In Mark J.P. Wolf's "Subjunctive Documentary: Computer
Imaging and Simulation," Wolf asserts that all documentaries are
subjunctive to a certain extent. Reading through Punyashloke Mishra's
"Role of Abstraction in Scientific Illustrations," I got the impression
that illustrations are in effect are just as subjunctive as computerized simulation,
just as imagined. While Wolf discusses phenomena that cannot be depicted with
high resolution to actual occurrences, many of Mishra's examples included a
physical reality that could essentially be depicted through photography which
could in turn confer a sense of fidelity between object and representation. This
isn’t the case though. Textbooks tend to include iconographic and abstract
illustrations rather than pictures of the real thing.
This issue can perhaps be reconciled by the assertion that “The
paradoxical nature of pictures is that they must convey information about a
three-dimensional world through marks on a two-dimensional surface” (Mishra 145).
Pictures of the real thing might not be able to accomplish this feat as
successfully as an abstraction. However, I am still concerned about the abstraction
for 2 reasons. First, the disconnect between abstraction and reality poses an
issue for those who navigate beyond the abstract into reality (e.g. open up actual
human chest and work with real heart). Second, abstract illustrations tend to
operate as a means of endorsing theories of functionality surrounding the
physical world they represent. The functionality in a sense becomes naturalized
through this endorsement and doesn’t call itself into questioning.
It seems the computer simulation discussed in Wolf’s essay
hints at a technology that goes beyond illustrative functionality by allowing a
user to operate within a three-dimensional virtuality that bears greater
fidelity to the natural world, but there are reasons to be leery of this as
well. No matter how similar the simulation is to reality, there still exists a
disconnect between the two. The degree of disconnection varies, but it remains nonetheless.
Furthermore, computer simulations on the surface appears to be devoid of a
subjective point of view. The objectivity that it purports is rather a point of
view composed of “programs, theories, and assumptions controlling the
simulation, in such a way that a particular theoretical stance may steer an
authorial voice” (Wolf 428). In same way that illustrated abstractions tend to
efface the conventions they endorse, the computer simulation creates the
illusion of objectivity free of worldview. This sort of naturalization of the conceptual
is not necessarily a bad thing, but one should be able to recognize that it is indeed
naturalized rather than metaphysical. That is to say it is not infallibly
related to the natural world.
Wolf discusses the shift from perceptual to conceptual as something
novel, but based on Mishra’s essay, this shift seems to be nothing new. Mishra
states, “Many diagrams take the form of “conceptual models”” (Mishra 151).
Science seems to be following a trend in which the representation of something
bears greater fidelity to its reality than our perception of the reality. For
things that the human eye cannot perceive, this seems necessary, but no matter
how magnified or computer simulated something is, observation is still mediated
through a limited human perception. So where does evidence end and speculation
begin? How much dinosaur fossil reconstruction is really going on?
Haha, nice title. Not only is it amusing, but it seems to fit the topic at hand. In reference to the fairy tale, two of the three pigs were unconcerned with the potential danger their flimsy houses presented: "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf? Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Tra la la la la." They blindly trusted straw and twigs as suitable building materials, and this oversight eventually led to downfall (pun definitely intended). The question, "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf" can be interpreted as a warning; if you're afraid of the wolf, how is that going to affect your perception (especially if this applies to your idea of safety measures)?
ReplyDeleteLikewise, I think the title of this post, "Who's Afraid of Mishra and Wolf?" echoes a similar warning. This danger doesn't refer to the people, but rather, the ideas discussed in their writings. You mentioned a few of these dangers in your blog post, but there was one that really stood out to me: "Computer simulations on the surface appear to be devoid of a subjective point of view." Danger that is readily apparent isn't perhaps so dangerous after all. If the three pigs had to build their houses in the presence of a chained wolf, they all probably would have built brick houses. Although the wolf was chained, he'd serve as an apparent, physical reminder of potential danger, and so the pigs would be on their guard. However, since the wolf was absent during construction, two of the pigs let their guard down because the danger wasn't as visible. Similarly, we are more critical of rhetoric that appears to be subjective; we are "on our guard" so to speak. On the other hand, computer simulations catch us "off guard" because we assume them to be objective; the speculative nature of simulations isn't readily apparent to us. Just think of how many people would take issue with me if I stated that computer simulations are tools of rhetoric. Those people are like the two little pigs who built houses of straw and twigs. Because of their somewhat flawed perspective, they're potentially in danger of being swallowed by the whims of modern "wolves."
I too, am concerned with the general acceptance of abstraction as a means of substituting for the real thing. You articulate well the main fears I think most of us have with the abstract. If we are seeing abstractions through a limited human perception, we are at such a disadvantage yet that is what we accept because it is all that we have (our limited human perception). Don't really have that much to say other than... great post as always.
ReplyDelete