Elizabeth (pseudonym) is the first informant to agree to join my study. She has some photographic experience, but she has never worked with a large camera before. This is the first time she uses a lens of a large camera for an extended period of time to sense London. For Elizabeth, she would like to use the camera to capture what her eyes and ears can see and hear, as well as to discover things that her senses generally ignore.
Let's start ！
1. Sense: from stream of consciousness to documented reality
First formal interview
BACKGROUND:
Elizabeth is a newcomer to the documentary field. My encounter with her began when we did a documentary course together. Before she had a professional video camera this year, she was used to shooting the world around her with some digital cameras.
In our first interview, I asked her about her sensory experience when using a digital camera to take photographs. Elizabeth answered that she uses the camera to record the beautiful or memorable moments in her life. She thought she simply captured what she saw through the naked eye with her camera.
I tried to ask Elizabeth, "When you take a camera, do you consider the lens an extension of your eyesight?" Although it goes against the rules of informal ethnographic interviews in anthropology, I did deliberately lead Elizabeth to think about the complement and extension of the lens or camera to human sight. However, to my surprise, Elizabeth was not misled by the tendentious questions I set. On the contrary, she answered that the camera limited the scope of visual perception rather than expanding it. Elizabeth believed that as she concentrated on the image in the frame of the camera, her vision was also framed within this limited scope. At that time, I couldn't help but pose a rebuttal question to Elizabeth, “but don't you think that the camera's zoom in and out functions help you spot more tiny/trifling things than you can see with your naked eyes?” However, Elizabeth argued that the camera may have helped the eye to see more subtle things vertically, but horizontally it limited the range of visual perception. This is an interesting and controversial topic, which we have explored further in our subsequent ethnography (see below for more details).
For the auditory part, during our first interview, Elizabeth said she didn't have much of the related experience to share. Specifically, Elizabeth believed that she focused on using the camera lens to take photographs. When she took pictures, the attention of all her senses (mainly visual) was concentrated within the framing of the lens, while sensory experiences such as hearing, which cannot be captured in photographs, were unintentionally ignored or weakened. At this time, Elizabeth had little knowledge of using a video camera equipped with a microphone and believed that hearing was constant, realistic, and could not be swayed by anything. (It is interesting and important to remember this. For during the next 2 months of our subsequent fieldwork, Elizabeth's perception and understanding of hearing changed considerably as she became more skillful in using the microphone-equipped camera.)
After the interview, Elizabeth shared the photos she had posted on her ins with me. Interestingly, most of her photos were very artistic and of the stream-of-consciousness type, which seemed to contradict what she said about "capturing the reality of what the eye sees".
(Please click on these images below to enlarge the view, all of them are photographed by Elizabeth )
After checking out Elizabeth's Ins and the pictures she posted, Elizabeth and I had a 'debate' about this interesting 'paradox'.
I insisted that Elizabeth's artistic abstract photographs could not be called 'capturing the reality of what the eye sees' because what she photographed was 70% different from the real world. However, Elizabeth believed that these beautiful or abstract things existed in reality but that our past experiences and perceptions had helped us develop a fixed set of visual thoughts that ignored the abstract beauty of these realities.
In this regard, the first systematic question of this study was created:
"which is more realistic: what the naked eye sees or what the camera captures?"
[Elizabeth with her camera]
"Which is more real or closer to reality: what the eye sees or what the camera captures? "
According to Elizabeth, what the eyes see is more real, colourful and more vibrant than what is seen through the lens of a camera. In other words, the camera lens actually conceals or dilutes some of the light and shadows that are really there.
(Please note Elizabeth's answer at this point, as there is a distinct and interesting shift in Elizabeth's position as the project progresses.)
2. Comparison study: How long does your sensory memory last?
BACKGROUND:
A few weeks after the project began, I took the opportunity to conduct a comparative study with Elizabeth on sensory memory while she was out filming a documentary.
