Technological Educational Institute of AthensDepartment of Photography and Audiovisual Arts

5%: The perceived reality as a photograph Dissertation

Anna Pantelia

Registration Number: 09026

Supervisor: Dr Fotis Kaggelaris, ScientificAssociate

2013-2014

Acknowledgment

This dissertation was elaborated in the EuropeanOrganisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) in 2013.Its completion would have been impossible withoutmy sister's help (Maria Pantelia, a Philologygraduate of the National and KapodistrianUniversity of Athens) as well as the support,guidance and cooperation which was offered by myprofessor, Dr Fotis Kaggileris. I would also liketo express my heartfelt thanks to my friendNikoleta Koundoura (a graduate of the DesignAcademy U5 in Munchen) for designing the coverageof the book. Additionally, I would like to thankthe Physics students I got to know in CERN forthe valuable information and knowledge which theyshared with me. Finally, I would like to thank myparents for the support they have given methrough these years as well as Dr Evaggelos Gazis(a distinguished nuclear professor in theNational Technical University of Athens andrepresentative of Greece in CERN) for theopportunity he gave me to contribute, as far asit was possible for me, in the promotion of suchan important scientific accomplishment.

Introduction

Understanding reality, an issue which isinextricably connected with human existence, hasits roots in ancient Greek philosophy. It wasalready in the 7th century that pre-Socraticphilosophers tried to interpret reality throughphilosophical research, observation of theoperation of the world and prediction. Afterstudying these efforts -and others that followed-one can realise that the definition of realityco-exists with the human perceptive on the worldand the parts that it consists of.

In this dissertation an attempt is being made tobridge the gap between the photograph (as asubtle fragment of reality) and the reality that

surrounds us. It is also common knowledge that aphotograph is a small piece of reality. However,it is not equally known that the reality weperceive is a very small part of something thatwe cannot see, perceive and notice. Morespecifically, based on cosmological as well asscientific research we conclude that everythingwe see, notice and perceive makes of just 5% ofwhat actually exists in the universe. Theremaining 95% is a dark energy and matter whosenature remains unknown.

Is our reality a “photograph” of what actually exists? Investigating the aforementioned question is the main aim of this particular dissertation.

Contents

1.Pale Blue Dot1.1 Dark

Matter...................................................................................1-2

1.2 Dark Energy: Brief HistoricalOverview......................................2-3

1.3 The5% .........................................................................................3

2. What is reality after all?2.1 The dominant definition of

reality................................................3-4

2.2Idealism.........................................................................................4-5

2.3 Plato's idealism and Aristotle's analysis ofart regarding reality...5-6

2.4 Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Pliny's legend regarding the origin of painting...........................................................................6-7

3. The photograph as a piece of reality3.1 Photography: the art of

choice......................................................8-9

3.2 The belief in the realism of thephotograph..................................9-10

4. The photograph must resemble reality4.1 The procedure of recognising the

image.......................................10-11

4.2 Photograph andreality..................................................................11-12

5. The psychology of TotalForm....................................................11-12

6. The perrcieved reality as a photograph 6.1 Photographic

approach................................................................12-13

6.2 Conclusion: The “perceived” reality as aphotograph.................14

Bibliography................................................................................15-16

Annex................................................................................................17

1. Pale Blue Dot

In February 1990 the spaceship Voyage 1 wasordered by NASA to photograph the planets of oursolar system after it had travelled for 12 yearsand had reached the edge of the solar system. Oneof the 60 photographs that were taken depictedthe image of the Earth which seems like a bluedot on a grainy photo.

In his book, Pale Dot Blue, the astronomer CarlSagan envisions a future in space for humanbeings: From this faraway panoramic point, theEarth may not seem to be particularlyinteresting. However, for us it is somethingdifferent. Reconsider this dot. This here. Thisis our home. This is us. Every person you love,every person you know, every person you have everheard of, every human being has lived his lifehere. All the happiness and all the pain,thousands of religions, ideologies and economictheories, every hunter and collector, every heroand coward, every creator and destroyer of thecivilisation, every king and every peasant, everyyoung couple in love, every mother and everyfather, hopeful child, inventor and explorer,every teacher of ethics, every corruptpolitician, every superstar, every supremeleader, every saint and every sinner in thehistory of the human race has lived there – on agrain of sand.

