This is a wonderful essay by a gifted writer who has an eye for beauty that few people have. Essentially blind from birth, he has a way of describing things that many of us never see, though we may be looking right at them. As you read, you might wonder how any of us might function without this most precious sense. Professor Stephen Kuusisto does us a great favor by giving us incredible insights into the world of the “other sighted”.
What follows is a thread of e-mails between friends that examine in some detail what the individuals understand about vision, and how they perceive the world.
November 23, 2011
Stephen Kuusisto
What does it mean to have not seen, and then see? Put aside the neurology of brain function and think of beauty hidden behind a cloudy screen. Think of the blind man or woman as an ancient Chinese courtesan who sits all day behind a draped terrace. The world outside passes: the silhouettes of birds go by; you see a strange flittering darkness; the sunset comes; you see something like a failing lamp. When the moon rises over the willows you go out walking, feeling your way, and you are navigating by means of remembrance.
But seeing anew you are no longer wandering the planet by memory. When guide dog Vidal and I walked Mannerheim Street in Helsinki we followed the vines of memory. Here is the botanical garden; here’s the city museum with its old copper doors; a path through lilacs. Now, seeing things, I discover the sighted world is more insistent and fast than the reveries of blind dream-walking. Was the world always this fast? My skin quivers, a stray piece of paper blows across the sidewalk at my feet. I want to get down on my hands and knees and grab it. I want to hold it up to the light and read with my one eye the letters that probably signify nothing. The blind self would imagine a written plea from a far island. The sighted man sees it’s just the gibberish of our economy. Up the street he goes. A teenaged boy on a skateboard flips backwards, falls on his ass, his Ipod flies into the air, his arms and legs are busy as a hundred men. His skateboard lands in a fountain. Vision tells me there’s a world unaffected by the self. I can’t tell you how thrilling this discovery is. I feel like Ralph Waldo Emerson, though without his visionary immanence–I’m not crossing the park and seeing something cosmological, instead I’m seeing the frosted leaves in early autumn and a boy flying.
I look out over the forest of maples. The primacy of colors in October is flat-out killing me. The red is an arrow that strikes me in the seat of my sentiments. I think heaven must be red. Heaven must be nearer. A red maple leaf has fallen on soil and it is the downward tip end of eternity. God help me! How do seeing people live this way?
I see that the color red is the magnifying lens of god. I have to sit down.
I see that all the colors in the world stand against locality–there can be no “local” because colors take it all away. A girl walks by with the world’s most perfect green hair. She is a citizen of no country.
Now an old man comes down the street, a kind of scrawny angel, pushing a bent bicycle. He’s a war veteran and his medals are flashing in the sun. Compared to him everyone else in the world is motionless.
GARY MAWYER
I have spent a lot of time speculating about what blind people see. Sometimes I think I can almost imagine it and sometimes I am quite sure I cannot imagine it at all. I’m a desperately visual person and have over-cultivated that one sense to a deplorable degree, but I share this writer’s question how we even go on this way. The world of light and shadow really does force us to stop and look–it may be a fungus and a piece of moss, or twenty-five miles of mountain range under an incandescent sky, but it does just stop you there. Sometimes it itches and sometimes it really just hurts. The world is like a severed limb we want back so badly we hardly know what to say. People try to deal with it by reaching for a camera or a paintbox or their chalks, others by trying to say something or write something, but the stupendous hint has already passed by then, and indeed, the singling out of specific moments or visions is an esthetic distraction rather than a revelation, because all time is like that.
MICHAEL REILLY
As an optician working with people with various visual problems, the one group that always affected me most were children…and the youngest were the most moving. It seemed that the most common problem I would see were kids with muscle problems that affected the way the eyes would align. If the eyes did not align properly (usually because of muscle imbalance), then the visual fields of both eyes could not be made to fuse properly in the brain. By fusion, I mean that there would be no central area of overlap of the two fields. When this condition exists, the brain will often get data from both eyes, but will be unable to process that data in a way that will make sense of both, or combine that data into one unified view. What happens then is that the brain will ignore, or quit processing one of the data feeds. When this happens, that child has a certain time (not sure how long) within which corrective action needs to take place, or the rejection of data by the brain seems irreversible. This is a problem when it only involves one eye, but is catastrophic if it involves both. Even when corrective surgery occurs, if the brain has existed in the data rejection state for too long, the eye affected may be able to sense at somewhere near a normal level, but the brain will not have built-in the structures necessary for visual data processing. Apparently, the brain loses a certain amount of plasticity over time, making recovery of sight a near impossibility. This phenomenon is different for people who have had normal vision for a certain period of time before losing it. Apparently, the brain structures have developed, and the data processing abilities are conserved in some cases, as there are some startling stories of folks who went blind at some later time in life, and been able to see again after, for instance, having a photoreceptor chip inserted into the optic nerve!
