If you look at the pilosophical root of science and compare it to the philosophical implications of modern science, you seem to end up with a conundrum. The first takes its outset in doubt and basically says “don’t trust your senses or any information given to you by them, because our senses can fool us”, and the latter states something along the lines of “it is impossible to talk of a reality ‘outside’ our sensory apparatus”. I have always thought of the cartesian angst of ‘being fooled by ones senses’ as somewhat overrated. The question remains, however, whether the latter statement makes it impossible to ‘be fooled by ones senses’. This would contradict if not common sense, then at least common experience. However, if we turned the argument around it might not have to. Instead of thinking something is wrong with my sensory input when I see something someone else doesn’t see, I should regard it as a conflict between my sensory apparatus and his sensory apparatus. This conflict only arises if we demand to be able to share everything, even the perception of our reality, and could easily be laid to rest by embracing a statement like: “I trust the reality of my sensory input, but accept that this reality may not be shared by others”. This means that we must accept that our shared reality may not be the complete reality (in fact we should disperse of the term ‘complete reality’), or at least that we can choose to see a shared reality as part of a wider definition and experience of reality. Reality is subjective and only where it happens to overlap someone else’s subjective reality, consensus arises and we can then enter into meaningful communication about it.
Peripheral vision is the part of our field of view which lies outside of our central vision. The peripheral vision is basically a colourless blur, in which only contrasts and movement are detected. The eye is not physically capable of detecting detail outside of the center. This, however, is not how we experience the surroundings outside our central focus.
Every time something changes in the peripheral vision, our focus is directed to whatever caused that change. In a sense we determine which part of our world is in focus simply by looking at it. If we don’t look, it remains a blur.
A Panorama is a contraption, not unlike a cinema, designed to trick the viewer into believing he’s somewhere else. Everything is constructed around confusing the viewer, to fool his senses. In The Panorama Mesdag you experience a representation of Scheveningen as it looked to the painter 125 years ago. From there you can walk to Scheveningen and see for yourself what it looks like today.
The word Panorama means something like ‘all encompassing view’.
In Peripheral Panorama you don’t get an ‘all encompassing view’. You get to see two representations of my peripheral vision as I retraced the periphery of Mesdag’s representation of Scheveningen 125 years ago. One gives you detail, the other tries to emulate the visual input I received.
It was never my intention to strive for any sort of objectiveness in this presentation. In fact, I hope each viewer will allow himself to be fooled by his senses and experience a reality which he is unable to communicate to his fellow man.
PDF 