That is just the science of it. Skin color meant, and still means so much more than just the level of melanin. Skin color determined ones intellect, his biological superiority.

I understand his comparison, but this is a pretty simplistic comparison. Earwax is not visible, it is not what you immidiatly notice when you see a person. The color of his skin is.

Curious as to what this means. Juxtaposition?

Is he saying that images are a "separate world" that are analyzed and contemplated?

He seems very critical and pessimistic about the modern technological progress and

Is it lost or just changed?

I am sure our parents never imagined the possibilities the internet provided us. Maybe technology can in the future do much more than what he is assuming it can do.

So, does according to him whatever we see through the webcam is not a mechanical reproduction? Since we still see it in his original place and time? On the other hand, since the observer can be in a different place, it has elements of a mechanical reproduction.

The brain could be projecting its own reality from behind our eyes.

This reminds of an annotation I made about paintings/art changing through the invention of cameras and other visual technology. Will VR change perspectives on visual representation such as paintings?

Is he comparing VR with dreaming?

When i was reading this I had to think about Marx, and is superstructure and base. VR would be indeed an amazing tool to control the people. It is an easy way to maintain the power dynamics in a society. If it is possible to give people a fake, better, and new reality, the masses will be happy. They will not even realize they are being controlled and by the power elite.

I wonder if that is even possible. Can VR become so real that it is impossible to differentiate VR with our physical reality?

Invisible to the outside, hyper visible on the inside

Reporting crime like that will make people believe crime is everywhere, they will rely more on the government to take care of this and keep them safe. Giving the government more power ( think Patriot Act). Is this comparable with the hate sessions in 1984?

Invisibility versus hyper visibility

Making them invisible

Even though slave being physically freed from being a slave the prior depictions still showed slaves as weak or dependent on their master or whoever freed them. You could say that although they are free they are still forever in debt to whoever freed them. Is that true freedom? The sculpture implies that this freed slave was an independent person who happened to be enslaved. His body language emulates that of someone who can make their own decisions and take initiative. Something that other black characters in other pieces of art lacked.

The reason why the "Freedman" got considerably more attention than the painting was because it was more realistic and also because it was a sculpture. A black depicted by a sculpture was something new. Of course that is going to draw attention.

Looking at the image, Lincoln holds the slave with left hand and points up with his right arm. Left hand is often associated with arrogance and impoliteness in many asian countries.

Hidden bias by the artist to show what type of people is more superior than the other. Similar situation happens in the world map. Majority of the printed atlas would have Europe as the center. Tracing histories, Europe was the early world mappers.

When it comes to art, after unit 2 readings, this word conveys a very negative connotation to me

I remember studying Theory of Knowledge in highschool where we learned that history isnt fact, history is what historians want you to know. How do we know which version of history we should pick?

Is that nor partly the job of art, to draw a reaction?

I tried to look it up but could not find it. Is the originally physically lost without a reproduction?

Savage asks TWO QUESTIONS, using the RSM of inquiry to focus the topic of his paper, that may have been his original research questions.

So, the sculpture had a popular history before it "eventually lapsed into obscurity." Why might this have happened?

It was rare for a bust/statue of a prominent African-American to be cast (and it still is--the statue of MLK at the MLK Memorial in D.C. is the most recent one). "The Freedman" is likely the first depiction of a non-white person in a sculptural genre/form that honored White people.

Here is where the juxtaposition first occurs: and it's really interesting because these TWO works of art that portray the emancipated (or yet to be emancipated, or in the process of being emancipated) slave were excited in the very SAME room...

It is clear that Savage mentions THIS painting, "American in 1862," by Henry Peters Gray to juxtapose it with John Quincy Ward's "The Freedman." WHY might he be doing this?

Also: keep in mind what both Berger and Benjamin claimed about the risks and consequences of mechanically produced art becoming used for propagandistic or totalitarian purposes: can that happen with Art that is NOT mechanically reproduced, but merely produced?

What exactly is the other world? Is it the other consciousness?

The division of African American society and the limitations because of their race.

Double-consciousness fits with my topic of the hypervisiblity/invisibility of whiteness. Dubois says an American Negro has two souls/thoughts because of how they are seen. An American Caucasian does not have double-consciousness about race such as an American Negro does.

Does this statement relate to double-consciousness or the invisibility of the black man?

