man & nature # 157 ~ a question for y'all
Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 01:39PM 
Rustic checker board and table • click to embiggenI'm sitting here on the front porch thinking and a wondering and it's occurred to me that, more than once, I have read / heard the phrase, "mind's eye". Way more often than not, photography-wise, it's used in a manner like:
... the making of the final image is to replicate what the photographer saw in their mind’s eye ...
I must admit that I have no idea what that notion means - primarily attributable to the fact that, when I'm picturing, my mind is "seeing" exactly what the eyes in the front of my face are seeing. Add to that the fact that I try to keep my mind as quite as possible when picturing in order to be receptive as possible, I am truly at a loss as to what the "mind's eye" is (as used above).
This is very different from my experience when looking at pictures, especially so when I am confronted by interesting pictures. At that time, the picture in question causes my "mind's eye" to "see" all manner of associated pictures that reside completely in my head. Much more often than not, interesting pictures also instigate other physical senses with imaginary responses - I can smell the earth, I can feel the heat, and, on some occasions, I can actually feels like I'm standing right in the picture maker's shoes.
So, that said, I definitely have a "mind's eye", in fact, it's a very active one. It's just that it goes to sleep when I'm picturing.
Now, lest I be accused of being disingenuous re: the aforementioned "replicate what the photographer saw in their mind's eye", I suspect that at least one meaning of that phrase as used in that statement is the notion of the photographic modus operandi of preconception or pre-visualization. An idea that I understand to mean that one pictures with the notion of the resultant / desired print as a guiding determinate.
But, beyond that guess, I am at a loss to divine any additional meanings.
So, therein is my question - does anyone out there understand the idea of the "mind's eye", especially as it is used in the aforementioned statement? Does it have meaning for anyone out there, re: your picture making?
FYI, this is a sincere question. I am genuinely interested in honest responses.
Reader Comments (5)
I have an inkling of what they're talking about. Often, when I'm shooting, I'll see something, or some object/scene will pique my interest. While working the scene, there will then be a moment of recognition, a eureka (found it), and then I'll know I've gotten the picture, assuming I don't screw up the technique. So it only becomes visual for me when I see what I'm looking for. Does that make sense?
I've seen the phrase used most often to justify Velvia-style images, where the photographer either experienced the scene "intensely" (translates to wow saturation), or wanted to. Then don't forget that photography is a two-step process: when making final prints or jpgs, the photographer is "looking at pictures" and subject to all the associations you mention.
OK, I'll skip all the neuroscience of why you can only see with your mind. But anyone who thinks they're an accurate, unbiased observer of color should watch the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE of a color-changing card trick. Don't quit early; the trick is explained in the second half.
The idea of the mind eye comes from not well digested notions of psychology dating back in the sixties/seventies.There was supposed to be a sort of little creature sitting in the head looking (in the case of images) at the screen formed by the sensed input. A thought heavily based on the emerging computational model of the brain from cybernetics. To make things worse it is a quite common perception in LSD experiences, so in time the concept received a somewhat flower powered flavor.
When I look at something I want to take a picture of I try to see it how the camera will see it. The camera sees a little differently then I do.
In my minds eye, I see a well composed photo of two people sitting on a couch. Unfortunately, my camera sees those two people from the chin up, and 6 feet of wallpaper.