All these might make us feel tiny but theyshouldn't. From what we know human beings are theonly creatures that are capable of understandingand studying some of the basic features of the

1

universe. And it is this difference in the scalethat defines a human and gives him the ability tointegrate in his environment. All thisinformation is certainly difficult for us todigest, because we do not have the necessaryexperience.

1.1 Dark matter

As it was previously mentioned humans wereinterested in studying reality from a very earlypoint. Ancient Greeks, led by Empedocles andbased on the simplicity of the universe, arguedthat everything is made of 4 basic elements:water, air, soil and fire. However, this specificbelief did not provide any measurable resultsand, consequently, it was soon rejected. It wasthen another philosopher, Leucippus, in theclassic era, who argued that everything we seeconsists of smaller indivisible elements ofnature: atoms. Nevertheless, neither did thistheory prove to be totally correct since atomsare actually divisible. Another weakness of thetheory was that the interpretation that wasattempted concerned only a small part of theuniverse.

However, let's take things from the beginning:scientific measurements of the movement ofgalaxies regarding the percentage of mattercontained in them surprised the scientificcommunity. In particular, it was noticed thatthere is not enough visible matter that canprovide respective gravity in order for balanceto exist. As a result, according to hypotheses,

2

another form of matter must exist, which isinvisible to the human eye. This hypothesis wasthe springboard for what nowadays we call darkmatter. What's more, it is should be remarked thatthis hypothesis was confirmed by subsequentstudies on individual galaxies.

1.2 Dark energy – Brief Historical Overview

According to the theory of 5%, the 95% of theuniverse consists of dark matter (a reference towhich was made in the previous chapter) and darkenergy. In order to explain this term, a briefhistoric overview must be made with the aim toassist its thorough comprehension.

At the beginning of the 90s the only irrefutableknowledge of the scientific community was theexpansion of the universe. According to logicalassumptions, the universe should either stopexpanding or decelerate its expansion due to itsenergy density and gravity. However, none ofthese phenomena was observed. On the contrary,its expansion rate showed an unjustifiableincrease. According to NASA (NASA 2013), theobservations that were made by the Hubble in 1998concluded that in the past the universe used toexpand at a much slower pace than it does todayand that it did not decelerate due to gravity butit accelerated for an unknown reason. Variousattempts were made to explain the phenomenonscientifically. However, nobody succeeded infinding which was the correct one.

Nevertheless, despite their lack of knowledge ofthis issue, both physicists and cosmologists knew

3

that an unknown kind of energy has an effect onthe expansion of the universe. It is the so-called dark energy. An estimation of its exactquantity in the universe has even been made,which has stemmed from how much it affectsuniversal affairs. Thus, approximately 68% of theuniverse consists of dark energy and about 27% ofdark matter. On the other hand, dark matter is akind of matter which cannot be observed directlybecause neither does it absorb nor does it emitenough luminous energy. However, it can beperceived by the effects it has on gravity. Thenature of the dark matter, however, also remainsunknown. Based on evidence, we can contend thatdark matter does not consist of the sameparticles which comprise our known matter(baryonic matter), namely particles known asprotons and neutrons. As far as its detection isconcerned, it has been succeeded throughdifferent methods. One of them is detecting x-and y-rays which have resulted from the fissionor annihilation of the dark matter as well as itsproduction through the collision of proton bondsof high energy.

1.3 The 5%

As it can be suggested from the above, theremaining 5% (which can be perceived by oursenses) consists of matter. In physical termsthis defines every particle that has mass. On thecontrary, in everyday life this term is used todefine the substance which composes every naturalobject that can be observed. Besides, it isalready known that everything that is visible tothe naked eye, consists of atoms. The atoms

4

themselves consist of quarks and electrons, inother words point particles, which do not havevolume and dimensions. However, these particlescompose the ordinary matter which -at leastseemingly- actually does have volume (Wikipedia2013). So, the question that arises is how it ispossible the reality that we have in our mind canbe composed by intangible particles.

2. What is reality after all?

Man's quest of understanding the identity of the world thatsurrounds him -a quest that, from what can be concluded from theabove, is perpetual and timeless- has the ultimate goal to revealthe essence of reality. Philosophical and scientific attempts havealso been made to define it. However, it will be very difficult forsomebody to find a definition that is perfect, complete andunderstandable, due to the fact that nature is multifaceted. Below,some attempts will be made to present some of the most felicitousdefinitions -to the extent, of course, that this can be achieved.