How Fanon feels when he's in the "white world." Overly self-consciousness. In what way are his experience of being a Black man reminiscent of Foucault's ideas about surveillance? What might it mean if one can feel surveilled by a panopticon-like eye when one is NOT in a prison?

In what way is this like DuBois's double-consciousness? In what way is like how Ellison's "Invisible Man" experiences his identity, his hyper visibility--invisibility in society?

This reminds me of some of Garrett's ideas for his research essay focus.....what does everyone think about this juxtaposition (yes, Fanon is using the RSM of juxtaposition to talk about the juxtaposition of black and white in western society)

This leads me to question what are the effects of recognizing your own visibility? What differs in the effects of recognizing hypervisibility vs. invisibility?

He is made invisible by his neighbors due to his job status. Job, race, status, many components of life is used to alienate people making them invisible.

Hyper-visible versus invisible

Where he stands out because of his color he becomes invisible. Because people ignore him. Where he stands out because he has a different occupation he is hyper-visible. This seems contradiction.

This will make you hyper-visible anywhere

Working wonders, when people don't wonder what he is doing in that apartment building. Has has stopped being hyper-visible and basically invisible. Almost like he blends in. I wonder if he really blends in or is just not noticed?

The opposite of Foucault and his panoptican

A fact that makes theater a very powerful medium

Here the spectator becomes an active person

I never thought that going to a theater would make me a passive spectator. But now that I think about it, there is little interaction between the actor and observer. This depends on how seeing is considered, is seeing an passive or active act?

RESUME READING HERE

The mechanism is ideal at isolating prisoners to prevent them from coming together to form power. The mechanism is automated in that it doesn't require a guard to always be watching, the prisoner never knows if someone is watching.

The panopticon shows the weaknesses of the ability to see. Visibility can be manipulated to create a trap. In this case it keeping the prisoners isolated from each other.

This made me think of the Patriot Act (not the movie). How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to be safe. Actually the question is; how far are we allowing the government to infringe in our freedom before we say, "no more?" In our time, terrorism, fear of terrorist attacks have the same qualities of the plague. It is used for the same reason.

In sociology this is called hegemony (“predominance by consent”). It is hard to rule by force. Ruling without force, by consent for instance is much easier.

Divide and conquer.

architecture + geometry + seeing?

"A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation": what does this mean?

What effect/s does/do the Panopticon have on the way that we (the observed/the surveilled) ourselves see/can see?

The victim of panopticism believes that they are always being watched, but they can't see whose watching them...

So: divide and conquer?

How is "invisibility" a guarantee of "order"? (Keep invisibility in mind for Unit 3)

Does the panopticon prison structure both surveil & quarantine in keeping the prisoners from interacting with each other? What could they possibly "catch" from each other?

How can a structure be both like a CAGE and a THEATER? Can you think of other structures that are like this? This seems like a weird extension of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" that adds "surveillance" to the allegory: are the prisoner's being watched/surveilled by the people who make their shadow reality?

Those who were surveilled by panopticon-like structures

supervisor = super + visor = super (above, superior) + visor (one who looks)

Institutions that started to regularly exercise disciplinary power starting in the early 19th century: hospitals, asylums, penitentiaries, schools, hospitals, etc.

Foucault is contrasting the segregation-expulsion of lepers and the segmentation, regulation, and discipline of societies affected by the plague.

regularity-irregularity-regulations

If we are to use Foucault's example, surveillance in the 17th century was connected to quarantine during the plague, so it is interesting how systems of surveillance became equated with discipline (surveillance being a disciplinary regime of power) that migrated to other aspects of life, i.e. education, work, shopping, sartorial display, gender role normatively, identity creation-management, and other "behaviors" that are observed and subject to regulation...

This explains current information exchange across multiple social media platform. There will always be the authority that sees and has access to almost everything without being in the communication between individuals.

perfectly governed city to whose perspective? Most likely government because they want a city to operates as they want it to. However, would the people be happy under this intense surveillance and power penetrated to their life?

You can see that Benjamin has a lot of footnotes (a total of 21 footnotes) to show his research & that add support to his argument!

An example of the views of art changing over time. The information behind art is being valued instead of being seen as a ceremonial object.

The perspective on art is always changing over time.

Photography and film are being questioned if they are considered an art form. Quotes are given supporting that film is an art.

Art has always been able to be reproduced in some way. With lithography and eventually photography, the rate of reproducing art has accelerated extremely and has become common.

mechanical reproduction frees art from being stuck in one place. art in this age is designed to be reproduced.

