AIC, 1988 - AIC Associazione Italiana Autori della Fotografia ...

AIC
she moves away, whereas, to the
audience, she remains the same.
The little boy becomes bolder again
and, ready to dodge a backhander,
asks: how can something on the screen
move away or move closer? Perhaps the
«thing» we call Marilyn Monroe is not
actually «on» the screen perhaps it is
something different to the thing
which is on the screen which we can
measure, as this would explain the
difference in the size of the image
according to whether we measure it
with a linear method (physics) or
optically (judgment).
If we think that a certain amount of
energy strikes every point on a screen
(retina, film, cinema screen or T.V.),
then we can consider the combined
points as points on which the energy is
concentrated, calling these combined
points an ethereal image; if we then
add quantity to these combined points,
we can call them an energetic image;
and if we go even further and think
about the form of the combined points
on which the energy is concentrated,
we can call them a geometric image,
and so on. It is precisely this geometric
image that we can measure with a
ruler.
The images mentioned above, plus all
the others associated with the ethereal
image (the conventional three-colour
image, for example) have a very
indistinct realtionship to that which I
see (psychogenic or phenomenal
image); so much so that whether it is
the actual linear dimension or the
energetic properties that vary (within
relatively wide limits) that which I see
does not vary: Marilyn Monroe will
always be Marilyn Monroe, whether I
see her in the cinema or on T.V.;
however the dimension of the screens
might vary, or the energy used to
project the image.
Using the «Paralipomena ad
Vitellicmem» ' (a continuation of the
Vitellione) of 1604, Keplero was the
first to work out a geometric formula
as applied to vision, based on what is
known as the diastimetric triangle
(triangulum distanziae mensorum)
and the distinct difference between two
types of image or, better still, two
«things», which should not both be
termed images as they cannot be
compared.
(Fig. 2)
'Vitellione, Vitellw, Witelio, a Polish
monk who lived in 1,300, author of a
book on perspectiva communis
(optics, or science of vision) entitled:
Opticae Libri Decern
a book that was very widely read up
until the end of the Renaissance, and
which borrowed heavily from
De Aspectibus
by Abu Al Mohammed AKA Ad
Hasan AKA Al Haytham (965-1038
A.D.), and known in the West as Al
Hazen.
This book began circulating in the
West, in the 12th Century, in Latin;
and in more common language the
beginning of the 14 th Century, under
the title of:
De Li Aspecti
This latter version was widely read in
artistic circles (see, for example:
Lorenzo Ghiberti's «Commentari III»),
and most probably provided the
guidelines for the theory of perspective
as applied to painting: the perspectiva
artificiata o pingendi (see, for
example, Vita di Antonio di
Tuccio-Manetti).
Keplero makes the distinction between
imagines rerum and picturae (Fig. 2),
the first being a result of process of
seeing (psychogenic image or optical
phenomenon); and the second, the
maps which are drawn on a screen
when it is placed in the direct path of
the visible radiation.
Keplero's geometric formula for
demonstrating how vision functions,
and which still forms the basis of
geometric optics is based solely on the
picturae, completely excluding the
imagines rerum, and acts as a rule for
establishing an indisputable
relationship between the surface
points of an object (source of radiant
energy) and the surface points of the
retina (point in which energy is
concentrated, or on which it
converges), and further, as the eye is
«similar» to a camera obscura, a rule
for establishing the indisputable
relationship between the surface
points of an object and the surface
points of the screen of the camera
obscura (even a simple convex lens
combined with a screen, can constitute
a camera obscura).
As far as Keplero was concerned, it
was quite clear that the pittura
retinica was not the actual image of
the object, as the latter was what we
would, today, call a psychogenic
image or optical phenomenon, to
distinguish it from the other images
that the mind is capable of
constructing from the object (tactile,
cinesthetic, gustative etc.)
Today, we also know that the psyche's
construction of the optical image
begins with the pittura retinica, but
that this is only partly responsible for
its construction, as a series of other
«non-optical» factors (tactile,
cinesthetic, and even cultural etc.) play
an equally important part. Therefore,
to call oneself the «author» of an
image that is for the most part
constructed by the viewer, is pushing
things somewhat.
The vagueness of many thoughts and
comments regarding the image derives
mostly from the concept of the image
having been manipulated, as if
Kepler's geometric formula were
considered to be valid for phenomenal
images ; in the other words,
maintaining that an indisputable
relationship exists between that which
is there, outside and that which I see,
by retaining that, at times, they are
one in the same.
