I think the process of looking under microscope is the process of de-familiarization—even when nowadays we are more familiar with the function of microscope. It magnifies the material without changing the physical form of the material. At the same time it ‘minimizes’ the viewer’s body without changing the scale of the physical body. It seems like an abstraction of the subjective mind. When the material is under microscope, it is out of context—placement and scale. It is therefore de-familiarized by us. However, everytime I put something under microscope I am very much aware what kind of material I am handling, therefore being able to see a totally different image then our regular understanding of the same material is very spectacle. Just like when I put my own sweat under the microscope, I was not expecting myself to be able to see the formation of salt crystals in my sweat. I think that moment of realization was very exciting and powerful. It is the unexpected
Human eyes have its limitation on the scale of seeing. I admit context is important. Understand the natural environment of the material is the knowledge essential for studying the specific material under microscope. However I also believe studying the physical form of an object under microscope is more leaning towards content than context. If one merely looks at structures of the material under microscope, one might not be studying an active behavior of a live being. The study of the physicality of the material informs a better understanding on the behavior of the material in its natural environment. I think looking at different scale and looking in natural context should have a close communication with each other instead of having content and context confront each other.