You may remember the noisy commotion related to dopamine that once swept through YouTube. Neuroscience depicted an image of humans entirely dependent on neurotransmitters released in our brains, portraying a dopamine-soaked human figure stimulated by various shorts and reels. However, a few years earlier, seemingly anticipating this catastrophe, a competition called daydreaming contest was held, as if dreaming of a sanctuary free from all the sensory distractions that divert our attention. This desire for a dazed state, free from all stimuli that push our nervous system into an overactive state, emerged. Although these two situations may seem different, they are not actually separate. Moreover, the brain that only seeks immediate and intense stimuli fails to exhibit sustained attention, often leading to diagnoses such as mental distraction or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).

병리화되었습니다. 최근, 본인이 성인 ADHD라는 것을 밝히며 약을 먹고 있다고 고백하는 커뮤니티의 게시글도 흔히 보이곤 합니다. 이처럼 주변의 문제가 단지 뇌의 신경 전달 물질의 문제로 취급될 때, 그 처방 또한 인위적으로 도파민 수치를 증가시키는 메틸페니데이트 계열의 약물로 해결될 수 있을 것만 같습니다. 게다가 최근 10대들에게 ADHD 치료제가 공부 잘되는 약으로 암암리에 퍼지고 있는 실정이기도 합니다. 자, 그렇다면 질문을 던져 봅시다. 어쩌다 우리는 이렇게 더 주변에 주목하는 시대에 살고 있는 것일까요? 이 질문에 대해 답하기 위해 오늘은 미국의 예술 비평가이자 컬럼비아 대학의 교수로 재직하고 있는 조어성 크래리의 저작을 참고해 살펴보고자 합니다. 우리는 크래리에 따라 주의가 세간의 화두에 오르게 된 19세기 말의 특정한 시기의 한정에서 주목해 보고자 합니다. 당시에는 과학...

철학, 심리학, 예술 등 다양한 분야에서 두루 나타난 주의와 관련된 흔적들을 샅샅이 탐사해 보는 것입니다. 본격적으로 살펴보기에 앞서, 크레르에게서의 논의에서 주의가 핵심적 문제로 부상하는 데에는 두 가지 중요한 조건이 있었습니다. 첫 번째는 시각에 대한 카메라 옵스큐라 모델이 붕괴되면서 그것이 가정하는 안정적이고 세심한 주체가 붕괴된 것이고, 두 번째는 인식론적 문제에 대한 기존 철학이 가진 선험적 해결책들이 무너진 것입니다. 별거 아니고요, 지금부터 아주 상세하게 살펴보도록 하죠. 

15세기 이래로 인간이 세계를 파악하는 시각성을 간단히 요약하면 사실주의 혹은 리얼리즘입니다. 인간은 자신이 바라보는 외부 세계를 사실 그대로 인식하며, 그로부터 객관적 지식을 터득할 수 있다고 순진하게 믿었던 것이죠. 여기서 지각적 경험과 앎은 서로 다르지 않았습니다. 하지만 그

Belief was shaken in the 19th century. In the history of art, photography, which developed in the mid-19th century, posed a significant threat to realism by creating illusions through perspective and foreshortening, which had developed during the Renaissance. As a result, the Impressionism that emerged in the late 19th century, along with the onset of Modernism, is widely recognized for breaking away from traditional forms of controlling the visible world and establishing new models of visibility. However, Jonathan Clary argues against this notion, claiming that between 1810 and 1840, a sudden emergence of subjective visual models in various broad fields was reconstructing human visibility. So, what was the model representing human visibility before this reconstruction? It is a simple optical device known as the camera obscura, which means dark room in Latin. A dark room or a small box on one side...

