To state that no two people experience an event in exactly the same way would be a statement difficult to argue with, because it cannot possible be untrue. The eye and visual capturing of an event is simply subservient to the individual person and their past experiences, things that cannot be exactly duplicated or created, allowing each people to interpret and remember each situation in completely different ways. This is due to that fact that every individual person has different hopes and aspirations, different opinions of good and bad, different ways of accessing their imagination. It could be argued that at any given time, we partially see what we want to see, and remember things how we want to remember them with the use of our imagination and ability to mentally block out things that do not fit our expectations of an experience. This is apparent in the psychological study of ink blots, in which a psychopath can be detected through their interpretation of a random, undetermined ink blot on a page. This would prove the theory of individual experiences, as a random ink blot on a page can be interpreted one million different ways, by one million different people. The use of ink blots gives a verbal train of thought to the individual mind of the person, as their process of interpretation and remembering is projected through their visualisation of an image in the ink.
Gregory and Jastrow argued different views to this whole theory, one arguing that it is the eyes that capture things, and another arguing that it is the brain. I would like to argue that both play an equally important role: the eyes capturing the experience with just as much intimacy as all of the other senses, the brain then engaging with each and interpreting the situation for storage in memory.
I found this theory extremely difficult to wrap my brain around initially. The idea that the act of seeing and capturing moments in time is a process that can be argued about is completely new to me, and it is difficult to imaging a complex background to something that quite literally comes naturally. It is an act which requires no thought whatsoever. However, after delving further into both ideas and as an aspiring graphic communicator, I think the idea that the eye captures first and the brain interprets next is important as the majority of my work will most likely be visual. It is important to me to create work that is engaging for the eye to initially catch it’s attention, but also work that has enough depth for the brain want to ponder it further, exploring potential meanings and interpretations.