Books on theories of optical phenomena and lens-based imaging

  • Brewster, D. (1856). The Stereoscope. Its History, Theory, and Construction. London, John Murray.
  • Crary, J. (1989). “Attention, Spectacle, Counter-Memory.” October(50): 97-107.
  • Crary, J. (1994). “Unbinding Vision.” October(68): 21-44.
  • Darrigol, Olivier (2012) A history of optics from greek antiquity to the nineteenth century. Oxford : Oxford University Press
  • Elkins, J. (1994). The poetics of perspective. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Perspective has been a divided subject, orphaned among various disciplines from philosophy to gardening. James Elkins bring together recent thinking on perspective from such fields as art history, literary theory, aesthetics, psychology, and the history of mathematics. Elkins provides an abundantly illustrated history of the theory and practice of perspective. Looking at key texts from the Renaissance to the present, he traces a fundamental historical change that took place in the way in which perspective was conceptualized; first a technique for constructing pictures, it slowly became a metaphor for subjectivity. That gradual transformation, he observes, has led to the rifts that today separate those who understand perspective as a historical or formal property of pictures from those who see it as a linguistic, cognitive, or epistemological metaphor. Elkins considers how the principal concepts of perspective have been rewritten in work by Erwin Panofsky, Hubert Damisch, Martin Jay, Paul Ricoeur, Jacques Lacan, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and E. H. Gombrich
  • Hochberg, Julian E. & Mary A. Peterson, Barbara Gillam, H.A. Sedgwick [Eds] . (2007) In the mind’s eye : Julian Hochberg on the perception of pictures, films, and the world. New York ; Oxford : Oxford University Press. The book consists of essays dating from throughout a career devoted to perception and its problems, in particular visual perception as a science with motion pictures as its technology, some dating back to the 1950s. Many experiments are discussed which still have currency or relevance at least.
  • Elkins, J. (1997). “The object stares back : on the nature of seeing.” 271 p.At first it appears that nothing could be easier than seeing. We just focus our eyes and take in whatever is before us. This ability seems detached, efficient and rational – as if the eyes were competent machines telling us everything about the world without distorting it in any way. But those ideas are just illusions, James Elkins argues, and he suggests that seeing is undependable, inconsistent and caught up in the threads of the unconscious. Blindness is not the opposite of vision, but its constant companion, and even the foundation of seeing itself. Using drawings, paintings, diagrams and photographs to illustrate his points, Elkins raises intriguing questions and offers astonishing perceptions about the nature of vision.
  • Voita, B., et al. (1997). White Garden. Baden, Lars Muller Publishers.
  • Yates, S., Ed. (1995). Poetics of Space. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
  • Wade, N. J. (1998.). A natural history of vision. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
  • Regan, D., Ed. (1991.). Binocular vision. London, Macmillan.
  • Mach, E. (1893). Why Has Man Two Eyes? In Popular Scientific Lectures. Illinois, Open Court. 1: 66-88.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Okoshi, T. (1976). Three-Dimensional Imaging Techniques. New York, Academic Press.

  • Julesz, B. (1994). Dialogues on Perception. Bradford, MIT Press.
  • Kofman, S. (1999.). Camera obscura : of ideology. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press.
  • Ferragallo, R. (1974). “On Stereoscopic Painting.” Leonardo 7(2): 97 – 104.

  • Gibson, J. J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.

  • Herschel, J. F. W. (1833). A Treatise on Astronomy. London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman.

  • Hockney, D. (2001.). Secret knowledge : rediscovering the lost techniques of the Old Masters. London, Thames & Hudson.

  • Holmes, O. W. (1859). “The Stereoscope and the Stereograph.” The Atlantic Monthly 1(3): 738-748.

  • Jay, T. B. a. M., Ed. (1996.). Vision in context : historical and contemporary perspectives on sight. New York, Routledge.

  • Wright, L. (1983). Perspective in Perspective. London; Boston, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s