2.1 The dominant definition of reality

The meaning of the term reality is not uniform among all people.So how can we define it? And if we succeed in doing so, will thedefinition, which will derive from this effort, directly depend on ourexperience and knowledge? And finally, how objective should anydefinition of reality be considered?

Undoubtedly, the previous questions are relatedto philosophy. Additionally, it is a fact thatdefining reality has always depended either onthe way people see the world or on the parts thatconsist the world (context). When we use thisterm in visual communication we mean the socio-political and space-time environment, as well as

5

a number of parameters, conditions and conceptsthat surround and determine the meaning of theimage. The context is particularly importantbecause a possible change may alter the meaningof the image itself. A great deal of sciences,which are diverse, such as philosophy, sociology,communication have been trying to constructtheories regarding reality for centuries. Inparticular, there was a philosophical movementwhich characterised a whole era, known asidealism. It was based on the belief thatreality, as we know it, is a mental creation andtherefore immaterial.

2.2 Idealism

The term Idealism derives from the word Ideawhich in turn derives from the ancient Greekinfinitive ἰδεῖν which means “see”. As a movementit supports the primacy of spirit andintelligence over matter, which is a product ofour perception and our senses (Wikipedia, 2013).

One of the main representatives of Idealism,Immanuel Kant, formulated the theory oftranscendental idealism, in which he argued thateverything we see is nothing but the views ofthings and not the things themselves (Dinge ansich). According to this theory, the approach ofthings can only be accomplished through cognitionand not through the senses. However, his theorydoes not explain what things themselves are,something that leads to agnosticism, which is

6

actually the weakness of his theory.

A characteristic excerpt from his work is quotedbelow in order to process his theory moresuccessfully: “I had to deny knowledge in order to makeroom for belief”. With the term “belief” he meant thebelief in something in which we have noexperience (Gresham, 2011). This leads us to theconviction that we are neither going to describereality nor have a sufficient view of it.

The best example comes from the field of particlephysics. In order to make observations,artificial phenomena are created, whose resultsare estimated by some natural detectors. Theirresults -such as the traces of the orbit which anelectron has in a cloud chamber- prove theexistence of the electron, even if the electronitself has not been observed.

We come to the conclusion that what we see isprojections of some entities, which, in reality,we cannot see. Heidegger, in his essay “The Originof the Work of Art”, explains that the core of thingswas -according to Ancient Greeks- what alwayslies underneath, in other words the the underlying.

After following a similar reasoning about art, weare led to the following observation: theevolution of art provides us with numerous stylesfor representing reality. These styles indicatethe variety of the relations that humans havewith reality. Art, in other words, createsdifferent worlds or presents aspects of thealready known world which had remained invisibleup until now. As a result, both art and science -

7

the one independently from the other- bring uscloser to the exploration of reality.

2.3 Plato's idealism and Aristotle's analysisof art regarding reality

According to what was analysed above, through theobservations and the measurements that have takenplace in science over time, as well as throughphilosophical pursuits, the belief that theshadow (see dark energy/matter) is a footprint ofexistence, has strengthened. This belief hadalready been expressed since the ancient years.The philosophical pursuits that had begun by pre-Socratic philosophers concluded that everythingrelated to space and time alternates and thisalternation is perpetual and nothing stays thesame from one moment to another.

In an effort to find a solution to this specificdeadlock and to protect knowledge and objectivetruth against ideologies which rejected them,condemning humans to a permanent ignorance andfinally leading them to amorality, Plato arguedthat the objects of knowledge, the objects thatcan be defined, existed, but should not beidentified with anything that is part of thevisible world; he had divided reality into twoworlds: the world of forms which isindestructible and eternal and the perishablematerial world. What is more, the soul existedbefore the body and it belonged to the world offorms, while the body was a temporary residenceof the soul according to the same theory. (Taylor1992)

8

Additionally, the philosopher's denigratingattitude towards the arts is undeniable. Morespecifically, Plato objected to mimetic artsbecause he believed that the variability, whichcharacterised them, was dangerous. Using a bed asan example, the philosopher considered its Idea(ἰδέα) as the highest level of creation which goesback to god (author of things-φυτουργός). The nextlower level in the hierarchical classificationwas the structure of the bed by the carpenter(handicraftsman-δημιουργός) and, finally, anotherinferior was its imitation by the painter(imitator-μιμητής) who did nothing more that couldnot be done by a mirror which reproduces theimage of things but not the real essence of thethings. Taking this triple distinction intoconsideration, both the painter and the poet areclassified in the category of the imitators. As aresult, these two are three levels away fromPlato's perception of reality (Plato-τά ὄντως ὄντα).