When a hole is drilled into a wall, light from the outside enters through that hole and is projected onto the opposite wall of the dark interior. Interestingly, people at that time believed that the human eye operated on the same principle as a camera obscura. The philosophy of that era attempted to explain human subjectivity through the model of the camera obscura. The philosopher Descartes, who opened the modern era, engaged in methodological skepticism, doubting all of human perception and knowledge. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not deny his own existence as a thinking being, which led him to declare, I think, therefore I am. This means that the ideas in our minds, which change constantly, and the sensations conveyed through our bodies can deceive us, and thus he dismissed them. For Descartes, the subject capable of recognizing certain truths had to be an empty subject that doubted and removed all uncertainties. Interestingly, true knowledge...

The empty subject as a condition to be accepted is the empty implication of the camera obscura, and the pinhole that allows for the objective perception of the external world corresponds to the human eye as a physical organ. In this classical visual system, on one side lies subjective interiority, while on the other side rests the objectivity of the external world. Until the advent of modernism, the key issue in art was how much more objectively and faithfully it could depict the elderly world outside of us. This was achieved through techniques such as perspective, which developed during the Renaissance. Like the model of the camera obscura, perceptual experience of the world was believed to be transmitted through the transparent window of the eye directly from the world itself. However, a decisive shift occurred from the geometric optics of the 17th and 18th centuries, which understood light as rays, to physiological optics.

Goethe, along with Purkinje, Johannes Müller, and others, underwent scientific work, and finally, in the mid-19th century, Hermann von Helmholtz published Physiological Optics, which put an end to the existing notion of the eye as a transparent organ. Even in the 18th century, the human retina was recognized as a sensory receiver that accepted sensations transmitted by the body. It was believed that, like a camera obscura, the light entering the eye passed through the transparent retina to deliver a complete image. In contrast, Helmholtz revealed that the light transmitted to the eye does not simply pass through a transparent lens without any medium; rather, it is energy that strikes densely packed sensory receptors, triggering a complex series of processes in the synthesis apparatus that gives rise to perception. The eye is not merely a transparent lens; it resides within the thickness and opacity of the body.

It was an organ that was being held. For instance, it felt as if there were floating insects or dust, akin to floaters in the eye. Even with my eyes closed and light blocked, it was as if a flash had gone off, with flashes of light lingering, a condition known as photopsia. As you can see, the eye is merely an organ that can easily distort or create illusions, and even when processing visual information, it lacks consistency. In other words, human eyes and visual functions do not merely serve as organs that objectively convey sensory stimuli from the external world; rather, they rely on the structure and function of an unreliable and imperfect sensory system. The eye has now shifted from being an organ that objectively mediates the world and the internal to one that represents subjectivity. In the classical visual system, perception was a relatively passive act of swimming through images of the external world. Now, it has been revealed that the temperament and abilities of the observer actively contribute to the construction of perception. This is none other than modernity.

It was the formation of a subjective perspective that allowed for the autonomy of art to emerge. If it is impossible to objectively reflect the world, then artists no longer need to imitate or reproduce reality. The perceptual experiences of artists can now produce works through their own liberated style, or subjective perspective, detached from the relationships that are inevitably tied to the external world. The pursuit of objective knowledge from the external world in epistemology would have been like the instability and opacity of vision. In the process where the eye, which objectively mediates between the external world and the internal subject, is reduced to a part of the body that reflects a subjective perspective, the philosopher Kant occupies an intermediate position. For Kant, the principle of human perception lies in the a priori synthetic judgment, which justifies itself as a self-cause, independent of anything external.

This indicates that perception is not objectively received from the external world, thus breaking away from the system that distinguishes between the external and the internal. However, the principle of unity that Kant speaks of in synthesizing perception is grounded in a transcendental basis that goes beyond empirical senses, not in the physiological body. Nevertheless, the advancements in physiology have shaken this premise. What happens to the comprehensive and unified world we have assumed to be the same in all our sensory experiences, which we have referred to as reality? The scientific developments of the 19th century dismantled the comprehensive categories established by Kant, and the subject found itself in a state of confusion due to the overwhelming influx of accidental sensory phenomena. Having obtained knowledge and understood the world through what was considered a transparent medium, if that vision is unstable, the objectivity of knowledge about the mediated world becomes equally flawed.

