Perceptual Form and Canonical Perspectives of Instagram Seth Dubin December 2012 The psychology of images and perceptual interpretation is not a new subject. Plato first questioned what it was about one instance of an object that made it distinguishably unique yet still identifiable as an instance of that category. For instance, he questioned what makes a cat distinguishable as a cat, yet still recognizable as a certain unique cat. René Descartes then developed the idea that visual perception is learned through interaction with one’s environment. Similarly, Kant described perception as having a framework in which every representation has a time, place, and set of categories which begin to shape the idea of the real occurrence. How do conceptual understandings of objects and ideas relate to visual perceptions, however? Researchers have used the curious case of S.B., a man who went blind at 10 months old and regained vision in his fifties, to test understandings about tactility’s mapping to sight. In 1963, when S.B. regained vision, Gregory and Wallace observed that S.B. instantaneously had the ability to read a wall clock and read capital letters, both of which he had only learned through touch as a young child. S.B. did have problems perceiving depth, however, which suggests that visual perception of 2-dimensional objects can be mapped through senses while visual perception of the 3rd dimension is learned through experience. [1] A similar mapping has been researched between emotion depicted in art and the emotions felt by viewers. David Freedberg writes that a piece of art, whether painting or sculpture, has an emotional resonance on those who view it. We, as viewers, relate to others who show true emotion and soul. As Freedberg quotes from Alberti, “we weep with the weeping, laugh with the laughing.” This is true in both physical embodiment and emotional experience. [2] Psychological studies have linked the parts of our brain used for executing actions with the mere action of viewing or observing an action. This is the tool effect in which humans feel embodied in an action simply through sight. Likewise, our emotions follow the embodied effect of expression and movement. [3] Surrounding ourselves with happy images will have a lightening effect on our moods. Likewise, observing a portrait of a confused or saddened person will make us confused or saddened with the artwork. Simply put, we subconsciously involve ourselves with what we look at. When we look at an image, our brains immediately assign to it two instantaneous attributes. We decipher what we are looking at, and we assign a value to it – whether we like something or not and what emotion it gives us. The first attribute, what something is, goes back to Plato’s description of perception. Some things are easier to recognize instantaneously than others and are referred to as “canonical views” or “canonical perspectives” (Palmer, Rosch, and Chase 1981).