Visually exhausted

Hsg said:
Are we visually exhausted?

In my case, absolutely. To such an extend that I cannot even enjoy reading anymore.

On an average, how much time people spend looking at their phone screen, let alone the computer monitor?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what the argument is here so maybe you could clarify your point. Are you talking about a physiological exhaustion of the eyes or are you talking about "mental" (for lack of a better word) exhaustion?

For what it's worth, I think social media such as tumblr or Instagram unquestionably show that people draw a tremendous amount of pleasure of looking at photographs nowadays, probably more than ever before. IMO the more interesting question is if and how the nature of the pleasure people draw from photographs has changed.
 
I'm interested in photography, which is completely different from what OP has listed as something related to still images.
 
rodinal said:
Evolution needs natural selection (or at least some form of selection) in order to the survival of the fitest. That is not happening anymore (lucky me) so, yes, human evolution has stopped.
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't come from Darwin and it's arguably a poor representation of his theory of natural selection.
It's silly to say that human evolution has 'stopped' (it will have stopped when humans have all died out) but it's also silly to bring evolution into an argument about changes in our media culture that happened in the course of a few decades.
 
Hsg said:
Do we agree that eyes have become the most abused sensor in our lives today?


When you look at a screen, there is light projected on your eyes, which exhausts the eyes, the same way that shining a flashlight to the eyes exhaust the eyes.

Our eyes have evolved to look at 'reflected' light, we don't look at the sun, we look at the reflection of sun on the surface... Today we live with artificial light projected at our eyes, and we can't get rid of it.
Click to expand...

The difference between reflected and emitted light of the same intensity is purely philosophical. Looking at the sun through a polished mirror hurts my eyes just the same as looking at it directly.
 
Hsg said:
People no longer draw pleasure from looking at photographs, since their visual senses have been overused in daily life, computers, phones, video and TV, at least for those who still watch TV.


So, why are we still producing one photo after another for a visually exhausted world?
Click to expand...


You loaded the question with the pretense that "people are visually exhausted".
I think that is absolutely incorrect. People can't get enough visual input. If people were exhausted, they would stop watching TV and DVD's, stop reading magazines, stop sending each other cellphone / facebook / etc etc snapshots.

Now, let me backup and read how the others feel about this . . .
 
Interesting, I feel like having an overdose of pictures. I decided for a kind of photo fast. Not absolutely but reducing the amount of images I'll look at (for a certain time). The reason is that too many photos are confusing me. I would like to concentrate on my own works. I love editing, choosing photos, comparing them, combining and making sequences...but when you daily see too many photos, too many different styles, different approaches it becomes more difficult. Of course I speak of "interesting" photos.
As photomoof said going out walking, cycling or going swimming (without devices) helps a lot. Maybe it's just me...:)
robert
 
I get visually exhausted looking at bad photos, and especially at photos people post that have dust spots, bad contrast, development streaks, photos of family members that only mean something if they're of your family, photos to show the technical merits of a piece of equipment -- that kind of thing. But, I'm never too tired to look at something beautiful -- lately I've enjoyed Trent Parke's work, the cinematography in Woody Allen's new movie (and all his movies pretty much) -- the experience of a great still photo, presented cleanly is not for me exhausting. Sure there's lots to look at these days -- but that can work both ways.
 
Frances and I have a phrase, "pictured out", which means we can't look at any more pictures -- especially our own when we are sorting them.

But it takes hours for this to happen, and it's gone by next day. Anyone who can't stand SEEING (capitals deliberate) should consider having their eyeballs surgically removed.

As should those who reckon they read too much drivel and not enough good stuff. Ask yourself whether you are (a) hopelessly over-critical or (b) even more hopelessly uncritical.

Cheers,

R.
 
From my unscientific and anecdotal evidence observing people around me in London they are still as much visually engaged as they have always been during the last 50 years; they are just using different media.

Years past it was the newspaper, magazine or book, now it’s a smart phone, e-reader or tablet. I don’t see evidence that the world around me is visually exhausted – far from it.

Personally I still obtain great enjoyment from the visual image; my growing shelf of photographic books are testament to this.

I loved working in a darkroom producing satisfying prints, I now do this in front of a monitor. My love of the photographic image is still as strong as ever, but I’ve embraced different technologies to get the results I want.

I haven’t burned out – yet! – but then photography isn’t my sole pastime.
 
Hsg said:
Our eyes have evolved to look at 'reflected' light, we don't look at the sun, we look at the reflection of sun on the surface... Today we live with artificial light projected at our eyes, and we can't get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Curious, how do you know that our eyes "evolved" ?
And evolved from what exactly?
 
In a frantic world where we are confronted by a confusion of fast paced information via TV video etc the still image is a resting place for the eyes and mind, not to mention the imagination. It will always have a place.
 
In many ways I'm sympathetic to the idea of the spectacle and the flood of images etc. However, as Keith says, we all have agency and we have the power to choose to rest our sight and imagination (including by focusing on the kinds of images we like). We aren't passive recipients of a flood of images that are circulating in society - we actively choose what to look at, and how we will look at it (or not).
 
Evolution is a loaded term, to put it simply, our eyes are used to look at reflected light.

All screens, other than the e-inc ereaders, project light to the eyes. This projected light is exhausting to the eyes when one looks at screen for hours, anyone who has used computers can attest to that. With small phone screens its the same phenomenon, in fact even more exhausting because the text and objects are smaller and usually the phone is used outside in bright conditions.


These screens are great for video because at least another sense, hearing is used and there is motion and more immersion, still photos, no matter how sexy, simply does not offer any visual pleasure to the viewer - as compared to video.


So, basically, still photos have lost their pleasure factor, they've become, for a lack of a better word, uninteresting, no matter how 'good' they're.
 
Hsg said:
So, basically, still photos have lost their pleasure factor, they've become, for a lack of a better word, uninteresting, no matter how 'good' they're.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It sounds grand as an abstract idea, but it also sounds rather like a generalisation and I am wary of generalisations...
All of this is context dependent: to whom have they lost their pleasure factor (I'm happy enough, for instance...), in what contexts have they lost their pleasure factor and become uninteresting, etc? More specifically, what kind of images have lost their interest factor? The last question is important because it recognises that once you start talking about judgements of taste, which you are doing by generalising that we find all images uninteresting, then you have to acknowledge that judgements of taste are infinitely more complex than this and that there will be images we find interesting too...
If you are going to argue that there is a proliferation of uninteresting images then I won't disagree. However, the flip side of this is that for all the faults of current technology, I would say I also find far more extremely interesting images far more easily accessible to me than would have been the case a couple of decades ago.
 
Interesting posts

Interesting posts

Pretty new here and think this is a great discussion.
Great to get a wide variety of thoughts. Thanks to everyone. This past weekend, shot digital and the nikon S3. Enjoy shooting both, but it was when I mounted the S3 to the tripod, well that made me smile. This is my first rangefinder and I slow way down and have too. Not bothered by it a bit.
What I see here are images that take my breath away on rff.
Through the eyes of you all. Now that inspires me.
There are photos that are less appealing but take or see what I like and leave the rest. Just want people to enjoy what I shoot. That gives me pleasure that someone else just me what to stop and give a shot a look.
Thanks everyone for sharing what your eyes see and your thoughts.
Sorry about the long post!
Ross (news shooter).
 
I don't think people are visually exhausted, Facebook, Instagram etc. would tell you that more people are looking at photos than ever. However, they're looking at probably the worst photos ever taken, and if that diminishes photography's appeal in general, I wouldn't be surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom