Eye v. Camera– What Each Captures

The articles lay out a description of the functionalities of both the lens through which we as humans see things, our eyes, and a camera. What I found interesting from the readings was the point that if we look at something through our own eyes and someone else looks at the same thing through their own eyes, we may see something totally different. Say we take picture and capture the object with a camera, it's still the same thing. What's interesting about this, though, is that although it may be the same image, how we see it may be completely opposite from each other. This is because of our own human bias, perspective, and backgrounds.

I have some reservations in agreeing with Vertov, when he states that the use of the camera as the Kino eye is more perfect than the human eye by saying:

"The position of our bodies while observing on our perception of a certain number of features of a visual phenomenon in a given instant are by no means obligatory limitations for the camera, which, since it is perfected, perceives more and better. We cannot improve the making of our eyes, but we can endlessly perfect the camera."

Where I struggle with this is the fact that what is perfect is completely objective. By endlessly perfecting the camera, or editing the photos, or changing the lenses, focus, etc. where do we stop? How do we draw the line between perfecting what can be seen and changing it completely? If the angle a person stands to view is different from the angle the camera sits at, then the two visions are no longer comparable as more or less perfect because they are two completely different images.

Another thing that bothers me about the camera observing more perfectly than the human eye, is that someone has to see the observation to compare it that of the human eye's and at that point, there will be bias. There has to be opinion there, and no opinion can be deemed perfect or not perfect.

The image below reminded me of theme of articles and perception of images; it's the same image, but different people will see different things, and while the camera may capture it for what it is, someone has to view it.

Kino-eye and metaphors on vision

To be quite blunt I really find that the first article "Kino-eye" to be a bit pedantic. Perhaps that stems from it being so defiant similar to many other previous readings but it does make a rather interesting point as the tirade drags on. A simple idea is that the camera is a more accurate than the human eye. The reason why lies in the cameras inherent tendency to not brand anything it views or captures. A camera doesn't have a bias it merely performs a function and shows a form in a most vulnerable and raw way.

We upon viewing something unconsciously brand it as being something good or bad, something we like or dislike etc. a camera has no such ego it merely reports what it captures. A camera is detached from what it sees, whereas we are all to caught up in the aesthetics of what we view and attached to the various objects and forms we see.

These articles begged me to ask the question if a camera very similar in structure and function of a human eye is able to see these images in such a pure way, is that something we as humans upon breaking our own mental conditioning can view?

The answer to my own question is a clear cut yes. The most intellectual men of our times from artists and scientists to saints and prophets all asked the same things and were able to see whatever it was that they wished to view in such a pure form. Working with that spark of consciousness that enlivens us all.

I really appreciate these articles attempt at highlighting the true subtle concept of mind and eye being two things that we as normal everyday men and women have yet to tap into. what I find to be even more profound is in this world we live in where sedentary behavior is the end goal we have used our intellect to create a device such as a camera to do something we have the ability to do yet are to distracted and lazy to do so.

"Silence is one of contemporary info culture's rarest commodities." -DJ Spooky
"If a tree fell in the middle of a forest and no one was around, would it make a sound?" -some kid

In regards to the first quote above, I'd have to agree with DJ Spooky. Sound is always around us. It's in the way we speak, made from the things we do, and produced by the slightest bit of motion (even if it's not audible to the listener), prompting me to think of the second quote above. Science says yes, but it's the age old argument of "if you're not there, then how would you know?".

---

Not every sound may be the most pleasing to each person's ears, but I think those sounds that we find pleasing and pleasurable to listen to come from experiences, or the lack thereof, that we all have. It makes me think of how when I listen to music in a foreign language, someone may connect to that music due to its lyrics, whereas I find enjoyment in the lyrics themselves becoming part of the music, of the rhythm in the background, as I don't focus on the sound of the words and their meaning now but the sound of the words against the rhythm, if that makes any sense. Without being able to attach a relatively concrete meaning to the music from the words, I receive a different perspective on how the piece sounds.

"The basic idea of how we create content in our minds is so conditioned by media" -DJ Spooky
"We are shielded from new sound experiences." -John Cage

Life w/ Technology & In Through the Out Door

An Introduction, or My (Ambiguous) Life with Technology
Steve Reich

The author of this article, Steve Reich, seems to have meticulous ideals for his creations. From ideation, to execution, and ultimately the final product, his methods and philosophy stray greatly from conventional music composition. When asked to compose an orchestra piece, Reich's thoughts were, "I don't need 18 first violins - I need one, amplified. I always knew there must be something I could do instead of conventional opera, but I just didn't know what." This contrarian attitude towards traditional music indicates how important it is to Reich that his compositions remain consistent with his own ideologies.

Interestingly, Reich also mentions taking several breaks from technology over the years, and expresses a recurring need to step back and forth between technologically engineered sounds, and more organic music ("...in 2002, I felt I needed a few years of just instrumental vocal music before I was ready for another trip back to the lab"). Go goes on to say, "We've always thought of our brains in terms of our latest technology. At one point our brains were steam engines...telephone-switching networks...digital computers...We probably haven't gotten it right yet." This perspective may indicate that although Reich is very steadfast in his ways, he also believes in the evolution of technology and that it will never truly end.

