variations on visual hermitude

"the visibetics of this world have to learn the visual language; it does not speak for itself."

this word switched on and glowed for me this morning (which i could use, since the banks, the sky and the horizon were only variations of the same dull gray that seemed to pull light into instead of pouring it over us.)

that text (found here) comes from a paper aptly titled Icons: Support or Substitute? in which a larger question is addressed: are we visually literate? this is a difficult question, not because the answer is written in some kind of inaccessible nomenclature, but because it is asked by so many interested parties from so many disciplines. 

the questions of visual literacy have plagued the aesthetic and design world for quite some time, demanding prototypes and models from which a consensus could be reached regarding efficacy and potency in visual communication. but outside any formal sector, visual literacy now pertains to the education of a younger generation and perhaps a revision of sensory prowess for the generation that is trying to deal with more visual stimuli than ever before.

 definitions for the term visual literacy are as varied as the genres in which the eye is used. indeed contributions come from fields ranging from archaeology to museology and from anthropology to video game design. one writer has defined it as "a set of vision-competencies a human being can develop by seeing...and integrating other sensory experiences... [and that] enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounter in his environment."

so, more succinctly, what makes a person effectively visually literate? (versus, of course, literate in written language in a more traditional sense.) tomes have been written on this (Johanna Drucker, James Elkin, Paul Gee,) and what they are all asking is how we can refine our visual sensibility to be as comfortable dissecting a painting as we are in, say, breaking down abstract poetry.

Peter Felten suggests we are living in the 'pictorial age', that is, one where we communicate with each other predominantly through the use of image. photographs, icons, internet browsers, video uploads, we don't think twice about navigating through these means of communication and yet when the majority of us are placed in a formal aesthetic setting- museum, gallery, film screening, we renounce participation by saying "i don't get this," or "this is so arty and out there." why is this? where was the line drawn? why is there a kind of atrophy in our ability to exude confidence when viewing dada performance art or Ad Reinhardt's black on black paintings?

it seems there is a disparity between our ease with implementing technological advances in design (anyone interested in the efficacy of one Steve Jobs should certainly read this (possibly for a good laugh as much as anything)) and our capacity for analytical observation in visual world.

all this technical writing aside, i think the push of this concept is asking oneself to disengage from the technological auto-pilot we have switched on for ourselves to try to critically evaluate our natural and visual world. this doesn't mean to opine academically and immerse oneself in art critical theory per se, but rather putting one's nose to the glass to see what moves outside, to admiring a sunbeam traversing a wall, stopping everything and put all of one's attention on a bowl of soup and engage all the senses in the ritual of eating. anything loose and without a correct answer. 

i am trying for a small gesture like that every hour, or, at the very least, to look for some gesture of humanity in every situation where i wrinkle my nose in distaste.

cheers