What does each section mean to me?
I believe that the technology that was developed in the past with regard to our overall theme of vision was deployed according to two different factors: Necessity and Aesthetic. Vision devices, which this study begins observations of dating back to the turn of the 20th Century, not only allow their base function of image-making but also exhibit attention to the look of the item and the look of the image-product. Why were cameras like the Beau Brownie created to fulfill both a technological need as well as to appeal to the art-sense of a buyer? Greater marketability. Taking the camera apparatus as the beginning of the digital interface we can see the continuation of the square interface that comes from painting move along into the square photograph which we understand will become the square digital interface that we eventually have with computer screens. But why are computer screens not round—this comes from text and the way that our eyes work—the less an eye has to move the more words per minute the eye is able to process
-what does the Past mean and how should it be ordered in this exhibition? The past is a good indication of optimistic innovation for the visual technologies—the digital/computer eye does not exist yet but the interface eye does—because the interface eye was still being developed through technology that sees the word for the human user, there wasn’t a preconceived set of best practices and what is perhaps most significant for these developing image-technologies is that there was no central, best fit assumed user—the image technologies were personal and eventually became custom-tailored devices—this practice gave way to market techno-development
-do the weird, one-shot pieces of technology inform the development of image-vision technology even if they do not enter into the canon of that history?
Present: Digital/Digital Eye
Where is our vision technology now and what problems is it addressing? Do we have an assumed user as we consider the GUI of the given computer technology that we have now? In what ways have we developed the computer-user interface beyond the original formats that descend from the original experiences? How do we use computer and other image technology in ways that the GUI does not provide for? Who is still left out of the conversation and the experience when we try to develop visual interface technology in prototype? Do we need to consider the broadest user margin possible while we develop image interface technology or can the development than redeploy itself to address as many obscured or forgotten user bases consistently—can we trust current systems of design and development to address obscured user bases if developing toward those user bases is not economically incentivized; What are we missing right now as we consider VR technologies, computer eye technologies, and visual-assisting technologies
Future: Computer Eye/Extra-digital
What does the visual/digital look like in ways that are unique or bizarre or one-off? Do these prototypes for VR experiences or for innovative visual experiences in any way meaningfully anticipate later technologies? While not useful for the general assumed user of visual interface technology, what can we say about the applications of this technology toward highly specific goals? Even if image technology is not deployable into a mass user market, does it still deserve to be made—does making an object for one person in any way help develop objects for all people? Does the advancement of visual interface technology need to be successful to be or to have been useful? Will we develop technologies that will see for us using the digital mind to perceive in ways that the human eye cannot—in what ways does these extrahuman forms of seeing extend our notions of what is human (are we strictly biological)