To begin with, I was entirely silent for the first half-hour of participant observation. I didn't provide Elizabeth with any requests, questions, or frameworks, so she went into the experiment completely unprepared and oblivious to the experiment's aim. At the end of the half-hour session, I interviewed Elizabeth about sensory connection and sensory memory. Secondly, after the interview, I explained the study's theme, aims, and the concept of "haptic visuality" to Elizabeth. I asked her to consciously photograph the same group of people in the same surroundings from the same angle in the context of thinking about sensory linking and sensory memory. After the second shoot, I did an interview with Elizabeth again.
Translation of the information mentioned by Elizabeth in the recording：
【Hi, I’m Elizabeth.】
【At first, I wasn't told the purpose or process of this experiment, so I just followed my usual habit of filming.】
【When I initially entered the room, I noticed that it was extremely silent, almost suffocating. I couldn't hear anyone speak, and I was too embarrassed to speak out loud myself. When I looked around the room with my eyes, I observed that the people I was going to shoot were sitting too close together, which gave me a more deep sense of depressive. I didn't pay much attention to my visual and auditory experiences before the researcher tell me to pay close attention to my own senses. But when I started paying attention to my senses, I noticed something different. As I shot with my camera and zoomed in, I found that my sense of the room changed from a global to a local micro-view. The observation of local details enabled me to notice many of their tiny movements. For example, when I meet someone, I don't usually pay attention to their feet. But as I was shooting them, I noticed that the swing of their feet was quite interesting. This tiny movement dissipated much of the depressing feeling I had visually.】
【At the same time, something has changed in my hearing. When I first entered the room, I felt it was so quiet that I was afraid to speak out loud. However, when I was holding the camera and filming with headphones, all sorts of tiny sounds were amplified by the microphone and I felt that the room was suddenly rich in sound. I could hear the sound of the bell tower in the distance, the sound of the vendors downstairs, and the sound of everyone in the room whispering.】
CLICK THE VEDIO TO LEARN MORE.
Findings of this comparative study:
1) About details :
We often believe that the camera's zoom function allows us to see more details that would otherwise go unnoticed daily. According to this comparative study, individuals focus on more information when looking with their eyes since they focus on the whole surroundings. Similarly, when looking through the lens of a camera, the focus on the composition within the frame distracts the photographer from other objects outside the frame, leading the filmmaker to miss many aspects of the surrounding environment. In other words, while the camera allows the eye to observe more subtleties and possibilities, it also limits the range of visual sense.
2) Sensory memory:
When I first interviewed Elizabeth, she said she had only very vague memories of both sight and sound. Like entering a study room daily, the setting did not leave a strong sensory memory for her. When I interviewed Elisabeth for the second time, she indicated that this time her memories were much clearer in comparison, due to her conscious observation of her sensory experiences. Specifically, she did not remember the exact conversation or the voices of the people she was talking to, but she had a clear memory of the sound of bells in the distance, the sound of cars honking and the murmur of people laughing and talking in the room. Coincidentally, these sounds are only heard through the camera's sound-receiving equipment. The visual aspect, meanwhile, is the opposite. Elizabeth said she remembered clearly what she saw with her eyes when she entered, but had little recollection of the details captured by zooming in with the camera. This is because her brain automatically assumes that the camera will store the images taken for her, so she doesn't bother to actively remember them.
3) Linking and separating the visual and auditory senses:
When sensed through a lens, the visual and auditory senses are linked and separated. For the connection, it's because the camera is currently the human equivalent of a third eye and a third ear. In other words, the camera's zoom and recording functions enhance the filmmaker's sense of sight and hearing. The reason for the separation is that, because sight and hearing are extended, what is reflected and realized in the human brain is not just a restricted picture of what the physical eye sees, and the physical ear hears. For example, when Elizabeth's camera is filming a desk, she actually hears the sound of a vendor hawking downstairs and the sound of a bell in the distance. At the same time, these extended sounds, such as the bells, are embedded in a deeper level of memory. When the image is recalled years later, Elizabeth may not remember the specific shots in great detail but will recognize that it was an afternoon with bells and sunshine.
