What Each Of Us Notices
I.
When I draw, I usually start with one small area or bit of detail. Sometimes my aim is to draw a particular thing; other times, I just want to draw shapes and patterns representing the parts of reality I tend to see and notice.
When I am not trying to draw anything in particular, I seem to use a lot of "tree branch" and vine motifs, along with things that resemble steam and smoke and cracks and shine accents on the surfaces of amorphous shapes.
When I draw a picture such as the one below (which is really only a portion of a larger picture), I tend to hone in on one tiny area, and fill it up with detail. Only when an area has been appropriately saturated with inky curves do I move on to the next area (which may be adjacent, or which may be on a different and wholly empty part of the page).

Eventually, the paper I started with is covered with shapes and lines. Sometimes the whole thing resembles a kind of surreal "scene", other times it does not. When I look later upon pictures such as this, my eyes wander and track and follow from one small area to the next. I like to get lost when drawing, and lost when looking, in the microcosms of each small area of the whole.
This is very much the way I actually look at the world. I didn't realize that until relatively recently, but when I did, my own drawings suddenly fell into a kind of context.
My parents tell me that my very first questions about the world around me involved parts: I wanted to know about the holes in the telephone receiver, the insides of rocks, the mechanisms that made the hot water come out of the tap hot, and the composition of my hair.
II.
What does it feel like to walk into a store or other environment you have never visited before?
For me, it feels rather like walking into a kaliedoscope.
I see shapes and colors all around me -- raw shapes and colors, not "objects" or things invested intrinsically or instantaneously with symbolic meaning. The symbolic meaning-layer must be consciously or at least semi-consciously applied.
This does not mean I cannot see patterns or functional/aesthetic attributes of things -- it just means that, for instance, if I know I want a place to sit down and I walk into an unfamiliar room, I am just as likely to sit on the floor or on a windowsill or some other flat surface as I am to sit on a chair.
It means that if I am watching a movie, I might be looking at something off to the side of the actors, or the pattern on someone's shirt, or at something in the background, rather than at the aspects of the foreground the camera is directly focusing on.
It means that I am drawn to particular patterns and collections of shape, color, and light, and hurtled into confusion by others.
It means that right when I enter a new environment, I am uncommonly clumsy and vulnerable. I walk into people and walls. I scamper and run away from too much input, too much light, too many moving hands and the shadows they cast.
Perhaps this is a "constraint".

But do not ask me if I would rather be "free" of it, for such a question assumes that there is nothing but loss in such vulnerability and gracelessness.
And believe me, that is not the case.


8 Comments:
Beautifully put, you have shifted my perspective - thank you for that!
3:18 AM
I would love to be able to see like that. I wonder if it's trainable.
8:11 AM
Nick, it's induceable. google Transcranial magnetic stimulation, there is some good research on using it to induce altered perceptions, and even to simulate savant abilities and various unusual states in neurotypical folks. I doubt it's available for recreational use, but it can be done.
As for myself, I have had problems with proportions in drawing a great deal, because I tend to focus on isolated areas of high detail, which I spent a lot of time on, ignoring how they connect to each other. Practice has allowed me to look at the big picture easier.
11:18 AM
Everything is a constraint; whatever our individual characteristics may be, they preclude others.
I tend to doodle oddly shaped things with eyes and tentacles. I wonder what that says about me.
I've tagged you for the Five Things Meme.
9:11 PM
I tend to doodle oddly shaped things with eyes and tentacles. I wonder what that says about me.
You've been inspired by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would be my guess.
1:09 PM
Nick Tarleton:
Well, I used to think everyone saw the way I did (as most people do, I think, before receiving any evidence to the contrary). It feels perfectly normal to me and always has. I think what made me start to understand that my perceptual mode was not necessarily the most common one was actually reading something written by someone else with similar perception. Before that, it hadn't really occurred to me to think about such a thing.
I have no idea if it is trainable or not -- my guess is that people can probably train themselves to notice/pay attention to different things, but that everyone probably has an underlying (and "hardwired") default mode as far as what they are likely to notice. I've read about the TMS thing (that outlawpoet mentions) and it might very well do something interesting, but I don't think that stimulating the brain to work a different way temporarily is in any way like living with your brain physically structured a certain way, and consequently seeing differently all the time. But it would certainly be cool to see more research as far as what, exactly, is going on during different brain states. That stuff fascinates me.
10:51 PM
abfh:
I totally agree that everything is a constraint -- that's one of the major points I try to make in my writing. Some people seem to have this fantasy that it is both possible and desireable to "transcend all limits!", but the fact of the matter is that each person is only ONE person, and nobody can be and do all things simultaneously. Sure, individuals will always want to (and be able to) transcend particular individually-determined limits, but that's a totally different thing than trying to claim that more typical configurations are somehow objectively "less limited" than atypical ones.
Given that, it should be perfectly reasonable to expect that different kinds of people with different strengths, weaknesses, interests, etc., will always exist. Culture's infrastructure is more or less built to transparently accommodate the perceptual style of the majority, though most people probably don't even realize this because they never have reason to.
10:55 PM
outlawpoet: Heh, I have kind of a similar issue with proportions, though it seems to vary somewhat (for factors I haven't quite figured out). My default drawing style is to start with one small area and work outward -- like, when I draw people, my impulse is usually to draw one eye first and then build up everything else around it. But over time I have learned that sometimes I can help constrain overall proportions properly somewhat from the outset by sketching a rough outline and using that as a cueing system of sorts.
Randomly, here is a sketch I did of an oscilloscope -- I was actually looking at the physical object when drawing this. It is reasonably detailed (though messy, as it was kind of a rough/quick sketch as those things go), but there is some proportional skewing present, and I accidentally got the spacing between some of the buttons wrong.
11:01 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home