The most rewarding experience I ever had in making and fitting glasses involved a little girl, maybe 8 months old. She was so nearsighted, she could not see outside of her eye! The focal length of her eyes was well within the eyes themselves…she was blind. She was a docile little girl, and sat patiently (well, for an 8 month old) while her glasses were being prepped for trial. It fell to me to fit her with her new glasses some time later. They were difficult to make, because they were of such strong power. Anyway, several weeks later, the same little girl, docile, and really kind of unresponsive, came into the shop. Because I had been working with her all along, I took her on again. She was seated in her mom’s lap, and looked like a doughy dumpling, no curiosity, no facial animation…a very sad-looking little girl. The glasses went on, and came off quickly, so that I could fit them so they wouldn’t hurt her…because if they hurt, THEY WILL NOT BE WORN! After making the adjustments necessary, I put them on her again, and stepped back to see what would happen. It was like a miracle. She looked at mom, and screamed and cried and wailed. For at least a half hour, she sat there, and cried. Finally, she calmed down, and started looking around, and it was such a heartwarming experience. You could tell she could see, because her little head was swiveling around so much, she could have hurt herself. She was looking at the world for the first time! And she was seeing what all of us take for granted all the time. Her mom, her fingers, the floor, the walls, out the window…I will never forget that little girl, and she will always be a reminder to me that the ability to see should never be taken for granted, but treasured.
GARY MAWYER
Theoretically as I understand it, depth perception is caused by a slight parallax which of course is not shared by monocular people. But I’ve never met a monocular person who really appeared to lack the necessary perception. The brain will promptly learn or generate laws of perspective that seem to compensate apparently just about for monocular vision. But then how far does this mild parallax really go in binocular people? I don’t have a clue but I am going to guess it doesn’t make much difference beyond an arm’s length and that we’re all enjoying “consensus perspective”.
This has obvious art implications. Older (and much modern) Japanese woodblocks and other landscape or scene pictures are in flat perspective and some Japanese painters call the use of the vanishing point and parallax in art “Western perspective” to distinguish it. Some medieval art is also flat and I believe I can risk saying all cave painting was in flat perspective, like later Picasso’s. You could speculate this was an imaginary overhead viewpoint like early PC fantasy games (SSI’s Dungeon’s & Dragons for instance) which always reminded me of Persian paintings, which often seem to have a vantage point about 20 feet off the ground.
But as Dover once pointed out–actually he never pointed out anything “once”–he was incapable of “once.” As Dover said for years on end, lots of paintings we consider “realistic” and that use Western perspective have some quite impossible vantage point. A tremendous amount of facile deception has to be deployed to create “realistic” art.
MICHAEL REILLY
Well, I’m no expert, but I do have some insight into this. As I also understand, you need at least two perspectives to see in 3-D. The parallax caused by the proper processing of the 2 data streams allows for a slight, but critical difference in the two data sets, caused by the fused common field, and the distinctly different non-overlapping fields. The common field, bracketed by the different surroundings at either side, gives the brain the ability to make the common field pop out. However, the eyes are almost never stationary, almost never rigidly fixed on a single point. The constant movement of the eyes, and the generated data streams, makes the world in front of us pop into 3-D, and very quickly shows us the object or point of interest in a full 3-D context.
Binocular people who lose an eye have a period of retraining to go through, before they will be able to perform tasks at a level approaching their pre-loss ability. There are many tasks that require true 3D processing, and this will be required at ranges beyond arms length. The most obvious is any kind of targeting task…whether you are a sharpshooter, basketball player, or a football quarterback, you need critical 3D data for accurate performance. Hunting cats can be observed in crouch, assessing prey, and moving their heads laterally, as if to maximize the parallax effect.
I don’t know the following to be absolutely true, but I believe it is. Monocular folk have an ability to navigate in our 3-D world, and perceive things much as binocular folks do, because they know the size of things. They know how big a car is. They know how big trees are. Houses are normally of a certain size, and though there can be obvious size variations, doors and windows are somewhat standard in size. It is also true that with slight shifts of the head, one can generate the necessary change in perspective that will produce enough new data to simulate a 3D perspective. My point is that the brain has to do a lot of extra processing to see in quasi-3D. It is doing a lot of extra work, backfilling information to give the monocular sighted person the illusion of binocular sight.