As we continue our exploration in Plato'sattitude towards art, it would be a significantomission not to mention the distinction betweenvisual and imaginary arts. More specifically, avisual artist follows the real proportions,dimensions, etc., while the imaginary one createsa piece of art which will look like the real oneunder certain circumstances (eg distance). Andall these according to Plato's theory.

On the other hand, Aristotle, Plato's mostdistinguished student, differed from his teacherto a great extent by forming a diametricallyopposite theory. More specifically, in hisopinion, art becomes a creative representation of

9

reality with the help of the senses. His theoryenhances mimetic arts, because he supports thatin the early stages of a human education,knowledge is succeeded through imitation,something which is totally incomprehensible forPlato, if we take into consideration the factthat for the latter knowledge correlates withmemory (Σφενδόνη-Μέντζου 2010-2011).

On the contrary, the Stagirite believed that artmakes the real essence of the represented objectvisible. The fact that we know it, means that wecomprehend the idea that the represented objectserves.

Extensions of this specific theory also apply tothe field of theatre. For example, Gadamer(Gadamer 1992) tallied the function of imitationwith ancient drama. More analytically, thespectator participates in the drama byidentifying himself with the actor. As a resultthe distance between them disappears. In otherwords, “imitation” is a performance, apresentation and not a representation. This way,the imitation does not just refer to a certainprototype, but it is a transformation of theprototype.

2.4 Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Pliny'slegend regarding the origin of painting

According to Plato, the shadow in the Allegory ofthe Cave (Πλάτων) is the only thing that humanscan see, because they are chained inside a darkcave, condemned to see only the shadow in frondof them, which is formed by a fire behind them.

10

The philosophical quest is the one that will takethem out of the darkness of ignorance, thusmaking them capable of seeing the truth.

Pliny's narrative regarding the origin of the artof painting is oriented towards a similardirection. More specifically, Pliny's narrativein 1st century BC (Πλίνιος εκδ. 1994) is acatalyst for the history of portrait making.According to this, a young Corinthian girl was inher chamber with her lover, who was going toleave her. Suddenly, she noticed his shadow onthe wall, which was created by a lamp. So, sheimmediately painted it on the wall usingcharcoal.

Taking this incident into consideration, it couldbe said that the art of painting lays somewherebetween love and loss; love and death. It createsan image which is inextricably linked with theshadow. So, when painting deals with the worldof shadows, this indicates the confusion betweenreality and illusion.

Going back to our example, we can say that thegirl's effort to keep the image of her belovedone in her memory, makes her seek for the truth.But what is the truth? According to Plato, thetruth can be found when oblivion is removed.(αλήθεια > α+λήθη). As the soul used to exist inthe world of forms before the birth of humans, ithad knowledge of the forms. But since they wereborn, the soul forgot the knowledge that it hadalready acquired. It is obvious that there are substantialdifferences between Pliny's legend and Plato's

11

allegory. In the case of the Platonic allegory,the “prisoners” cannot see the shadow as anactual shadow, because they cannot find a visualangle so as to see the shadow as a distinctiveobject. The Corinthian girl, on the contrary,perceives the shadow as a shadow and she paintsit on the wall. Roland Barthes, in his CameraLucida (Barthes 2011) had written: “What thePhotograph reproduces to infinity has occurredonly once: the Photograph mechanically repeatswhat could never be repeated existentially”. Inother words it protects and preserves a moment astime goes by. That was exactly the girl's aim.She did not try to create a substitute of herlover, but she actually tried to create theexistence of his absence and preserve it as timepassed.

3. The photograph as a piece of reality

3.1 Photography: the art of choice

It is well-known that photography always differedfrom the other forms of art, because it is an artof selection. And selection itself plays animportant role in proving the variability thatgoverns reality. In other words, the snapshotthat has been imprinted on the photo is not goingto take place again.