A reproduction of art can be an exact replica of the original but can never match its authenticity. the question is does authenticity always matter?

IV

When a piece of art is mechanically reproduced, the is separated with its tradition, aura, original use value and its cult. It also creates a situation where art is no longer dependent on its ritual function. Because of this art just becomes art with no other function. Originals are no longer important, reproductions are and can now be used for other means.

X

When filming an actor, reproducing his personality, his fake personality is reproduced and not who he really is. Whoever he is when filmed has to be attractive to the people watching. Just like a commodity. When watching, sport, or anything else on TV, people can claim to be experts. Everybody can become an artist, writer, actor, lessing the gap between artist and observer.

XIII

Films allows a deeper analysis of what we see, trough close ups, freeze frames, slow motions. It allows us to see more, but also to deeper analyses our own actions. The camera opens our eyes for things that would normally remain unnoticed.

XIV

Arts was created on demand, dada created a situation where the message of art was more important than the value. Dada created art for the public, to shock the public.

XV

Art, film can create two situations, it can distract, where the work of art is absorbed by the masses, or it can concentrate where the observer is absorbed by the work of art. Buildings have a purpose of shelter, so architectural art will remain

the beginning of mass production of art, the beginning of the end for Berger.

The reproduction of art is older than the reproduction of texts.

This is the problem Berger is concerned about, that art will be used for political, personal, or financial profits.

what does 'hypothesis' really mean here?

They are saying that the shadow in the cave from Plato's allegory is more pleasing

Stop using art for other ends that that it was intended for.

Not the daily reality

I think this is exactly what Berger has a problem with, A copy not based on the reality, something Virtov is trying to create

It is interesting to see how he indeed in his movie uses that camera point of view as a separate identity. Because he actually films his cameraman, he transforms the camera into an eye that is watching how things are filmed. It adds a layer to what filming is able to do, it allows people to see the past, and actions in different places. It brings time and place together to be seen at a different location and at a different time. Something I think is a very powerful attribute. The connection with Berger is interesting since Virtov wants us to show a reproduction of a typical Russian day without any factors that could influence the viewer.

Is Berger claiming that the approach to art should be viewed in different ways based off of experience rather than its original intention?

Interesting how perspectives change on art throughout time periods and inventions. I'm curious on what will change perspectives on art in the future?

Berger's conclusion returns to his Motive: what the stakes are, why his argument matters, and why we should care about what he has to say about SEEING, Art, and the mechanical reproduction of images.

Berger makes a classic They Say, I Say rhetorical move that DIFFERENTIATES what he's saying from what other say and also from assumptions an audience might have or from people who might want to twist his words, or simply misinterpret him. What Berger is doing here is limiting, or qualifying his argument. Doing so not only provides clarification, but also makes his argument more complex and his stance stronger.

What might this say about the difference between painting and photography?

I disagree with that statement. I don't think the art of the past is lost. It requires more effort to discover, but it is not lost. The reason why it might become lost is because people do not take the time to go to a museum, see the original and take time to look at the painting in a setting the painter intended the painting to be watched. It speaks volumes about, us, the modern people.

I agree, that indeed the meaning of a painting can change depending on the context you put it it. When seen in a different setting the meaning can change. But I see this as a good thing, a painting should be able to express different meanings for different people. That does not mean that the original meaning should be forgotten. But it seems a bit selfish that a painting should only be allowed one interpretation. It think it adds to the power and beauty of art, to have multiple meanings in different circumstances.

Supporting the Claims of Plato and Descartes. That seeing is our most important sense.

Indeed, but I do not believe this only happens in a one-way direction. yes, the way we see is affected by what we know and believe. But we gained that knowledge by what we saw. So what we believe and know is affected by the way we see.

This reminds me of something I studied in Theory of Knowledge class while I was in high school. The meaning of art can be articulated from at least three ways: 1) from our own interpretation 2) from what the maker authoritatively dictates us to know what the art means (I don't like this one because it breaks the freedom when we see art) 3) From public's interpretation.

There is something in Design called the perception effect (if im not mistaken) which states the exact same thing. We see objects collectively instead of its individually. And the order, the mapping of this collective objects affect the way we understand their functions.

Pretty much stating what others have said. It's important to accept new truths as they are and not to run back to what was once familiar.

