edge in generating movement as well as space (snake et al).

Combine these mechanisms with the way glass allows you to confound expectations about source of light (outside / behind and within) and occlusion (objects in front do not necessarily block out the ones behind) to generate illusions of space.

Consider the parameters involved in generating a convincing illusion: extent to which the mechanisms need to be 'hidden', relationship of scale between viewer and object - and other viewers.