Crary believed that a vision or subject was totally dependent on the observer. The visual “materialized” in the eyes of the observer. However the factors that affected the observer had an influence on the ultimate visual. That is where the shift occurs in the 19th century to to technological advancement. Devices like the camera obscura and the stereoscope changed the ways in which the observer interpreted the visual. He described these devices as “points of intersection where philosophical, scientific, and aesthetic discourses overlap with mechanical techniques, institutional requirements, and socioeconomic forces” (8). The previous practices of observation are now applied through a more advanced translation or medium of the visual. However in the case of the camera obscura the observations were more objective, based on facts requiring less use of the cognitive. The stereoscope on the contrary was a subjective device where the observers mind plays a key role in the ultimate depiction. In the case of the stereoscope the ultimate truth of the visual may vary from observer to observer. In the case of Turner, he broke from the trend of clear lines and crisp, precise strokes and substituted this for a more abstract interpretation. Instead of painting an image that would mimic the works of the camera obscura, Turner painted from his own subjective point of view. He painted to his best ability what his eye saw. Not what was captured by the camera obscura, and in modern times not what was captured on someone’s digital camera. He painted what the eye saw. Had the wind blown another way the Snowstorm painting may have take a completely different twist. As an observer of his painting my eye may interpret this in a much different way then the next person. This “modern” form of art was the subject of much ridicule only because the majority were not prepared to observe on such a cognitive level.