In Through the Out Door: Sampling and the Creative Act
Paul Miller

Throughout the article, Miller draws conclusions about humanity's current relationship with the origins all things, from technological advances, to various sounds that he has encountered. He says that "civilization isolates all of us, ideologically and physically, from the source of all life - nature." From this statement, it is reasonable to assume that Miller's belief about the aforementioned relationship is that it continually dissolves as technology evolves.

Near the beginning of the article, Miller also alludes to the idea that silence is rare. I believe that this claim is meant to not only be taken literally, but to also imply that our world today is constantly bombarded with noise in the form of ideas, words, social constructs, physical objects, etc.

Continually in his article, Miller writes about relationships. He notes that, "buildings in architecture are nothing more than correspondences between relationships - presence and absence, form and formlessness." Here we can see that even in instances of physical objects, Miller's primary interest is relationships.

The Future of Music

"You can literally use any sound at any precise (or not so precise) point in time." - DJ Spooky

"Silence is one of contemporary info culture's rarest commodities" - DJ  Spooky

"I felt I needed a break from technology" - Reich 

The three quotes above, I pulled because they all stood out to me to be true today, and in a way, they all coincide with each other. 

I can make the connection between them by using technology as a central theme. Everyone is always on some type of electronic device

it seems like. Because of this, it is even harder to find silence than ever before. There is the clicking of the keyboard, the buzzing of cords, 

phone's vibrating. There is always a sound to hear. This relates to what DJ spooky says in reference to being able to use any sound at any 

moment. Because of technology, now, all types of sounds are available at our finger tips. We can record them with our phones, download 

them from the computer, stream them; the options are endless. But, with all this, we also become overwhelmed with technology, and

while this is not what Reich means when he says he needs a break from technology, it is relatable in a sense. 

We've learned that any sounds compiled together can make "music", even if they don't sound charming to us. I think after reading these 

pieces it becomes even more obvious the lack of silence there is, and even when listening to music I like, instead of only hearing what is  

intended to be heard, my focus shifts to random noises in the background of the songs that I may not have recognized otherwise, and often

times I can connect the sounds to what they are in the real world. 

Noise

In today’s busy, fast-pace world noise is inevitable to escape.  We live in a culture that never sits still and never stops.  Whether you live on an isolated farm in Mississippi or a high rise in Time Square, sounds are prevalent 24 hours around the clock.  Steve Reich explains the concept of noise as, “When I talk about the crowded spaces of info-modernity- I’m talking about a world filled with noise, and if there’s one thing we learned from the twentieth century, it’s this: noise is just another form of information.” John Cage and Steve Reich discuss their fascination with noise through the absence of sound and looping sounds.
 Cage describes his fascination with everyday sounds as, “Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating.”  I do have to disagree with this statement.  First, how do you ignore noise? It’s impossible. The more you try to “ignore” sounds the more you focus on the sound, the more you hear the sound, and the more you are annoyed with the sound.  When you are not focused on “ignoring” the sound your brain subconsciously allows the sound to exist/pass without consciously processing the noise.  However, the longer I sit here and try to focus on pure silence, the more I hear the ice machine growl, the neighbor’s dog barking, the air conditioning humming, etc.  All of these noises I was not aware were even around me seconds before but as I focus on silence, the sounds become aware.  Second, ‘when we listen to it, we find it fascinating’ applies to only some sounds.  I cannot say I necessarily enjoy all sounds, naturally or artificially made.  The video we listened to last class (do not remember creator) looped recording, recording more recordings that eventually turned into the most horrific sound that I could not stand for longer than ten seconds.  If I were to rewrite his statement, I would prefer to say: when we try to ignore sound, it only disturbs us more.  When we listen to select sounds, we find them fascinating.

The Future of Music & Introduction... / In Through the Out Door

Naturally, I thought of the Velvet Underground because I've always confused John Cage and John Cale. Whatever, the connection works this time. The Velvet Underground & Nico was released thirty years after Cage's text was written and demonstrates the prescience of Cage's ideas. While melodic at times, the album can be quite... noisy. It took me quite a few listens to appreciate and even enjoy the occasionally cacophonous work, but just imagine how grating it must have been for 60s listeners attuned to the dulcet tones of The Beach Boys, The Beatles, and the like. It's almost a paradigm shift, how society's sonic palette can develop over time and what is considered "music" broadens in definition. Now, there are entire genres that span from noise rock to minimalist ambient installations.

Either way, I really hope Cage got to go to New Zealand.

//

I wish I knew what Reich was talking about. It's kind of a drag to hear the development of his artwork without having a reference. Oh well. Some interesting ideas though: how our ideas develop alongside technology. Similar to the idea that our thoughts are only as good as our language. The difference is whether or not you accept these new technologies and integrate them into your work. Reich has preferences, but acknowledges the benefits of being open to new avenues of expression and adapting. It's always good to adapt.

I wish I knew what DJ Shadow was talking about. He's very well-spoken and I didn't really give the time to effectively read his words. Oh well. I've always thought about the whole civilization vs nature issue. Romanticism is over 'cause there are chimney stacks as far as the eye can see. Sorry Coleridge. But is this inherently bad? I'm not sure. It's unnatural, but is that consequently immoral? Humans are part of nature and so aren't our acts, by extension, natural? Even if they harm other nature? Either way, yes, there's too much information in the world, it paralyzes people, and causes crippling boredom - go postmodernism!