Everything is the centre of it’s own perception

February 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm (Design Theory)

In his text “Ways of Seeing” Berger talks about perspective in in 2 different ways. He talks about physical perspective of line drawing and this idea is easy enough to grasp. Berger also uses the term perspective as the way the viewer sees the image as a centre. This idea seems easy at first but further analysis causes one to wonder exactly what he means. When we look at an image or does it have a focal point? Does the image put the viewer at the centre?

I would say that the following image “Cubist Still Life” by Roy Lichtenstein 1974 does not offer a viewer centered perspective. Though on could point out there is a hint of linear perspective the image as a whole does not create a view of of centre either in looking at the viewer or in the way the viewer sees the image.

Cubist Still Life 1974 - Roy Lichtenstein

Another example is Andy Warhol’s 100 cans.

Andy Warhol - 100 cans

The image itself is flat and does not have any focal point either looking out at the viewer. When viewing this image the eye does not have a center to focus on. As Berger states “According to the convention of perspective there is no visual reciprocity.” (p. 16)

In Katie Paterson’s work Vatnajokur (the sound of) we see images of a glacial lagoon. Above these sits a bold neon phone number. This installation would allow viewers to call the number and hear the sounds of the lagoon. Berger states “The camera – and more particularly the
movie camera – demonstrated that there was no centre.” (p. 18) If this is to be definitive statement the would say these images have no centre. With the addition of the multimedia sound of the lagoon, the audience is placed in the centre of the lagoon. This dynamically alters the view and the perspective now focuses on the viewer as centre.