Scopic Regimes of Modernity

Martin Jay explores three visual subcultures, while disputing "the fiction of a 'true' vision"(20). Of these three scopic regimes, Jay writes most on Cartesian perspectivalism, and establishes it as the standard, "normally claimed to be the dominant [...] visual model of the modern era"(4).
The development of this model coincides with the scientific revolution, and is seen as an attempt to recreate our visual reality as accurately as possible, through mathematical rules. However, with the assumptions about the viewer as monocular, along with visual distortions explained by Panofsky, the method falls short of the goal. Cartesian perspectivalism is still an approximation of visual experience.
And even if my own myopic view of the world could be rendered exactly as I see it, for others it might appear more akin to an impressionist painting, all splashes and blurs of color. Then there is hyperopia and other refractive errors, protanopia, deuteranopia, tritanopia, as well as cataracts, and other eye diseases... Even in an objective sense, there is no universal vision.
Jay describes the many implications of perspectivalism as a point of view, such as the "abstract coldness" or "de-eroticizing"(8) of the gaze. As a stylistic choice, it can provide religious overtones, or detachment of the artist. As an approximation of 20/20 vision, Cartesian perspectialism serves a purpose of the standard, which is to be rebelled against. The effects of the Dutch "art of describing" and of the baroque would not be as evocative if they were considered the guidelines for visual representation.