Once he is exposed to the truth, he wants to find out more. Making him less complacent because he seeks the truth. I believe that is an important trait everyone should have. We should want to seek the truth and not just always accept what we are told.

What i got out of this was that firelight is meant to symbolize the truth or what is actually going on and shadows are meant to symbolize deception or not the whole truth. It is easier to look at shadows than it is to look at fire. Sometimes it is easier to look at deception rather than learning the truth about a scandal. Learning the truth about a scandal can make you turn away the same way trying to look at firelight can.

To me this depicts an image of people being attached, addicted to something that doesn't reflect truth because all they see is a shadow, which is an interpretation that includes bias. Its not the real image from the real, outside world.

They are not able to think otherwise because they have not seen anything else, except for shadows. I think the curiosity urge to discover of humans is somewhat underestimated here. It is not because we have not seen anything else, that our imagination is not working.

We see only what we are allowed to see. In order to see the real truth one needs to be able to look around and see things from another perspective. Hmm this totally sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy documentary. " The government has the truth about aliens and the creation of the universe. But it is holding us with our head faced to the wall, just like Plato's cave people. They are keeping is uninformed."

The whole analogy is about the connection between seeing and learning. We learn our reality based on what we see. But it is not because we can see it, that it is automatically reality. It just means whatever we see determines what we think is OUR reality.

this means "PRAISE" of vision

He is saying that we should understand that we often forget that there is more that provokes our thoughts than just images. For example when we read a sentence we literally see a bunch of symbols that are grouped in different ways. But those symbols represent ideas that our brains can interpret through our ability to see and read.

This sentence offers a transition between Unit I and Unit II--in that there will be a "reversal of attitudes" about ocularcentrism

Im so fascinated by the culture that used to value the sense of touch and hearing. We are way too dominated by our sight and do not take the time to truly see the evidence. I love that old societies valued touch so much. It seems as if those societies were full of discoverers and explorers. People who dared to push past the social norms. I wish our society was still like that

Is this in agreement with occularcentricism? Our eyes can observe but can they analyze?

Does this qualification make Descartes less ocularcentric? Does this show that he still has some agreement with Aristotle in that hearing is also important for knowledge acquisition?

basically, light/light rays bend, bounce, refract, can be reflected when they encounter solid matter.

Rahmat, you were writing about color in one of your ACE paragraphs, right? You might be able to make connections to Descartes to write an ACE Synthesis Paragraph...

Descartes identifies that he is writing for a more general audience that includes what he refers to as "craftsman"--for people who do not have a lot of formal education. He's not only writing for other philosophers or scientists.

I interpret this claim from an empirical point of view. We should conduct our life based on what can be seen, heard, or touched. According to Descartes, sight is the most important contributor to our empirical world. Inventions like the telescope were used to make sense out of things that were until then unexplained. Making these invisible objects visible, made then part of our scientific world. This knowledge rendered other, non-visible, non- ocularcentric explanations invalid.

I have never thought about sensory awareness like this. An example I think of is day-dreaming. We become so deep in thought that our hearing and vision "turn off" temporarily. Then we snap back into reality and that has nothing to do with our bodies but our minds.

I really like this comparison between touch and vision. The senses are each unique but with the absence of one sense another sense picks up the role. Vision does not only have to come from the eyes but there are other ways such as the blind mans stick.

This shows that what was taught was considered the truth with no questions asked. Threatening to imprison someone for simply teaching another view shows the inability or the refusal to acknowledge another viewpoint.

are they saying his observations and scientific discoveries were sacrilegious, or that the way on which he present the evidence is sacrilegious?

I think this proves that vision takes over our thought before we truly have time to analyze. Just like an illusion, our eyes can deceive and manipulate us. We need to think before we see, or see at a level that is critical, and realistic, not imaginable and unforeseeable.

He was allowed to teach it trough hearing (verbally) and trough vision (writing). An interesting fact especially considering that the church was not ocularcentric and science was.

Both are claims that are based upon what was believed, and not on what has been seen. I believe this is evidence of how important vision is. Something that was held as truth, could be disproved by just using our vision.

I may not be understanding this correctly, but how how is to vision just as likely? would it not be way less?

With this being said, vision is being questioned. Plato expressed "we see through our eyes, not with them." Plato distrusted sense perception. This claim that vision could not be trusted caused heavy questioning of the history of Greek culture and their beliefs.

