All visual information of a particular object can easily be obtained through various levels of the direct experience of seeing. We all are the original camera; we call can store and recall for use this visual information with high visual effectiveness. The difference between the camera and the human brain lie in the question of faithfulness of observation and ability to reproduce the visual information. It is clear that the artist and the camera hold some special expertise in both areas.
Beyond a realistic three-dimensional model, the closest thing to actually seeing a bird in direct experience would be a carefully exposed and focused photography in full and natural colour. The photograph matches the facility of the eye and brain, replicating the real bird in the real environment. We call the effect realistic. It should be noted, however, that in direct experience, or on any level of the scale of visual expression from photograph to impressionistic sketch, all visual experience is intensely subject to individual interpretation.
From the "I see a bird" response to "I see flight," and to the multiple levels and degrees of meaning and intention between and beyond, the message is always open to subjective modification. The development of visual material should no more be dominated by inspiration and threatened by method than the converse. Making a film, designing a book, painting a painting, are all complicated ventures that must utilise both inspiration as well as method. Rules do not threaten creative thinking in mathematics; grammar and spelling for not impede creative writing. Coherence is not unaesthetic, and a well-expressed visual idea should have the same beauty and elegance as a mathematical theorem or a well-known sonnet.
No comments:
Post a Comment