41-54 AMENUKE

It is said that the perception of the image of the environment and our interactions with it define us. However, an image c ould be seen differently depending on where it is located. Some questions co cerning how we see have been raised: How do we see? How does connectivity c ome about through viewing or seeing? How do we see what we see? and h ow do we interpret what we see? The process of seeing establishes many conn ections between ones past and present and this reconciliation is necessary fo r better appreciation and interpretation of objects being looked at. The aim of this project largely pivoted on how we look at objects as observers as well as t he various relationships that exist between objects being looked at and the obser ver. The project further explores the optical effects and how it relates to what we see, and consequently making cubic representations to express these relat ionships. Coloured paper cubes were created as the building blocks of this p roject. From it, eleven (11) relief sculptures were created with each possessing distinct visual qualities guided by certain visual principles including the G estalt laws of grouping as well as Aristotle’s laws of association. The findin gs revealed that, the position of an object has an effect on how it is seen and every change in position can cause a change in the visual perception of that object. T he environment of an object, which refers to the immediate surroundings of the o bject being observed, has an effect on how it is seen. Introduction ‘We don’t always see what is really there’ (Cherry, 2010). This statement by Kendra Cherry suggests th at, seeing may be a complex process than can be imagine d. One part of the statement suggests that when observers look at objects, there are certain attrib u es of the object that are hidden from the observe r. In other words, those attributes are more paradoxical in nature, meaning they may not be easily seen unti l after a closer observation or repeated looks. However, it can be argued that, a lot of things happen in the process of seeing which observers take for granted and for which we seldom give recognition to. One of these i s that, seeing could be considered as a window throug h which the past reconciles with the present (Carol , 1999). It does so by connecting objects that are se en or being seen to past knowledge of that object acquired through a set of experiences. This suggest s tha , observers are surrounded by sets of experie nc s, or better still are imbued with sets of experiences , which make them look at things the way they do. J ust as experiences have their effects on our ‘seeing’, the environment also plays a very vital role in seeing . The environment may refer to all the elements that play a role in seeing and may refer to the physical environment around an object being seen (Carrol, 19 99; Cherry, 2010). Almost everybody is an observer at a point in time and we tend to set our gaze on certain objects at v arious points in time. As we do this, a lot of factors com e into play before we are able to see what we see. It must be noted however that, we do not see everything in the same way; as a matter of fact, two (2) people m ay Cubic optical paradox 42 be looking at the same thing but will be seeing two different things when asked to express what they s ee. This shows that, vision is a much complex phenomeno n which we usually take for granted. This situation of different observers seeing the same thing differ ently is sometimes deliberately created by artists in their works. Contextually, this would be explained as opt ical effects. Hence, the focus and central theme of this project is to identify relationships between how we se and what we see by using similar units, specif ically cubes, as the objects of our gaze. Furthermore, the proj ct explores connectedness (network) and its e ffects on what we see and how we see what we see. Understanding Seeing It is known that without light, seeing (vision) is impossible. For instance in a very dark room where there is not even a ray of light, one cannot identify for in stance a coloured object. On the other hand, in a b ro d daylight, one can easily see the object. This could be linked to the fundamental light theory. This is because when light falls on a green object for instance, it is seen as green because the object absorbs all th e colours in the light except the colour green which it throw s to the eye in the form of rays (Bryan, 2010). The se rays enter the eye through the pupil which can be locate d in the middle of the iris when the eye is being l ooked at from the front. The pupil directs the rays throu gh the lens to the retina where images are formed however; the retina converts the rays into nerve pu lses (stimuli) and sends it to the brain for interp r tation. It must be noted however that the retina works by m eans of photoreceptors, which play a major role of relaying the type of light (colour) entering the ey e to the brain through the retina. This is because the brain cannot interpret rays but can only interpret stimul from various parts of the body therefore the reti na converts the light rays to the ‘language’ the brain ca understand. This looks like a very simple proc ess since all these processes occur within a matter of split seconds however it involves a whole lot (Brya n, 2010). The brain acts on what it is fed with, therefore an y obstructions along the feeding process could affe ct the interpretation. Some of these obstructions could ev en be fatigue cells in the visual system. Others co uld even be misapplied knowledge or misleading visual p rinciples (Gregory, 1974). In addition, all the vis ual action occurs within the Field of View (FOV), which could be explained simply as that part of the environment which the eyes can capture at a time (G r gory, 1974; Bryan, 2010). In other words, it is t hat frame which presents us with a portion of the outsi de world at a time. For humans, our horizontal FOV is almost 180°, which means that we have a wide platfo rm t see at a time and this is where focusing beco m s necessary (Bryan, 2010). The Spotlight model, as des cribed by Eriksen and Huffman (1972) explained visual focusing by three terms known as Margin, Fri nge and the Focus. The margin could be explained as the frame of the field of view (FOV) which separate s what is seen from what is not seen at a time. Thi s means that, anything within a particular environmen t a d outside the margin cannot be seen by the observer. The fringe is also the area which is avai l ble to the viewer but is not the main point of at traction. Therefore, the fringe becomes the observable field around the main focus which is available to the vie wer because of the wider field of view but is not the m ain point of attention. The focus however is the ma in point of attraction which receives all the necessar y attention from the gaze. It must be quickly added that the focus can easily be changed at any point in tim e, which means that a point in the fringe could be the focus in a matter of seconds. A perfect example is the act of reading, for instance, as you read this, your focus keeps changing from word to word. This is wha t t e spotlight model entails and if artists are ab le to control and direct their attention in appreciating a piece of work, they may understand it better. Visual Perception Understanding however is based on visual interpreta tion which is facilitated by the brain. For visual interpretation to be complete, the mind most of the time, fills in some parts assumed to be missing or not seen. This is what Eriksen and Huffman (1972) refer d to as Visual perception. For instance, when one looks at a ball behind a door, though part of the b all is hidden behind the door, we still perceive it as a ball because we have probably seen a ball before and so we assume that the other half of the ball is there b hind the door, so the mind fills in the missing variable s for interpretation to be complete. When one is pl aying a guitar, the mind once again fills in the missing pa rts and does its own interpretation, as a person pl aying a guitar and not a hand. This is perhaps why Pearson and Kosslyn (2013) described visual perception as