Contrary to the other forms of art which create areality or, in other words, they create somethingnew, photography is based on the selection of the

12

partial instead of the whole. In order to makethe difference between photography and the restof the related forms of art comprehensible, thefollowing should be pointed out: in the field ofoptical communication the picture framerepresents something totally different from thepainting frame. The painter fills the frame withhis personal perspective of things. Thephotograph, on the other hand, carries somethingthat has existed in the world of images withoutbearing the past in its memory. According toRoland Barthes the impression that a photographcreates does not restore what has been abolishedby time and distance, but it certifies that whatwe see has really existed.

Consequently, photographic representation doesnot necessarily express something that does notexist anymore, but something which without adoubt has existed. Every photograph servescertainty by validating the thing that itrepresents. The certainty that is provided to usby a photographic image cannot be provided by anytext, because language cannot prove itsauthenticity on its own; it will make an appealeither to logic or to the lack of logic or evento oath in order to succeed this. On thecontrary, a photograph is indifferent to any kindof mediation. Even though this does not preservethe honesty of its purpose, it does preserve thehonesty of its existence. And most importantly,each photograph “possesses an evidential force,and its testimony bears not on the object but ontime.” Additionally, “from a phenomenologicalviewpoint, in the Photograph, the power ofauthentication exceeds the power of

13

representation” (Barthes 2011). Anotherdifferentiating element of the photograph is thatit does not constitute a reality on its own. Aself-luminous reality. And this because eachphotograph does not end where the frame ends, butit is a reference to reality.

Wollheim has also dealt with the issue of how weperceive art. In his work which is called“Winters” and was published in 2013 he refers tohis theory on art and he claims that viewing animage is based on a twofold perception: thismeans that the viewer realises that what he seesin front of him is either a canvas (in the caseof painting) or a piece of paper (in the case ofphotography), but at the same time he has thenecessary perceptiveness so as to distinguishmore than colours, lines or the snapshot of thephotograph and to make a reality out of what hesees. Of course, this ability of his is linkedwith cognitive parameters and sensory experiencesthat characterise human beings.

Another philosopher, this time from Germany,Heidegger, in his essay “The Origin of the Workof Art” underlines the importance of the materialbackground of the work of art. He also believesthat those who divide the work of art intoessential and non-essential, into materialbackground and formalised superstructure, supportthe idea that the work of art is actuallyallegoric. They believe that the art form leadsto somenthing else. In other words, it operatesas a symbol. This formed idea downgrades thebackground material in order to limit theessential only to the form. It overlooks

14

thingness and, as a result, it ignores the realwork of art. The thingness of the work of art (inother words the the material that it is made of)is especially important because it relates to theaesthetic experience. And it is exactly thisexperience that enables us to recoginise things.Everything depends on form as well as material.Consequently, material on its own isincomprehensible. On the same basis, a formwithout the material is also incomprehensible.

As we continue, we will realise that even thematerial with the slightest form possible, hascharacteristics which immediately becomeaccessible to our senses (Heidegger).

3.2 The belief in the realism of thephotograph

Preformation

Even though a photograph encourages the viewer toa new outlook of the world capturing more thanthe eye actually sees, it is always acceptedwithout justification. This happens because wedeal with a piece of art as predisposedrecipients (Αντωνιάδης 1999). More specifically,executing a subject in a photograph is mediatedby a certain artistic style, which depends bothon the technical means that will be used and thechoices of the photographer. The choice ofcertain technical means (camera, photographicfilm, lens) is inextricably connected with what

15

we call preformation. More analytically, when thephotographer makes certain choices, he expectssimilar results. For instance, he is in advancefamiliar with the results he will get when hechooses a photographic film with high ISO or anultra-wide lens. And he actually selects themanticipating to succeed his photographicobjective.

However, it should be noted that every time werefer to a realistic presentation of realitythrough a photograph, we do not mean a duplicateof it. Besides, not only would such an effort befruitless but it would also be inconsistent withthe broader artistic pursuits. Consequently,realism has nothing to do with the exactrepresentation of reality. Its aim is to fullyinform us about reality.

Aristotle has made reference to this matter withthe term assimilation (Ὁμοίωσις) which we find in hiswork. According to the Stageirit philosopher, artis in general a reference to the real things.However, when reality is performed, there must bea correspondence between the representation andthe real things; they must match. And this is theso-called “assimilation” (Ὁμοίωσις).