At that moment, the philosopher Schopenhauer emerges. Kant's perception, as self-consciousness that synthesizes perception, is replaced by Schopenhauer's will. Now, the world is represented not as a product of necessity governed by laws, but as something contingent that can change at any time, encompassing external forces that lie beyond the subject. Schopenhauer was one of the first individuals to grasp the relationship between the surrounding world and the deconstruction of perception. According to Schopenhauer, understanding something intellectually means first grasping one object and then sequentially perceiving another over time. When we focus our attention to understand one object, we must give up all other distractions around us. Thus, when one idea is triggered in our minds, it can attract or be replaced by other associated ideas.

However, Schopenhauer argues that our thinking cannot remain fixated on a single idea for too long. In fact, when we gaze at a single object for an extended period, its outlines gradually become blurred and mixed, making it difficult to concentrate clearly on the object. Similarly, if we immerse ourselves in a single thought and continuously repeat it, it will eventually become vague and dull, leading us into a state of confusion. In other words, the nature of our perception is not one of prolonged deep immersion, but rather something unstable that changes within temporary timeframes. Ultimately, according to Schopenhauer, there is no longer anything that guarantees the order of the contents that arise in the consciousness of the modern subject. Now, all the ideas and representations in our minds are left to the chaos of randomness, with their order and value completely mixed up. So, this issue has come to the forefront.

If our perception is so fragmented and unstable, how can the world be represented consistently for all of us? Schopenhauer's unique point is that he rejects the a priori principles of perception established by Kant, asserting that the only thing that binds all representations together is the will. While Kant provided a necessary and common foundation for the experiences perceived by each individual, Schopenhauer argued that there is no such commonality; instead, everyone perceives subjectively and temporarily. If the sensations and ideas that flood us are governed solely by the will, it implies that they operate blindly, without specific motives, rational reasoning, or logic. If there is no a priori common filter mediating between the world and us, then each individual subject acts according to their will.

Experiencing each one's world directly through the body means that the relationship between the world and us is determined by the unpredictable whims of directionless unconscious sexual power and desires. I will elaborate on this shortly, but while modernism emphasized the form of pure perception that transcends the body and timelessness, Schopenhauer prioritized the body that follows the flow of time, instincts, and desires, thereby dismantling it. Furthermore, what is significant is that this attack was directed not at aesthetics but at the epistemological philosophical tradition that runs from Descartes to Kant. In classical epistemology, consciousness was the foundation of all knowledge and certainty, while on the other side, states of mind such as trance, fainting, dreaming, and dissociation were excluded. However, if the unconscious explains me better than the consciousness I think I possess, then in Freud's psychoanalysis, the unconscious takes precedence over consciousness.

As important concepts emerge, those that were previously excluded from consciousness now rise to become central concepts in the psychological explanation of the subject. When I, as a subject, can no longer regard the thinking I as the same, consciousness does not maintain my identity; instead, it becomes very temporary and problematic. The philosopher William James replaced consciousness with action-oriented thinking in human mental activities, contemplating the continuous images, sensory experiences, thoughts, memories, and desires that humans subjectively experience as a unique concept called the stream of thought. He likened the human brain to a kaleidoscope, viewing it as an organ in a state of constant change, influenced by changes affecting all its parts. To say that something flows implies that it has a temporal quality. Just like the name stream of thought, he supports a temporal model of the mind, suggesting that concepts or representations are not fixed, unchanging, or permanent.

