“The phenomenon of the color memory of the eye causes us to see color as we think it should look, not

as it actually is.”
Andreas Feininger

Explain this quotation in the light of the theoretical underpinnings of the reading process.

A world-renowned photographer and a writer on photographic technique, Feininger could not

be more accurate in pointing out how visual perception can be deceived due to certain phenomenon. A
phenomenon of light through absorption and reflection, a color is any hue than what the eye perceives.
Hence, an object that is blue is any color except blue. But since the reflected thus cancelled hue is
perceived, the brain interprets the stimulus and associates it to the source.

Feininger’s argument on color perception—and deception— closely resembles the principles

underpinning the reading process. The technical terms he used can be linked to delve into the theories
of reading process.

First, the phenomenon of the color memory. This, of course, refers to the brains plasticity to
assign attributes to object according to what it is programmed to perceive. For example, if a person is
presented with a black apple, the brain automatically modulates the sensory experience and dictates
that an apple can either red or green, but not black. This instantaneous modulation is a result of the
eyes’ color memory.

The color memory phenomenon closely depicts the cognitive view of the reading process. This
top-down model describes reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game. As an active interpreter of
message, the reader processes a text by continuously making hypotheses, confirming, or rejecting
guesses, revising inferences, and so on. This dynamic role of the reader leads to a related principle —
the schemata theory. This school of thought posits that reading is effective if it provides a meaningful
experience. It further purports that for reading to be a meaningful experience, the reader should be able
immerse himself to the text. To realize this, reader-to-text link is established through schema. Hence,
the reader makes sense of a text by using his existing knowledge. This translates to two possible results
of a reading endeavor. A strong schema leads to a maximized reader-to-text interaction resulting in a
meaningful thus useful experience. Conversely, lack of schema or background knowledge tends to
defeat the purpose of reading. This frustrates reader as it cripples comprehension. Worst, lack of
schemata may distort the readers understanding as he struggles to connect whatever background
knowledge there is in relation to a text. For example, a learner may easily relate to a paragraph about
bananas since he has ample knowledge about a subject. His schema facilitates his understanding. Hence,
reader may even identify missing information on the page. By contrast, a reader may be stumped on a
paragraph about plantain. Due to gaps in the background knowledge of the subject, the reader may miss
the highlights or may get lost altogether as he struggles to glean for memory inputs. Schemata, like color
memory, are blocks that dictate the success of a reading endeavor.

At the climax of his argument on the reality of shades, Fenninger speaks of color as “what it
actually is ” implying that there is an innate quality of colors. Given his statement, it is understood that
there is no need for complex analysis as to the nature of color.
 Generally, readers are active interlocutors in a reading task. Through metacognition, critics
decide the reading objectives, identify text types, make continuous predictions, accept or reject
hypotheses, and identify the author’s purpose. These immersion of the reader to a text applies in almost
all genres. However, the focus of a reading activity may be polarized when literary lenses are used.
Hence, instead of using schemata in considering a literary piece, a reader may turn from an active
meaning-maker to a passive identifier of features and a researcher of facts. For example, although the
poetry of Lang Leav appeals to emotion, a reader’s schema may not be used if a sample text is analyzed
in the lens of structuralism. Of course, Structuralism does not focus on incorporating one’s knowledge of
the text. Rather, this literary approach aims to analyze a piece by looking into the conventions of
language embedded in a text. Similarly, a reader’s schema may not be needed in analyzing The Kite
Runner if psychoanalysis is the literary lens used. Here, instead of putting the reader’s shoes on the
shoes of the characters, he is obliged to get to know the author to discover the motivations that led to
the inception if the text.

To balance the dynamics of the reading process that dictates whether the reader is a passive
recipient of predetermined meanings or an active interpreter of meaning through metacognition, it is
necessary to consider Robert Barthes literary philosophy. Barthes argues that a reader may either be an
active interpreter of meaning or a passive recipient of message, depending on the nature of the text in
focus. He further suggests that reading stimuli come in two categories: readerly texts and writerly texts.
The essayist expounds his argument by citing that readerly texts have innate and predetermined
meanings, thus making the reader a passive recipient of input. Conversely, writerly texts welcome the
proliferation of interpretations, making the reader an active maker of meanings.

Andreas Fenninger is on point with his position: the nature of color may be constant, however,
the phenomenon it undergoes greatly affects how the viewer perceives and understands it. Similarly,
texts may either hold inherent meanings, or may offer avenues for reader immersion. The reading
process provides vantage points on which the reader may stand in considering a reading stimulus.