This idea does not contradict what was mentionedbefore. It just presents a different perspective.Nowadays however, thousands of years after thisgreat scholar of the world and of human nature,it is common ground among those who love dealingwith art, that sufficient quantity of informationand high degree of similarity does notnecessarily lead to a complete representation of

16

reality. On the contrary, more often than not, itis an elliptical depiction that can present whatis being depicted more effectively. According toGoodman, who adds another parameter on thissubject, the degree of realism depends on howfast the viewer will get familiar with what isbeing portrayed. And this in turn has to do withthe speed of the viewer's familiarity withstereotypes and the characteristics of therepresentational conventions. As a result,realism is a matter of habit, according toGoodman..

4. The photograph must resemble reality4.1 The procedure of recognising the image

Recognition of an image in optical perception isachieved when the similarities between thedepiction and the perceptual experience areidentified. According to Wollheim (Wollheim 1998)this experience is necessary in order for therecognition to take place. And this recognitionwill be achieved through the comparison betweenthe image of the real thing and the one beingdepicted. In human experience, every object ofthe senses is at the same time an object of ourthought: everything that is experienced can beclassified, coded through cognition and fall intoone or more meanings. Gombrich says exactly this:“Even in the mirror nothing is visible if it isnot known and sought beforehand”. And thatbecause, if it is not known from the beginning,how will it be possible to be seen andrecognised? As Dr Kaggelaris mentions in his workregarding the definition of the photograph,

17

Gombrich forms an innovative opinion aboutperception by claiming that it is an illusion.What he calls an illusion, is not an invention ofa new reality, as very often happens in psychoticprocesses, but something more significant: it isthe same mechanism that allows vision. In otherwords, he says, we do not only see , but weinterpret things based on the method we use tosee plus the cultural influences of the time. Ifwe want to be in touch with reality, we mustignore it. And doesn't he identify with Barthes,when he says that in order to really see aphotograph we must close our eyes? Gombrichcontinues by saying that we have the ability toexperience reality only through illusion. Becauseof the plausibility of the photographic documentthe viewer tends to accept what he sees andconsider it as part of the reality. For theviewer of the photograph the meaning ofrepresentation seems to be absent, since he isable to perceive only something that is identicalwith something real.

4.2 Photograph and reality However, reality is not something widelyaccepted. The iconographic stereotypes thatcharacterise each society in each time frame addanother potential interpretation of the image.For example, according to Greek stereotypes, thepicture of an elderly woman dressed in blackdepicts mourning, loss, loneliness anddedication. This does not necessarily apply toother peoples or other cultures. So we can saythat the way we perceive the visible depends on

18

the conditions that create it (Αντωνιάδης 1999).The viewer's familiarity with the conventions ofthe familiar representation system does notcertainly exclude accepting new or differentconventions. In this case however, it is not thespeed of recognition that inhibits this process.

The photograph does not operate as a window tothe real world. The distance from the scene ismuch bigger than the distance which separates usfrom the surface of the picture. Time is a factorwhich contributes a lot to the distance createdbetween the viewer and reality. Consequently, theviewer's reactions and thoughts which follow theprocess of recognition, are related to reality,which is understood by looking at a picture, andnot the picture itself. Hume, in his book “ATreatise of Human Nature”, argues that, theconclusions that are drawn when the human mindgoes beyond what is displayed directly in frontof it, should never be attributed to the senses.It is also indisputable that the mind goes beyondthe direct data collected by the senses, whenfrom one and only perception it is led to theconclusion of the double existence, and assumesthat these two ways of existence sharesimilarities (Hume, ed. 2005). Any comparisonbetween reality and an image is impossible. Areal object is three-dimensional, it can beseen from many different angles, in differentlighting conditions etc. However, thephotographic depiction is two-dimensional andunique. Barthes believes that this ascertainmentis meaningless because nothing can prevent thephotograph from being proportional (Barthes2011). However, the true meaning of the

19

photograph does not lay in proportions but in therealisation of the authenticity of what is beingpresented.

