<eyebeam><blast> Seeing Eyes

[Simon Biggs <simon@babar.demon.co.uk>]

NAA20198
Sender: eyebeam-list@list.thing.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: eyebeam-list@list.thing.net

Perhaps my response not strictly to topic, although one can 'see' lines
from here. Two things...

>And it is just as well, you might think, when considering how
>untrustworthy representations have become, how quickly they can be
>tampered with if they are not somehow secured.  Images even appear to
>doubt themselves these days, and perhaps that is why they seem to want
>to expand (immersion), or shrink to nothing (beam).  In the case of
>direct, strategic scanning, it appears as though there is little chance

>of deceit.  There is no time or space to fool the eye.  Reversing the
>vector, this scan IDs you before you identify it.  It does all the
>reading, in a way that is more natural (because what it sees is the
-----
Consider Joachim Sauter's and Dirk Lusbrink's (Art+Com, Berlin) piece
where gazing at a picture gradually destroyed the picture, repainting it
with a map of the gaze itself. An inverse instance of the above?

>marksman.  “Getting the shot of this New Guinea tribesman was a
one-shot
>deal,” the photographer speaking in the Canon ad continues. “The EOS
>lenses always react as quickly as I have to -- with dead-on autofocus
>accuracy.” The out-of-place tribesman pictured here stands gazing
>dead-on at the camera, his face pigmented bright yellow and red, his
>eyes soulful. “Switching to the EOS System helped change the face of my

-----
What of the story (is it true? something to do with Paiget?) about
African tribesmen in the early part of the Twentieth Century not being
able to recognise themselves, or a tree, in a photograph...but being
easily able to identify these things in a drawing created within their
cultural expectations.

>photography,” the photographer concludes.  Which face does he mean?
The
>faces overlay, frozen in a capture, when the registration marks are all

>aligned.  A clash of cultures subsumed within the speed and stealth of
a
>heavily augmented, logistical seeing.  But something doesn’t quite
>“match up.”
-----
The camera can be regarded as just as arbitrary an imaging system as any
other that has been devised, so why should the lens based scan of an eye
have any particular veracity beyond the contingent parameters of our
expectations of the media and the 'nature' of the image? Not that this
would bother the computer, so long as it has an accurate map of those
parameters.


Simon Biggs
London GB

simon@babar.demon.co.uk
http://www.easynet.co.uk/simonbiggs/





-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------