some of us see double or triple, out of one or both eyes
maybe due to aging eyes ("lazy eye", bifocals, dry contact lenses, etc.)
or commuting/living between two places
or reflections on the inner sides of our glasses that show what’s behind us
or medication side effects
or an extra vivid memory, or dream from last night
the most expensive=valued lenses (camera, contacts, or eyeglasses) are the sharpest ones. the "correct" eyeglass prescription is most likely one that allows you to see as sharply as possible (and the eye specialist will probably send you home with a microfiber cloth and a case to keep your lenses unscathed). nowadays everything is supposed to be sharp and precise. from the time one arrives to the amount of money one pays. photos, too. have you seen anyone trying to take a blurry photo? have you seen anyone with a blurry profile picture on LinkedIn or on a faculty website? (if so, please share!)
we are much more lenient when it comes to sound or smell, we are constantly experiencing multiple flows of sounds and smells and we're ok with it. but with the visual, dominating humans have elevated and morally and economically stratified the visual in very fine detail, by color and shade and appearance and pixel. “está bien/mal visto.” we use the visual to decide what will have a higher chance of living or being included. tick the boxes very carefully. imitate the looks we see in mass media (straight nose, hair, legs, and cheek bones, clean ironed clothes and neighborhood). even in religions, my god is perfect, we keep his image in a public space if we can, he and i aspire to look like one another. razor-sharp, clean lines, precision is in.
but what sees or lives happily like that? so many people commit suicide over impossible aspirations. it's an impossible objective that gives false assurance, it excludes when it's not necessary, and it disguises itself as meritocracy (the more precise, the more successful, it's up to you). it leads to incessant feelings of self-failure.
like love, double or triple vision, which blurs the visual, makes things difficult to qualify and quantify. (face recognition software will have trouble). maybe it's difficult because we’re not used to considering as valueable that which looks messy/blurry (an analogy for a lot of things).
as you can see in these photos, double or triple vision can be useful for thinking about cause-effect, continuity, processes, differences, time-space lapses, specters, qualities, still vs moving image, and inapprenhensibility.
double or multiple exposure can be done easily in photoshop, but with analogue film cameras it's not as easy. but it’s better, in my opinion, because like when you put clay pots in a kiln and cross your fingers, much is going to happen beyond human control, manual technology intervenes and one doesn't really know what the results will look like, sometimes the intended double exposure doesn't work at all, other times the edges of the photos don't line up like you see in these photos. you open the kiln and half the coiled pots are cracked.
the lighting also makes a big difference, for example, a dark spot on one photo will allow the color from the other photo to show through and vice versa.
did you notice it's unclear which photo is above and which is beneath? the inability to pin point, stratify, and control the results reduces the human ego (in my opinion) and gives more tolerance and forgiveness to harmless imperfection and differences (for more on this, google the japanese concept of "wabi sabi"). the unclarity opens us up to "accidents" and experimentation. the efforts for precision are thwarted and now we have to use our imagination.
what would your double exposure look like?
areudirty
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
2087
gummygunk
ellievsbear
snowghoul