Looking Away and Seeing Too Much

   "Vision is not a simple act of volition."

   James Elkin's "Looking Away and Seeing Too Much" artfully describes the problems artists face every time they go to create something.  I think his best description of the situation is actually in the second paragraph,"My world is full of holes, and there are probably more holes than there are objects."  I thought it was interesting that he thought of 'not seeing' things as almost a relief...as it would almost be too much to see everything...trying to look at everything leads us to assume that some things are--certain blurs and shapes and colors may coordinate with what we may think are leaves or grasses, etc.  This made me think of things I have actually been reading for my seminar (Science and Religion). In short lots of religious sightings and what not are simply results of the fact that we as humans are pattern seeking animals.  If we are not really looking at something in great detail but I coincides enough with an image we do associate in our minds with a certain object or idea, we are led to assume what we are "seeing" is that object.  
    Not only is it difficult to make art of what we haven't really "seen", but art and what we can physically see vary from each other as well....I found the comparison between photography (crisp and definite) and what the human eye sees (blurred edges, the rim of the nose, etc.) particularly interesting.  I also like how these thoughts led into the point that few think about things that cannot be seen--not fantastical things, but things that cannot be seen.  This point kind of made me think of the guest speaker Heather Harvey.  The idea of people not thinking about that which can not be seen really made me think of Ms. Harvey's points about trying to capture the fuzzy backgrounds we don't think about, the quantum physics of our world, etc.  The images were hard to make-out, but the idea of sequential images affecting how each image itself is seen apart from the group and as a whole is still affective.  The way sequences affect our emotions/thoughts/sight fit in with how "forbidden" images may deflect or draw our vision towards them.  I found the last paragraph summed up his points very well, "We want to see, but we cannot; we try not to see, and we see in spite of ourselves; we try to see everything , and we see next to nothing.  Seeing is not easy; it is not easy to do, it is not easy to control, and it is certainly not easy to understand."  I guess this all gives no meaning to 'I can't believe my eyes'.
    I am not really sure how to "respond" to the critique, having never done so before...I appreciated hearing how others saw my project--the color (or lack there of for the most part) seemed to have the desired affect...I did not take into account how the background would push or draw the eye away from the subject, so I'm really glad that was brought to my attention...ultimately I was pleased with how my project came out, in that it was what I had in mind, but I can definitely see room to improve, not based solely on the critique, but also to attempt matching my vision a little more closely.

  My research and two questions go hand in hand this week:
>Is it better to exploit the pattern seeking default of humans when creating art, or to create a piece that is compelling enough that it is "exempt" in a way from being examined for patterns?
>How do optical illusions and our pattern seeking habits relate to one and other.

http://de-conversion.com/2007/05/26/humans-a-pattern-seeking-species/http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/43622