3. Reality: Is what you see with your eyes and what you hear with your ears necessarily true?
BACKGROUND:
For the fifth interview, I showed Elizabeth a video with great visual and auditory conflict and interviewed her about her feelings.
About the video：
That's a video of my another informant. Due to the rules of privacy and anonymity, I am unable to publish the whole video here, but I hope the following information will be helpful.
【BACKGROUND of this video : This is a true story and a true visual record. Here is the thing. One day, I was out shooting a documentary. The person I filmed was a middle-aged man with a friendly, approachable face. During the time I was filming, he was working diligently on his charity work. Suddenly, he said he had to leave for five minutes. During the time he was gone, I turned on the video camera and started filming the surroundings (the footage in the video is what I saw when I heard that audio). However, as I had forgotten to turn off the recorder he had with him, I could still hear him in the distance, even though he was no longer in the picture. So while my eyes saw the scene below, what my ears heard was…】
To protect the privacy of non-informants, images of people appearing in this video have been redacted.
QUESTIONS:
Is what you see with your eyes and what you hear with your ears necessarily true?
Would you prefer to trust your sight or your hearing?
Is what is recorded by the camera always true?
FINDINGS:
To my surprise, Elizabeth did not think she could answer these questions.
On the one hand, she did not believe in either sight or sound. She was not willing to judge a person from the perspective of a single one of her senses. Elizabeth believes that while the camera may be capturing an external image of a person trying to present, the recorder and microphone might inadvertently record the person's thoughts. But human nature is multifaceted. What I show in my video and what I play in my audio is only one part of that person. At the same time, this multifaceted nature makes up this complete picture of the individual. Therefore, she is unwilling to judge one person from some partial point of view, nor will she make her own choice to believe or disbelieve sight or hearing based on a single visual or auditory experience. On the other hand, she believes both what she sees with her eyes and what she hears with her ears because these sensory experiences come from real-life experiences.
Furthermore, concerning the camera, she believes that only certain momentary shots of the camera are of the highest authenticity. People always perform in front of the camera, intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, only instantaneous shootings can capture the subtle, intimate reality of the situation.
At the same time, she questioned my idea of separating sight and hearing. She believes that senses cannot be separated under normal circumstances to exist separately. In other words, when a person observes an event or another person, she/he is using all her/his senses simultaneously. The cases of visual and auditory being separated that I have provided in my fieldwork (as above) are because I have added an extra device to the camera - a portable recorder. Similarly, only if one filmmaker adds such a remote hearing assistant to himself/herself that he/she could experience a brief visual and auditory mismatch.
BACK TO THE BEGINING:
Let's review Elizabeth's initial thoughts:
what the eyes see is more real, colourful and more vibrant than what is seen through the lens of a camera. In other words, the camera lens actually conceals or dilutes some of the light and shadows that are really there.
However, at the end of the project, Elizabeth concluded that both what the eye sees and what the camera captures are real images, and that one is not necessarily superior to the other. Because whether it is what you see with your eyes or what you selectively capture on camera, it is your own choice followed by your heart. Your heart want to perceive colours or objects in life, and your senses thus choose to catch and receive them, which are then mapped to your brain to form a final image.
Similarly, at the very beginning of the project, Elisabeth did not think that the use of cameras and lenses would have any effect on her sense of hearing. She believed that hearing is constant, real and difficult to alter. That is, what the ear hears is what it is, and cannot be artificially altered by means of zooming or adding filters.
However, at the end of the project, Elisabeth found that with the help of cameras, microphones and tape recorders, she could hear more tiny sounds (e.g. bells, hooters) which were deeply rooted in her subconscious and formed a specific sensory memory for her.
At the same time, we are all aware that with the help of certain devices (such as a portable remote recorder carried on a video camera), the senses of sight and hearing may be separated in some cases. In other words, with the help of cameras and remote recorders, the visual and auditory sensory experiences of the filmmaker in the same place at the same time may be completely different.
The picture on the left shows the portable recorder for video cameras that we have been mentioning.