As it was previously mentioned, the reality whichwe refer to, did not necessarily happen as theviewer formed it in his mind. In the case ofpainting, the reality which is represented neverhappened, but it was produced in the painter'smind. In particular, the painter, depending onthe style he used, creates a path ofinterpretation for the viewer, whether heborrowed elements from reality or not. Inphotography things are totally different. Thephotographer is asked to choose a small piece ofwhat actually is taking place in front of hiseyes contrary to a painter who describes hisexperience after he has already experienced it.As the viewer of a photographic piece of art hasknowledge of this situation, he finds itimperative to make up a story so as to describewhat he sees in the picture, because he missedthe chance to experience it. For this reason, webelieve that the photograph is actually thereality and if you take out the story, then thereis nothing left. (Αντωνιάδης 1999).

5. The psychology of Total Form

As it was mentioned in the previous chapter optical understandingdepends on the existence of similarity in order to activate cognitivehuman characteristics such as classification. This classification inturn contributes to the recognition of a picture. So we canunderstand that the cognitive approach has much to offer to the

20

understanding of an image. For this reason, in the followingchapter there is a brief -but, hopefully, easily comprehensible-presentation of the cornerstone of our visual perception.

Visual perception does not begin with theindividual characteristics of an object, but withits general structure. According to FormativePsychology visual perception is complex. Thismeans that we perceive sets of things in aninitially infinite and indeterminate environment.As the individual characteristics of thisenvironment become perceptible, our perceptionstarts to decipher this environment (Arnheim1954). Our mind refuses to accept anything thatdoes not have an elementary structure orallocation. The way people perceive clouds isvery indicative of this idea: clouds do not havea specific structure. However, the human brainhas the ability to recognise formations, whichremind it of familiar images (for example ananimal). In psychology this is called“projection”. The fact that anything that iscompletely unknown to humans tends to simulate orrefer to something that is already known, isbased on the same idea. For instance,visualisation of what can not be seen or beperceived, is based on our perceptual experience.Consequently, every effort to visualiseextraterrestrial creatures is made based onanthropomorphic terms.

The theory of information which was formulated byGilson (Gilson 1998) can be applied tophotography. According to this theory,recognition can be achieved because of the

21

information that is provided, information whichwe would actually get if we were present at theplace where the photo was taken. Because of theplausibility of the photographic document, thematerial which is represented can be eliminatedmore easily than in a painting and the viewer isconceptually in direct contact with the thingthat is being represented. In any case,Wollheim's theory on twofoldness is valid.

6.1 Photographic approach

The photographic section of this essay aims todepict people who work in the laboratories of theEuropean Organisation for Nuclear Research(CERN). Taking these photos played an importantrole in the effort to visualise the theory whichwas previously analysed in this dissertation. Themost crucial factor in this effort was no otherbut the place where this photographic researchwas conducted. More specifically, as it waspreviously mentioned, the European Organisationfor Neuclear Research was the place which hostedthis photographic project. It is an organisationwhose purpose it to conduct research on subatomicparticles, dark matter and dark energy (termswhich were mentioned in the first chapter). Thedirect correlation of the matters that are beinganalysed in this dissertation with the the placewhere they are being under study, proves thisspecific work unique. Additionally, it is worthmentioning that an effort was made in order forthe photographic lens to be consistent with thefamous theory of the 5%. More specifically, inthe photographs that are included in this

22

dissertation, human figures cover approximatelythe 5% of the picture. This percentage is thesame in size as the human perceptual abilityregarding the universe as a whole. To conclude,based on the tenuous human presence regarding thebackground of the picture, somebody couldjuxtapose -mutatis mutandis- the humaninfinitesimal presence in the universe.

6.2 Conclusion: The “perceived” reality as aphotograph

As it has been mentioned several times in thisdissertation, an effort was made to correlate aphotograph (as a nugget of reality) with the partof the universe which can be perceived throughthe senses (5% of total). This correlation issought because of different factors. First ofall, because the photograph has become a familiartool in the people's hands and secondly becauseit has a very strong connection with realitysince it is a part of it. But which reality do wemean? The perceptible reality. So, in the humanmind the photograph is a snapshot of a specifictime and place, and it has emerged from theseemingly infinite time and space. Expanding thisline of reasoning to a larger scale we can arguethat the reality which we experience is a verysmall piece of time and place. Just take intoconsideration the age of the universe which is13.75 billion years old and its dimensions whichare estimated at 46 billion light years (based onthe general relativity, because of the expansionof space and the fact that one light year isequal to 9.465*1012km).

