Narrative is an integral part of how humans perceive, identify
and judge information. A narrative is the conscious and non-conscious
story we see or tell about our lives, attach to observed situations
and still objects. Narrative includes perception of time, plotting,
mood, point of view, emphasis (what is important. what is not),
character motives, etc. When we look at a still photo or painting
or a distant stranger couple standing at the light we perceive
a story in progress. We may not know the story, but we know there
is one. A cup on a table isn't just there, there is a story of
how it got there. Presumably, a human walked up to the table
and placed the cup there, perhaps drank from it. Perhaps it will
soon be takend to the sink or dishwasher. We know the earlier
fox image was an observer's snapshot of a real living animal
in mid movement. A good guess is the fox is/was chasing prey.
If you change the narrative to an image, you change the meaning
of the image, at least the perceived meaning. This is why narrative
issues are so important. A single still image of a man with a
knife is generally defined by the narrative-- what he is going
to do with the knife, what he did with the knife. If the narrative
is he just cleaned a fish and is taking the knife to the sink,
the still image has one meaning. If the narrative is he just
killed someone and is looking to hide the weapon, the same still
has a distinctly different meaning. The accuracy of the narrative
obviously is no small issue. It also brings up the question of
if the still image can be viewed independent of the narrative.
The two knife narratives were for the same image. Can the cup
on the table's identity be determined as it is? Is how it got
there essential to its meaning?
Much of our narratives are speculative, theoretical. We can
guess but don't know the whole story. The judgment of significance,
motives and movements of the players is influenced by our biases
and personal experience.
Consciously and non-consciously predicting what will happen
is a necessary part of human function. To catch a ball, you don't
need to know just where the ball is at any given moment in flight,
but where it will be at later moments in time. This is particularly
true considering there is a very slight delay in light processing
in our eyes and mind. What we see in our mind actually about
a 10th of a second old. Good physical function requires prediction.
Further, in many acts like catching a ball in a baseball mitt
or hitting a baseball, the ball is not seen the entire duration.
In the last portion of batting, the ball is not seen by the batter.
Thus, good anticipation of movement is a requirement.
Many visual illusions involve false narratives, concerning
what is happening in the viewed moment, what happened before
the viewed movement and what will happen. The observer's narrative
differ from the reality. With movies we view a series of still
images and non-consciously perceive them as realistic, flowing
movement. The mind creates, and often cannot escape, this false
narrative.
Narrative is an expression of human's philosophy of time,
cause-and-effect. To most humans, nothing is static-- but a part
of a flow of time. To most humans, even still things and still
images of things are to be viewed as part of a time-based narrative.
The meaning of that still image of the fox is based on the narrative.
What is particularly interesting is humans apply narratives
to abstract images and other information where it is not clear
there is a real narrative.
Describe what going on here? Even
though this is an absctract combination of dots and lines, most
will say this shows two balls racing towards each other. Viewers
can even describe what they see as happening before and after
this image. However, unlike a movie still or snapshot photo,
there neither is nor was any before or after. As I am the one
who created this design, I can assure that thia is the only image,
the one and only existanse of these dots and lines. There is
no narrative with this image other than as speculated by the
viewer. That it shows balls on a line is itself a product of
the viewer's imagination.
Whether there is a real narrative to the earlier Vermeer painting
is debatable. It's not a photographic snapshot where we can reasonably
assume there was a real before and a real after. The narrative
and resulting meaning exists in the viewer's imagination.
As you can see artistic experience is speculative, theoretical.
Art is a symbol and metaphor for something larger. Movement is
imagined in the below Matisse, but it doesn't literally exist.
Even the artist imaging or symbolizing movement doesn't make
it literally exist. Duly note that artists often anticipate that
different audience members will interpret the work differently
from each other, including that which is not shown in the work
but percieved to be implied.
A question to consider is is narrative the correct way to
judge information? Is it always the correct way? And if it is
correct to view information with narrative, is the human narrative
the correct narrative? Does all human narrative, even by scientists
of scientific information, inherently involve imagination and
subjective speculation. Of course, many of these questions we
can't answer.
