Customer Reviews

The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Elkins succeeds in making the reader rethink what it means to see, to be seen, to be blind. He argues that vision is a dynamic interaction between the observer and the observed that invariably transforms both parties--even when one is inanimate. He's an art historian, but marches confidently through animal behavior, philosophy, sociology and other subjects in persuit of the meaning of vision. The resulting meditations are provocative, and usually quite rigorous, but remain clear and personal in tone and studiously avoid learned jargon.

While I felt moved by the book, quite powerfully at places, I'm not sure that I actually went anywhere. Elkins avoids all mechanistic discussion of vision--even though there is much in the physiology of seeing and the quantum physics of observation which support his thesis. Consequently, the overall discussion lacks a certain fiber even though it's fully persuasive in parts. Still, if you care about vision and imagery, you can't go wrong by reading this eloquent, passionate book. It's guaranteed to make you think before you look.

This book offers a thoughtful and disconcerting view of visual perception that runs counter to the usual modernist view that we all perceive alike, which many of us grew up with. As a graphic designer and educator, I appreciated Elkins' point of view, his approachable writing style, and even the disturbing images he uses to make his point. I recommend this book to other designers and visual communicators.

I agree with the other reviewers, however I do not feel that the book deserves a low review because people's expectations were not met. I expected a more scientific explanation of seeing, but this book is not about that. I was impressed by the writing of Elkins because it is very thought provoking and insightful. I would recommend this book to someone who is interested in seeing the world in a different way, because this book will encourage you to look at things a little more carefully and realize there is much we see, do not see, try not to see and try hard to see but fail to do so. Very interesting book!!!

I remember reading SOMEWHERE-- a textbook on psychology, perhaps??-- that humans absorb about 70% of their world through their eyes. After reading this work, I am convinced it is paradoxically that the real percentage is BOTH less *AND* more than this figure.

LESS because we are so often "blind" or unaware of what we see and the very NATURE of what we see and how we see at all. MORE, because so much rests on our ability to see AT ALL, especially in the late 20th century, and especially in our culture, which places such high value on sight (though, perhaps, less value on HOW we see or WHAT is seen). But, again, LESS, because we really don't THINK about what we see or *how* we see...

Mr. Elkins, an art historian-- someone TRAINED to see, if you will-- has done much thinking on the topic and theory of sight and what it REALLY means to see. I admit, when I first got this book, I was afraid it would be the sort of dry, academic drivel that one would need to plow through with a dictionary at one's side, coming to the end almost gasping for breath, "there!! <pant, pant> I finished it!!"

Not so at all. Mr. Elkins has written an extremely entertaining, thought provoking book on something we all do every day, often for every SECOND of the day (and isn't dreaming a form of seeing, after all, in it's own fashion??), and done it without heavy emphasis on academia, abstract or unknown concepts, or the general feeling-- that I have had in other arenas-- that he clearly wishes us to believe that he is SMARTER than the average reader, and needs to prove it through the use of highly technical jargon or impenetrable metaphor.

Again, I say, "not at all." This is a very engaging, thought provoking work that I would heartily recommend to anyone even REMOTELY interested in the ideas behind sight and what is (and is NOT) seen. We do it all the time, every day, from birth to death, in most cases. The least we can do is to listen to a fine thinker like Mr. Elkins and hear HIS thoughts on this complicated, fascinating subject.

Elkins' thoughts on sight and seeing is a multifaceted deconstruction on how we view and are viewed by objects we encounter. It's a subject that we take for granted and draw large assumptions about. Elkins proposes seeing as a metaphor for the life cycle: we awake groggy-eyed like a newborn, go through our day with vigor and energy observing and absorbing, and return to darkness in sleep like blindness and death.

Tied together with many personal anecdotes with flowing use of language, the book is an insight for those interested in post-structuralist analysis of idea, communication, and sight.

The main reason I posted this review is to warn readers that some of the images in this book may be disturbing. I thought it was well-written and fascinating. However, if I had known what I was going to encounter, I never would have opened it. The sexual images are tasteful and not overly graphic, but I was bothered by the death and torture photos. There are some things I just don't want to see if I can avoid them.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this kind of thing being published. I would not have it "banned" or interfere with its distribuition. I just wish that someone had told me it's not for the squeamish.

If these kinds of things don't bother you, then it's worth the read.

This is not a review, but an account of my experience of reading Elkins' book. I found that my way of looking at the world shifted. The feeling of the writing seemed a blend of inner thoughts/feelings being shared with the reader. A gift for anyone interested in reconsidering what they think they know about their own eyesight. Elkins is a true teacher. (Apologies for the pretentious "real name" middle intial and suffix...trying to find a way to change that on Amazon)

I'm fascinated by this book since it tackles art and subject from several important perspectives -- aesthetic, philosophical, anthropological. The figure-field reversal is not often treated in such detail or with such interesting illustrations. The first image of a eunuch is extremely haunting and well placed to begin the discussion of our objectifying the world and often forgetting the humanity of those who we picture or study.

I asked Elkins if I could borrow his title for a solo art show (this was several years ago) and he was gracious to allow me to do so. I mention this because I found Elkins to be one of those aware adventurers in the quest for who we are (and who we think we are) as defined by those objects in the world that stare back upon us.

I was hoping for something more researched, like a compilation of several articles I have occasionally read in "Scientific American" and "Discover." Not only was this book merely opininated ramblings, the prose didn't make for easy reading. (For example, over half of his sentences begin with the letter "I." It gets dreary after a while.)

All in all, this book reads like a ten page research paper stretched out to book length with a lot of non-pertinent information and pointless conjecture tossed in. The photographs are interesting, although many of them (the polish woman with the arrows describing directions for putting on make-up, for example) provide just enough information to intrigue me, and then leave me with unanswered questions.
Considering how long this book is, I would have hoped he would have touched on refraction, color blindness, the sighted blind, optical illusions, etc. Instead, he mostly describes non-art objects the way an art critic would. He has a few interesting points, e.g. his brain has been permananty trained to recognize moth-like shapes because of a fondness for the insects in childhood, but even this interesting fact is couched in long, rambling prose.
If you've never ever read anything about vision, and don't mind that most of his conjectures aren't verified, you might find this interesting. If you, like me, were hoping for a layman's explaination of a fascinating subject, you will be sorely disappointed.

James Elkins gives a lot of interesting speculation on the experience of seeing, but unfortunately, he fails to give much linkage of his subject to the experience of making and seeing art, which is curious in that the author is an art historian. He attaches a lot of importance to the idea that conventional seeing is a form of "blindness," that is, that conventional day-to-day seeing is extremely limited, but, again, he seems to be uninterested in the ways that artists remove these limits, both for themselves and their audience. So much of the writing is about how the author himself sees and does not see, that eventually I became bored, as one usually does listening to one person talk on and on about his own limited experience of a subject.