The theory holds up very well when
applied to many cases of direct vision,
so much so that, when we are sober, we
can apply it without running into any
problems: for example, when we are
tired — and sober — and we sit down,
we rarely find ourselves sitting on the
floor, because we have «sat» on the
mere «image» of chair, instead of the
chair itself
Yet, in other instances of direct
vision, which are far fewer, «things»
can appear to be contradictory, quite
baffling: «...after having left the
Earth's orbit, we no longer felt as if we
were moving. It seemed that we were
stationary, or rather that the Earth
itself was moving away from us... first,
it looked about the size of a basket
ball then, as we moved further away, it
gradually became smaller, until it was
the size of a marble — that's how it
looked to us from the Moon.» Jim
Irwing, astronaut.
The retinal image (map) of the Earth,
as seen from the Moon, is about four
times larger than the retinal image of
the Moon, as seen from the Earth; yet,
the size of the Moon, as it appears to
us on Earth, is certainly not
comparable to the size of a marble, but
is infinitely larger. In this instance,
that which I see is in direct
contradition with the pictura retinica:
the smaller pictura retinica
corresponds to the larger phenomenal
image, and vice versa.
Today, direct vision is only part of a
person's visual experience, and is not
even considered to be the most
important part by the people concerned
with creating images, which sometimes
don't even «belong» to an object, or
have a materia reference (tactile,
cinesthetic etc.): the spaceship in a
sci-fi movie, the optical
spaceship-image, does not «belong»,
does not «correspond» to any
spaceship-object.
For this reason, our indiscriminately
defining as image that which we see
(psychogenic image) and the place
where the rays transmitted by the
different things we see converge —
which is a geometric formula
(pictura) and, therefore, measurable;
and defining as image, the combined
concentrations of energy corresponding
to the points upon which the rays
converge, in their turn quantifiable in
terms of energy; and, further, defining
as image, the combination of the
"marks" (photography) which
correspond to the concentrations of
energy, has resulted in the
psychogenic image being considered
something physical, palpable to a
degree and, therefore, measurable
(thus, at the beginning of the 19th
Century, psychophysics came into
being, with all its mathematical
formulae relating to vision and its
functions). Photography, in fact,
finishes up by strengthening and
confirming the belief that the image —
without distinguishing between the
different types — is something physical
presenting us with the undeniable
proof of its tactility: we can hold the
photograph — the image — in our
hands!
Now, that the ancient Keplerian
distinction between imago rei and
pictura lies buried beneath the
cobwebs of the centuries, no one as
much as suspects that that which one
touches when one has a photograph in
one's hands, is not the phenomenal
image, but rather a map (a graphic)
created by the transduction of the
concentrations of energy into
concentrations of matter, which has
taken place in the camera obscura.
It is not surprising when a
photographer says: «I photograph what
I see», — to the extent that the act of
filming is referred to as: the shoot, the
take, «la prise de vue», all terms which
infer «capturing» that which we see,
which is often identified with that
which is there, outside or, in other
words, the «object», to magically
secure it forever on film, where it will
became palpable. But that which I see
is a phenomenal image, a psychogenic
manifestation.
So what do I actually photograph?
Briefly speaking, photography is
setting up the conditions for the
formation of the pictura in the camera
obscura and, therefore, the
transduction of the corresponding
energy maps according to a graphic,
photochemical or photoelectric
process... But, at this point, the little
boy who asks why there is a moon in
the sky, has found an opening for one
of his questions: as the Keplerian
pictura is a geometric formula and, as
even the ethereal image is a
physicomathematical formula, both,
therefore, constructed in the mind, how
can you photograph a phenomenal
image, which is also a psychogenic
manifestation? One way of answering
him, would be to come up with a new
formula, in other words, define
photography as the transduction of
modulated energy; or, putting it
another way, causing the different
concentrations of energy on different
points of a surface to leave «marks», a
design: different «grains» of material,
electricity or magnetism which we call
the revealed image, and which we
would do better to call a map depicted
on the screen of the camera obscura, a
form created by the different energies.
But the little boy is not about to give
up. He points out — even though it is
more than his life's worth — that the
concentrations of energy and the forms
created by these combined
concentrations, the geometric maps
and the «grains» of material, electricity
and magnetism are also images,
formulae, maps of «reality», so...
Don't drawn maps for me, Mister! My
head is a map... a map of the whole
world!