23

According to this data, we reach the conclusionthat the reality we experience is a “photograph”of the space-time continuum, that is to say theuniverse. On the other hand, as we analysedpreviously, only 5% of what exists isperceptible and observable. And that is actuallya very small piece of reality. Furthermore, forthe viewer the photograph is a piece of areality, which he is not familiar with, becausehe has not experienced it. However, he isconvinced of its existence. For the viewer, thereality of the photograph is something dark, justlike dark matter is for scientists, because heknows that it exists but he can do nothing morethan speculate about

Bibliography

Books

Arnheim, R., 1964, Art and Visual Perception, Universityof California Press, California.

Barthes, R., 2011, Ο φωτεινός θάλαμος, Σημειώσεις για τηφωτογραφία, ed. Ράππας, Αθήνα.

Gadamer, H.D., 1992, “L' antiquite et l' art contemporain, 1.Poesie et mimesis”, L' actualite du beau, Alinea, Aix-en-Provence.

Gilson, E. 1998, Peinture et realite, Vrin, Paris.

Heidegger, M., Η καταγωγή του έργου τέχνης, 1st ed.,Δωδώνη, Αθήνα.

24

Hume, D., 2005, Πραγματεία για την ανθρώπινη φύση, ΒιβλίοΙ: Για τη νόηση, 4th ed., Πατάκης, Αθάνη.

Teylor, A. E., 1992, Πλάτων, Ο άνθρωπος και το έργο του,δ/α ed., MIET, Αθήνα.

Wollheim, R., 1998, “On PictorialRepresentation”, The journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,vol. III, no. 56, p. 221.

Αντωνιάδης, Κ., 1999, Λανθάνουσα Εικόνα, 2nd ed.,Μωρεσόπουλος, Αθήνα.

Καγγελάρης, Φ., 2013, “Το πορτραίτο”, Φωτογράφοςmagazine, Αθήνα.

Μπανάκου-Καραγκούνη, Χ., 2012, Τέχνη καιπραγματικότητα, 1st ed., Έννοια, Αθήνα.

Πλάτων, ed. 2002, Πολιτεία, Πόλις, Αθήνα.

Πλίνιος, 1994, Περί της αρχαίας ελληηνικής ζωγραφικής,35ο βιβλίο της “Φυσικής Ιστορίας”, Άγρα, Αθήνα.

1. Online Articles

d' Espagnat, B., 1979, “The Quantum Theory andReality”, Scientific American,<http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf> [accessed on 27-04-2013]

d' Espagnat, B., 2009, “Quantum weirdness: Whatwe call “reality” is just a state of mind”, The

25

Guardian,<http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement>, [accessedon 02-07-2013]

General online sources

d' Espagnat, B., 2011, “Quantum Physics AndReality”, <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.4545v3.pdf>,[accessed on 29-04-2013]

NASA, “Dark Energy, Dark Matter”, <http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ [accessed on 30-04-2013]

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. WikimediaFoundation, “Idealism”,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism, [accessedon 15-08-2013]

Σφενδόνη-Μέντζου, Δήμητρα 2010-2011 <http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/126332/files/GRI-2011-6544.pdf>

Λεοτσίνη, Ε., 2009, Academia, “Μίμηση, αισθητική εμπειρίακαι ηθική αγωγή κατά τον Αριστοτέλη”,<http://www.academia.edu/358646/_>

2. Lectures

Αντωνιάδης, Κ., Το προτραίτο, Department ofPhotography and Audiovisual Arts, March-June,

26

3013.

Καγγελάρης, Φ., “Το στάδιο του καθρέφτη”,Department of Photography and Audiovisual Arts,Technological Educational Institute of Athens,March-June, 2012

Annex

Speech on the subject of Idealism made byProfessor Keith Ward in Gresham Collegehttp://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-triumph-of-idealism

Paper “Pictures and their surfaces: Wollheim onTwofoldness”, Prof. Edward Winters fromUniversity of Westminsterhttp://www.um.es/logica/Winters.htm

Video: Dark matter, The matter we can't see,James Gillies http://ed.ted.com/lessons/dark-matter-the-matter-we-can-t-see-james-gillies Video: Dark matter, The matter we can't see , James Gillieshttp://ed.ted.com/lessons/dark-matter-the-matter-we-can-t-see-james-gillies

27