I will not show any images this time. I deliberately chose not to and let it only be a text. There is another mode of concentration when you read or listen. Radio is a great example. Listeners are invited to apply their imagination, memories, association and knowledge to follow the program. Listening has an elusive reputation; it needs more time to comprehend. It is an active process and requires effort. Looking, on the other hand, may seem a more passive and easy action at first. It reaches us faster and asks much less participation. I believe that we could borrow some of the skills we use when listening and apply them to watching, so our attitude towards an image could be more attentive. There is so much an image has to tell if one listens. There is so much in it that slips away, due to a lack of focus and superficial reception. This attitude may have been fine before, but I’m afraid that it is not longer admissible.

There is so much an image has to tell if one listens.

The world constantly changes — and images together with it. The nature of an image constantly in the state of transformation. The presence of new imagery, such as low resolution quality or composite photographs, indicates this change. Traditionally, when we think of an image, we think of it as a representation. An image represents something in the world. But more and more the position of the image changes. They are made not only for the sake of representation, but have another particular function. As an example, more and more of them are made by a machine for another machine to gather data and to use it for operational rather than only for representational purposes.

More and more images are made by a machine for another machine to gather data and to use it for operational rather than only for representational purposes.

The human eye would not even see these images and is confronted only with the results of processed data extracted from the image. Think of low resolution and satellite photographs. Their appearance is alien to us, but in spite of this, we accept it and learn to understand and use them. But I think that the appearance of imagery that doesn’t look like anything we know does a very good job to the current situation in visual literacy. Terence Donovan fashion photographer form the 60's said: “The magic of photography is metaphysical. What you see in the photograph isn’t what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organised visual lying.”

"The magic of photography is metaphysical. What you see in the photograph isn’t what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organised lying"

New forms of imagery illustrate that there are many different ways of representation and the idea about photography as an imprint of how we really see it, is completely irrelevant. There is no ultimate story that one image tells. We should be aware of the fact that an image consists of numerous elements and these elements can be perceived from numerous perspectives. Often, we have a holistic view while looking at the image. We see it as a whole, an entity of depicted objects, situations, events or people that are organised into an artificial setting, bordered by the picture frame. I think that such an approach to an image doesn’t do any good to our understanding of it. I prefer to think of an image as a polyhedron a structure that consists of numerous elements, both visible in the image, and invisible such as those that are made by context, individual experience and cultural heritage. These elements interact with each other producing a unique image.

I think of an image as a polyhedron a structure that consists of numerous elements. These elements interact with each other producing a unique image.

First let us examine visible elements. They are the easy ones, because they mostly deal with formal qualities of an image. Colours, shapes, depicted objects, composition, focal distance, quality, way of presentation these are only some of the factors according to which one image can be looked at. And each of them can be split into even smaller planes.

Colours, shapes, depicted objects, composition, focal distance, quality, way of presentation these are only some of the factors according to which one image can be looked at.

Let’s look at colour. In the first place colour is a combination of two sciences: the physics of light, and the biology of sight. This gives us already two perspectives to look at colour. But there are also the cultural specifics of colour perception, which are more difficult to formalise, because they border on the realm of social and individual interpretation. But it is still possible to establish certain patterns of cultural perception of colour. Sometimes the meaning of a colour is determined by natural phenomena. In that case their interpretation is similar in different cultures. For example, in many cultures green symbolises a new beginning, regeneration and hope. This forms a visual metaphor for an abstract notion. With some special knowledge these general perspectives on colour can be mastered. But there is another, more personal side to the assessment of colour which is more difficult to understand; personal interpretation, experience, memory, associations and simply taste affect the way people perceive a certain colour. These matters are much more difficult to predict. Imagine an image of a red circle on a white background. Try to picture it as well as you can. What do you see? The answer may vary for each of you. Imagine one was planning a trip to Japan this morning, so the image that I asked you to imagine would probably remind him of a Japanese flag. Another person might think of a tomato because he feels hungry. Red circle can remind of a danger sign, christmas decoration or an apple. There are numerous reactions, thoughts and interpretations possible even if we take something as simple as a red circle.

Imagine an image of a red circle on a white background. Try to picture it as well as you can. What do you see?

Colour is only one example of various elements an image consists of. And this one is one of the simplest ones. But think that every image that you see comprises an incredible amount of elements and each element can be viewed through numerous facets.

Since the notion of linear perspective entered the history of representation, the two-dimensional extremity of an image has no longer been relevant. An image may look the same as a hundred years ago, but our perception of it can’t be the same anymore. The current time asks to consider all the layers that stick to the flat surface of an image. But we don’t naturally see an image as a complexity of things yet. We still allow ourselves to take it easy and look upon the surface, but I believe that this is not the way to go. The image is rich. But to see this richness some work should be done. The complexity of this task is inevitable. Image is always a gathering of elements that visualise a complex situation.

The image is rich. But to see this richness some work should be done. The complexity of this task is inevitable.

It is important to point out that there is no right or wrong understanding of an image. And that’s the great thing about it that makes it so exciting. Universalisation of a meaning produces cliches and visual fast food. In healthcare we, somehow, already agreed that fast-food is harmful, yet in visual consumption it is still generally applied. The speed of information flow today encourages to look only on the surface of an image, neglecting the richness that is hidden underneath. I believe that we should raise awareness of the multidimensionality an image has, develop a multifaceted vision and profit from the richness the image offers. One might think that it sounds too complex to realise: when browsing the internet, looking at all these pictures, the last thing you want to do is to go deeper into a single frame. But the situation we are confronted with now, is complex. Ignoring fast-food imagery and continuing to digest it without awareness doesn’t make it any less destructive. It disturbs the ability to think, reflect and personalise the experience.

In healthcare we, somehow, already agreed that fast-food is harmful, yet in visual consumption it is still generally applied.

Noam Chomsky, the linguist and philosopher said: “Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied.” This thought is very well applicable to an image. It has its strict underlying structure and mechanics, but it is only complete by the way it is used and seen. The beautiful thing about our perception is the individual character of it, as a result of experience and imagination that cannot be understood or institutionalised. Imagery can serve as shortcuts for understanding, but that is also its danger. By using a shortcut you might miss out on a beautiful vista, which can only be seen from an abandoned path in the forest. Take time to look around, get the most out of an image, understand it, learn from it, enjoy it and let it change the way you see.

If we consider each element, its meaning, and look at the image from various perspectives it will help change our vision and return a satisfying feeling of understanding. Understanding of the position where we stand. This intricate way of seeing, of always looking more deeply into things, brings an original and fresh way of experiencing the world around us. There is always more to see and to see more means admitting the richness of an image and developing a deeper understanding of the moment we live in.