James rejected the spatial model of attention. Here, the role of attention was a means to stop and process the chaos of constantly incoming experiences. To James, the mind is a control tower that reinforces some objects we perceive while suppressing others, balancing and reconciling the contradictions of the fluidity and rigidity of experience. So, what are the criteria for the objects that attention selects? It is said that the choices we make are the results of the habitual direction our lives take, and that we choose the world we believe we live in based on how we direct our attention to things. It seems to depict autonomous subjects who can choose differently and a pluralistic world. Then, can we say that the objects of each individual's attention may differ and are highly subjective, while a common world exists in which they all live? Despite this, James suggests that we share a common...

the reason it seems like we live in a perceptual world is not due to Kant's declarative structure, but rather because of the overlapping common choices made by historically evolved communities of free individuals. In this way, James's emphasis on the creative and practical dimension of the attention possessed by autonomous subjects paradoxically served as evidence that control and regulation over attention were being established in society at that time. The environment was treated as an element of subjectivity that could be externally formed and controlled. However, there was another issue with James's argument: can the subject temporarily solidify the chaos of sensations flooding in from the world and maintain the equilibrium of our minds? Counterarguments to this began to emerge, with French psychologist Théodore Ribot claiming that attention itself is originally an exceptional and abnormal state that cannot last long. And

Helmholtz also states that a stable state of attention that lasts long is an unattainable goal. If left unchecked, the owner will continually shift to new objects, indicating that this state of change is natural. Psychologist Theodor Lessing also mentions that while we think we have control over our attention, some aspects slip away from our focus, and other things take their place. In this way, attention serves to prevent our perception from falling into chaos due to inconsistent sensations, but it is not entirely reliable in doing so. In such a context of the conditions of accidental knowledge, the urgent issue for institutional psychology at the end of the 19th century was the ability to block the threats posed by perceptions that Kant viewed as overwhelming the soul, namely, to establish psychological normality to prevent self-dissolution. The German psychologist Oswald Külpe emphasized the capacity of attention.

If weakened, consciousness will be swayed by external impressions, and the noise surrounding us will make contemplation impossible. British psychologist James Cattell argued that attention is the foundation of all other mental abilities and that consciousness focuses in a specific direction. He believed that if attention is absent, meaningless daydreaming will take its place instead of coherent thought. Despite the heated debates among philosophers, scientists, and psychologists regarding attention, the concept was not particularly emphasized until the 19th century. When you think of attention, what comes to mind? Perhaps distractions noted in a report card or ADHD? Until the 19th century, attention was limited to secondary fields such as education, self-formation, and etiquette teaching. However, as we have seen earlier,

In the early 19th century, as attempts emerged to cope with the collapse of the comprehensive categories of the human mind described by Kant, attention was drawn to the concept of consciousness. The philosopher Pierre Mendès France derived the possibilities of personal freedom and the soul from experiences of active and volitional effort related to the body. In other words, the maintenance of the self's unity did not come from any declarative or transcendent place, but rather was connected to human volitional activity and the surrounding environment. However, by the mid-19th century, figures such as John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, and Rudolf Hermann Lotze, who were associated with the so-called theory of associationism, did not regard the self as particularly important. So, what is associationism? It is included in empiricism, which posits that the ideas scattered in human perceptual experience must relate and associate with one another in order to be recognized.

What we have seen is that in order to understand this, we assumed the theory of associationism, which posits pure sensation as a single, distinct, and unmixed element that is passively received. However, thinkers like William James and Bergson argued that any sensation, no matter how simple it may appear, is always a mixture of memory, desire, will, expectation, and unmediated experience. Thus, even sensations that we take for granted have historically been involved in a fierce struggle over how to interpret, process, and make useful the stimuli we encounter. According to Crary, the act of focusing on something is not a neutral activity like breathing or sleeping; rather, it is related to the emergence of a specific model of behavior that has a historical structure. In other words, the modern technological environment of experiential science shapes our sensations.

