Scopic Regimes of Modernity

Martin Jay, “Scopic Regimes of Modernity” gives a comparison to paintings-- that perhaps gave more freedom of expression-- to Modernity—which are seen as more precise. Although I am not quite sure if I could explain Modernity if I was asked, I understand how Jay described differences among space and light. Modernity gave a much more precise, mathematical measurement to paintings in which spacing was often preliminarily chosen as well as lighting; thus in some ways denying the creativity and freedom of before.
The most interesting and clarifying part of the reading, for me, was the end; stating “the radical dethroning of Cartesian perspectivalism may have gone a bit too far” (86). By discarding Cartesian perspectivalism it limits the scopes that can be seen and makes it seem that one scope is better or correct. So we must recognize different perspectives, therefore opening ourselves to many other forms of art. The belief of “true” vision, made me think about what we see and whether it is truly there. Plato’s theory of forms—that everything is an imperfect representation of its true form—immediately popped- up in my mind. Perhaps we can never see anything correctly because it is either an imperfect re-creation or because of our “normal binocular vision” (80). Although it leaves me with many more questions, it gives me so many more options in my answers; because there is never any true correct answer to what we see or can see.
My only difficulty in reading and understanding was not personally having a reference/ background with names or styles.