The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing

Rating:
Summary: A post-modern view of visual perception
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Insight on the nature of sight
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Not what I expected but still a good and interesting read!
Review: 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!!!

Rating:
Summary: On the Nature of Seeing...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: I don't see any reason to read this book
Review: I thought this was going to be a science-based look at how
our eyes and brains "see" the world. Instead, it's basically
a diary of the author's random thoughts about what and how we see. There's absolutely no scientific information and barely
any proof of his assertions. His prose is nice occasionally, but
if you want to actually learn anything, do not buy this book.

Rating:
Summary: Not what I expected but still a good and interesting read!
Review: I thought this was going to be a science-based look at how
our eyes and brains "see" the world. Instead, it's basically
a diary of the author's random thoughts about what and how we see. There's absolutely no scientific information and barely
any proof of his assertions. His prose is nice occasionally, but
if you want to actually learn anything, do not buy this book.

Rating:
Summary: Reads like a wordy blog from an art critic.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Reads like a wordy blog from an art critic.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A Reasonable Negative Review
Review: The main reason I bought this book was because it was reviewed in Scientific American. I read the review there, and it seemed quite interesting. I am an animator who works with computers to produce 3D movies, the kind that you wear paper glasses to see objects coming out of the screen at you. I had hoped that this book would give me solid information about what kinds of things attract the eye, so that I could direct the gaze of the members of my audience more skillfully, and thus provide them with a more enjoyable, more realistic 3D movie experience.
I was sorely disappointed. The author prefers to simply play with a set of ideas about seeing, and does not give you any solid information about visual perception, what draws the eye and why.
To be fair, the author acknowledges this in the first few pages, and provides a bibliography for those who wish to find more in-depth information about the ideas he playfully skims over. But I am not accustomed to reading books which present so many assertions without even a shread of an argument to back them up.
If you enjoy reading the completely unsubstantiated opinions of art teachers then I suppose this book is for you. Likewise, you may find yourself enjoying it if you just happen to agree with his outlook on seeing, art, and the subjective nature of knowledge. I did not really agree with him on very much, and I found some of the subjects he chose to deal with rather repulsive. And that too, I am sure contributed to my dislike of the book.
I did learn a few things from the book, as one might expect to do if you are listening to the ramblings of a fairly knowledgable stranger on a subject in which you share an interest. In this case, seeing. Secondary rainbows, sundogs, the tendency for the lens of your eye to distort things towards the periphery of your vision in exactly the same manner as a camera, were all interesting bits of trivia.
If that sort of thing interests you I can tell you another one that is not in this book. If you look through a cheap telescope or magnifying glass you will often notice that the edges of things on one side may tend to have a slightly bluish cast, while the edges on the opposite side have a slightly reddish cast. This is due to the refraction of light in the lens of the telescope or magnifying glass separating the colors in exactly the same fashion as a prisim does. But did you know that you can see the same effect beneith a few inches of water when you look through it at an angle? I noticed the red and blue outlines on my hand held just below the surface of the water when I was neck-deep in a swimming pool just this past weekend, and I had never noticed it before. Then later I saw that effect in my kitchen sink.
To conclude, I bought this book because of a genuine interest and then felt cheated because all I had recieved for my money were opinions, and opinions that I didn't even agree with very much of the time.

Rating:
Summary: well-done, interesting, but needs a warning...
Review: 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.