It is a construct that is quantified and at the same time, it is an action in which social norms are manifested in practice. Even in 1853, it was not an important issue for the physiologist William Carpenter. If we look at the textbooks he wrote in his early years, he only mentioned that consciousness is actively oriented towards some sensory change. However, in the revised edition of 1874, he changed his stance, stating that attention influences all mental activities and is essential for systematic acquisition of knowledge, control of passions and emotions, and regulation of behavior. After examining numerous documents, Crary concludes that by the end of the 19th century, the specific issue of attention had become a widespread social, economic, psychological, and philosophical matter in Europe and the United States. Usually, when one thinks of attention, it is associated with focusing on a particular object, that is, the ideas of selection and concentration follow. In other words,

Unnecessary stimuli or objects are excluded, creating a state of concentration on a specific target. Just as a lens captures incoming light and focuses it onto a single point, rather than spreading it evenly, when we pay attention, we focus our minds. This way, the mind, instead of dispersing awareness among all the elements given to it, allows consciousness to be influenced by only one chosen point, making that aspect exceptionally clear and distinctly recognizable. Then, wouldn't scientists be curious about why humans focus on certain stimuli while excluding others? One such scientist, Gustav Fechner, conducted experiments in the 1850s on the minimum detectable difference in sensations. This involved testing subjects with sensory stimuli of varying intensities to determine how much difference was needed for them to perceive the distinctions between the stimuli.

It was an experiment in recognition, but the concept of the threshold of stimulation—that is, the minimum level of stimulus that humans can perceive—paradoxically reveals the fact that human perception is very unstable and heterogeneous. Because those of you watching this video, depending on your location, are likely ignoring various external sensory inputs such as the noise of the air conditioner on the wall, the sound of the TV in the living room, the rattling noise of the subway, the sound of a delivery motorcycle coming through the window, footsteps from above, and the sound of the refrigerator compressor. We can fully concentrate on the video because we suppress and intentionally ignore stimuli below a certain threshold that we cannot detect. Just like the classical visual system model of the camera obscura, we are filtering out the external world.

The input sensation was not transmitted transparently or received uniformly. If the process of measuring and receiving sensations through attention was the work of a painter, it simultaneously suggested that subjective repression and paralysis operate within the mechanisms of perception. Psychologist William James also noted that the characteristics of the surroundings are limited; in order to focus clearly on a specific object, various sensory, motor, and mental processes must necessarily be suppressed. To pay attention to something means to suppress and paralyze the secondary elements, indicating that human visibility has transformed from a representational model that transparently accepts all objects into a relationship between focusing on some things and repressing others. The repression of an object indicated that will and attention were gradually being identified, which was significant for Freud, who discovered the repressed unconscious beneath consciousness.

The experimental results showed that, as demonstrated by Fechner, the process of breaking down sensations into finely detailed units and technically experimenting with them was also a way of reorganizing sensations. Now, sensations lose their meaning as an intrinsic ability and become abstracted into a collection of measurable quantities or effects that can be observed externally. In other words, the model that views sensations as something belonging to the internal subject has become inadequate. Since 1880, empirical science has replaced sensations with special quantities of energy, and sensations have come to hold meaning only in terms of measurable response times or quantitative aspects of performance behaviors. Now, let’s summarize the perspectives related to 19th-century attention into three models according to their creators. The first is the position represented by William James, which sees attention as an expression of the conscious will of an autonomous subject. For them,

주의는 자유를 가진 주체가 선택하는 활동으로 여겨졌습니다. 두 번째 입장은 프로이트에게서 엿볼 수 있었던 것으로, 주의를 의식적 선택보다는 생물학적으로 결정된 본능과 무의식적 욕동의 기능으로 보았습니다. 마지막으로, 세 번째 입장은 페이너의 경험 과학에서 나타났던 것으로, 주인은 외부적인 기술 절차와 지식을 통해 통제되고 관리될 수 있는 것으로 파악됩니다.

'주의'를 사로잡는다는 것

예술과 사회, 평범한 우리의 일상이 예술과 맞닿은 지점을 살펴봅니다.