So this is where the word "Argus-eyed" comes from. It is a word that is commonly used in Dutch. (Keeping a close eye at someone, or something).

According to this claim, the Western world had no other choice than to become ocularcentric. Both sides to the argument support ocularcentrism. Sure, it is an opposing variety of this phenomenon, but it is still ocularcentrism.

Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim that the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.

In this sentence he outlines several subcategories of Greek culture/society that he will then give specific examples from in this paragraph to support this viewpoint. The rest of this paragraph includes those examples as evidence (linguistic evidence, images of Greek gods---who could appear to humans, theater, their penchant for geometry in mathematics, the Greek idealization of the nude body, and the Greek citizens role as "spectator" at various events (olympics, theater, etc.)

Jay points out that there is a prevailing belief among critics that the Greeks regarded sight as more important than the other senses...

Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.

Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.

Aristotle's claim about the composition of the eye...

What is Aristotle trying to say hear? How can both seeing and hearing be superior?

The primacy of seeing vs. hearing depends on the CONTEXT or SITUATION. However, you might note that Aristotle does state that seeing "is the superior sense" but that "hearing takes precedence" for "developing intelligence." This is a departure from Plato, yes?

Aristotle disagrees with Plato here...about the eye being composed of fire...

Aristotle claims that the senses of smell, hearing, seeing are connected to intelligence and higher orders of animals...

How does he initially emphasize that visual sight is this grand sense but then ultimately decides that hearing is a sense that grows our intelligence. Does bison serve as a distraction while hearing draws our attention?

Interesting point! Vision, seeing, and the eye are so instrumental to our lives. But they become useless when there is no light. People can still feel, hear, or taste in the dark.

Connection in the next sentence between Seeing and Learning/Knowing/Knowledge

Mirrors would have been an early form of visual technology

So we are diurnal because we are primarily "seeing" beings?

By comparing our organ to god Plato is implying that that the brain is the most prominent organ of them all. The brain is commands every other part of the body the same way a god or lord commands their people.

i find the idea that vision is so superior to the other senses fascinating. According to Plato, our response to seeing the heavens would have essentially eliminated the need to speak, muting our words in a sense of awe and wonder

God, give men eyes to make sense out of things they could not understand. So we would be able to look at the example (order of the heavens) and reproduce it. That is a pretty strong supporting statement of ocularcentrism.

So according to Plato, sight was the first sense that was created. While in reality it is the last sense that is developed in an unborn baby

These sentences sound like wave superposition in Physics; constructive and destructive interference. Interesting how people at this age had the ability to imagine such thing.

Sentences supporting ocularcentrism, emphasizing the significance of eyes as a part of human body. If human beings were crafted without eyes, would we, through evolution, develop another way to perceive our surrounding?

Being the "object" of the "look"--the one looked at, appraised, viewed--whether one wants to be looked at or not. Of course, there is also the phenomenon of refusing or failing to see the "object" of the look....color blindness is one example of this. So, keep this in mind for Unit 3!

The relationship between sight & language--what we call reading. I wonder what these researchers might say about hearing and language for the blind, or sight and universal sign language for the deaf--i.e. the language is the same, regardless of what language one speaks.

What is a scope regime? A keyterm for Unit 2, but it might be interesting to note it for now.

This is an important distinction: what is "natural" about vision vs. what is "cultural" about vision. To what degree is how we see rooted in nature or biology or chemistry, etc. vs. to what degree is how we see rooted in cultural practices or rituals or beliefs (including prejudices, social and gender norms, etc. think of something like beauty vs. ugliness--sorry Medusa).

This sentence introduces a major transition in Jay's focus from benefits (i.e. the power) of seeing to the "limitations" of seeing/sight.

Then is this to say that humans become ocularcentric partly as a result of evolution?

And, of course, blind spots can also be metaphorical...

I have noticed that I think, react and see the world around me differently depending what language I use. When I am in my native mindset, I think, speak, hear and experience the world around me in the Dutch language. This is totally different when I am in my English mindset. I think it is all about what is available in that specific language to describe certain objects, or events.

Clearly, the eye and seeing is not only important culturally and socially. Also biologically it seems to be the best developed sense.

Indeed, our eyes can't see the wave outside the visible spectrum, but some devices can. Should seeing through something that is not a part of our body (not directly connected to our nerves and brain) present equivalent degree of 'believing'?

Jay's major keyterm in this reading!