This ability to “backfill”, this theory of mine, is based on observations and discussions with binocular people who wear one contact lens. This fitting technique is called mono-vision, and it allows a certain group of people to see with one eye focused for distance vision, and the other eye focused for near vision, theoretically eliminating the need for eyeglasses. I say “theoretically”, because it is not good for eyes to wear contact lenses for long periods of time. The thing is, these mono-vision wearers are choosing to be monocular, and then have to cope with the loss of true 3-D. Some folks have a hard time dealing with the problem of suppressing the unwanted data that floods the brain from the unused eye. Imagine trying to read, and ½ your visual field is out of focus. Successful mono-vision wearers seem to be able to ignore, or suppress the unwanted data stream. Many cannot make the adjustment, and end up in glasses anyway. I have heard many stories about close calls while driving, and some are downright harrowing! The toughest problems are associated with driving, as the criticality of precise visual interpretation can be the difference between life and death.
The close calls tend to cluster in the low light times…dusk, night, and dawn. These are times when the eyes can’t receive much information about the environment, and so there are some real problems with knowing how far away lights are. Lights can be small, and far away, or small, and close up, and when you have to brake in order to be safe, the monocularly sighted person is at a slight disadvantage because of the lack of parallax, as the angular displacement of background when switching from one eye to the other can make the data interpretation more reliable. This is because the closer an object is to the observer, the greater the angular displacement of the background with the object in question will be.
A side note here: many failing mono-vision wearers report getting severe headaches while wearing their contact lenses. The fitting can be right on the money, but the brain is apparently working overtime trying to shut down one data stream or the other. And the requirement for data stream processing can be very dynamic, calling for more dexterity that many brains are capable of. This has no discernible correlation with intelligence, by the way. But it does suggest that for a lot of people, mono-vision is not an acceptable solution.
GARY MAWYER
The mind’s interpretation is as important as anything else. We are calling this “processing” as if it were a data-reading analog to machine intelligence, which is a natural analogy for our wired world, but some of the interpretation is not based on data but on judgment, some of which is esthetic. This seems to be leading me back to the idea of Superflat, Takashi Murakami’s theory of visual art which includes a very old and possibly shaky argument that some cultures interpret vision as a surface rather than a depth field and relate objects on this surface to each other as linear, much the same way we read and interpret a map.
If this sounds unfamiliar or unlikely, consider that the digital processing comparison we’ve been automatically using just as weird, since machines do not see at all and would be making spatial interpretations on a mathematical grid expressed as a binary code. Compared to binary code processing, Superflat practically sounds normal. Murakami suggests it is normal.And why not. If we truck off to the National Gallery we don’t believe that the paintings in the British landscape galleries are 3-D. We well know they’re flat enough, barring some gouache. Their perspective is. The art maven’s brain, after looking at some illuminated Persian manuscripts Asian screens over at the Freer Gallery is now being asked to mentally rotate the direction known as “outward” from the top of the frame to the center of the frame. Then the design stops appearing as a brocade seen from above and starts to enforce a belief in parallax, including an imaginary vertical axis inside the frame. The famous vanishing-point is one of the chief mental tricks to this evolution in perspective but there are many others, including the very noteworthy idea of shading and shadowing. Earlier Japanese woodblocks for instance are shadowless. Woodblock nuts sometimes drool about this. In “western perspective” we expect to know where the light source is. The painter can rotate an imaginary light source to be anywhere he pleases within the frame of his painting by using the appropriate shading. The light in an Utamaro woodblock appears to be intrinsic to the scene, as if the figures themselves were equivalently luminous, or (as in a movie) were the light source. They are meant to be seen in the pure light of eternity where there would naturally be no such thing as shadows. It is interesting to note in passing how many woodblock series were labeled as types and meant to be representative of classes of persons, particular times of day, exemplary fishes, categorical insects, etc. They are literally Platonic.
Humankind has repeatedly struggled away from brocade perspective but it is very old. Cave paintings are typically shadowless up=outward perspective. Ancient Egypt was flat. Greco-Roman discovery and utilization of forced perspective was lost for a millenium, replaced by a gothic reversion to flat land perspectives like the Tapestry. The western Renaissance and the discovery of realism had a good run but relapsed sporadically the older representational school in the 20th century (it is as if perspective is just too difficult to maintain somehow) and now we have Superflat as a further highly self-conscious re-evolution of ideas about how art should relate to how we see.
At bottom we take so much for granted that we aren’t necessarily conscious any involved, but more than one process exists–some are forced by physiology or by injuries or pathology or by corrective lenses and visual retraining, as Mike describes so lucidly, and others are psychological or cultural.





















