The view of the self as part of the world, iPad painting, 2011 (After Ernst Mach)
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Sunday, 2 October 2011
The perception of art and the science of perception
Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XVII
Burlingame, California
Session 8: Art Theory, Perception, and Rendering
Date: Thursday 26 January
Time: 8:30 AM - 11:40 AM
Session Chair: Huib de Ridder, Technische Univ. Delft (Netherlands)
The perception of art and the science of perception (Invited Paper)
Paper 8291-35
For many centuries artists have studied the nature of visual perception and how to convincingly render what we see using a variety of media. The results of this prolonged investigation, during which knowledge and insights were handed down from generation to generation, can be found in all the countless artworks deposited in museums and galleries around the world. Works of art represent a rich source of ideas and understanding about how the world appears to us, and only relatively recently have those interested in the science of vision started to appreciate the many discoveries made by artists in this field. In this talk I will discuss some of the key insights into vision and perception that artists have revealed through their inquiries, and show how they can help current thinking in science and technology about how best to understand the process of seeing. In particular, I will suggest that some important artistic ideas continue to present fundamental challenges to conventional ideas about how reality is represented.
Burlingame, California
Session 8: Art Theory, Perception, and Rendering
Date: Thursday 26 January
Time: 8:30 AM - 11:40 AM
Session Chair: Huib de Ridder, Technische Univ. Delft (Netherlands)
The perception of art and the science of perception (Invited Paper)
Paper 8291-35
For many centuries artists have studied the nature of visual perception and how to convincingly render what we see using a variety of media. The results of this prolonged investigation, during which knowledge and insights were handed down from generation to generation, can be found in all the countless artworks deposited in museums and galleries around the world. Works of art represent a rich source of ideas and understanding about how the world appears to us, and only relatively recently have those interested in the science of vision started to appreciate the many discoveries made by artists in this field. In this talk I will discuss some of the key insights into vision and perception that artists have revealed through their inquiries, and show how they can help current thinking in science and technology about how best to understand the process of seeing. In particular, I will suggest that some important artistic ideas continue to present fundamental challenges to conventional ideas about how reality is represented.
Art, visual perception and ontology
Talk to be given at:
Psycho-Ontology
The Shalem Center, Jerusalem
December 11-15, 2011
"Do the operations of the human mind have something to teach us about the fundamental structure of reality?" I propose the answer to this question is 'yes' because, in short, the operations of the human mind are identical with the fundamental structure of reality. There are many ways this argument could be made: from quantum physics, from philosophy, or from religion. In this paper I will make a number of specific points using evidence from art and neuroscience. The main claims are:
1. The mind and reality cannot be separated. Those interested in the nature of the conscious mind often ask how it is that physical processes can give rise to conscious mental experience. Others ask how it is that the mind and reality are related. Both these questions presume a fundamental separation between the mental and the physical, mind and world. If the mind and world are separate then there must be some boundary between them. Yet it is by no means clear where this boundary would be. Any clear line of separation is, at best, arbitrary and contingent. The lack of any determinate boundary between mind and world, I will argue, renders them inseparable and effectively identical.
2. The mind brings reality into being for the perceiver. Numerous proposals have been made as to the nature and function of the conscious mind. For some, the function of the mind (instantiated in the brain) is to give us useful knowledge about the external world and our own situation within it. This again assumes a distinction between an internally operating mental process (in the head) and an external reality (in the body and world). I will propose that one the main functions of the mind (whether located in the head or not) is to bring the world into being. In other words, rather than representing what is determinately 'out there', in some mind independent external realm, our perceptual awareness actively generates what we experience of reality in accordance with the needs of our biological makeup.
3. The primary function of the mind is to create distinctions. Human perception is an enormously complex system that does many things, and much of what it does is still poorly understood. Yet I want to argue here that one of its primary functions is actually rather simple: to register distinctions in perceptual data. The data arriving at our senses is both richly patterned and inherently unpredictable, and our perceptual systems must very rapidly parse it into meaningful information. This process, which occurs seemingly instantaneously and effortlessly, actually involves a huge range of neurobiological processes. The most basic of these, however, is the imposition of boundaries or distinctions on an otherwise continuous stream of data. In fact, the sensory system operates almost entirely by detecting not 'things' in the world but differences. From this we build up an impression of a world that is divided into discrete 'things' rather than a continuous whole. The fundamental role of the perceptual system in imposing distinctions on the world is something that James, Bergson, and Spencer-Brown, among others, have pointed out.
4. Reality is fundamentally indeterminate prior to perception. An ancient philosophical problem concerns the nature of the reality existing outside or beyond the scope of our perceptions. Philosophers have often posited an external reality that lies behind our sensory impressions of the world, full of the material objects upon which our sensory impressions are based. While many have acknowledged that our senses do not necessarily give us 'true' knowledge of the world we perceive, as they are vulnerable to error and illusion, this results from the imperfections of our sensory apparatus rather than any ontological uncertainty about how the world is constructed. Opposing this view, I will argue that we do not perceive a fixed, determinate reality about which we make imperfect judgements, but rather we perceive a world that is profoundly indeterminate in its constitution. To speak of a world 'in itself' as having inherent properties or qualities, which are fixed attributes of the objects we assign them too, is nonsensical when we understand the way the perceptual system operates.
I will support these claims by showing examples from art history, my own work as an artist, and some scientific experiments in which I have collaborated with neuroscientists and psychophysicists to study the perceptual response to art works. My contention is that one of the most important questions now facing us is to understand how it is that our mental apparatus, which is after all part of the world, is able to create determinate states from an inherently indeterminate reality. I will conclude that it is necessary to develop a new cross-disciplinary approach to investigating such questions that draws on insights from art, philosophy and science.
Psycho-Ontology
The Shalem Center, Jerusalem
December 11-15, 2011
"Do the operations of the human mind have something to teach us about the fundamental structure of reality?" I propose the answer to this question is 'yes' because, in short, the operations of the human mind are identical with the fundamental structure of reality. There are many ways this argument could be made: from quantum physics, from philosophy, or from religion. In this paper I will make a number of specific points using evidence from art and neuroscience. The main claims are:
1. The mind and reality cannot be separated. Those interested in the nature of the conscious mind often ask how it is that physical processes can give rise to conscious mental experience. Others ask how it is that the mind and reality are related. Both these questions presume a fundamental separation between the mental and the physical, mind and world. If the mind and world are separate then there must be some boundary between them. Yet it is by no means clear where this boundary would be. Any clear line of separation is, at best, arbitrary and contingent. The lack of any determinate boundary between mind and world, I will argue, renders them inseparable and effectively identical.
2. The mind brings reality into being for the perceiver. Numerous proposals have been made as to the nature and function of the conscious mind. For some, the function of the mind (instantiated in the brain) is to give us useful knowledge about the external world and our own situation within it. This again assumes a distinction between an internally operating mental process (in the head) and an external reality (in the body and world). I will propose that one the main functions of the mind (whether located in the head or not) is to bring the world into being. In other words, rather than representing what is determinately 'out there', in some mind independent external realm, our perceptual awareness actively generates what we experience of reality in accordance with the needs of our biological makeup.
3. The primary function of the mind is to create distinctions. Human perception is an enormously complex system that does many things, and much of what it does is still poorly understood. Yet I want to argue here that one of its primary functions is actually rather simple: to register distinctions in perceptual data. The data arriving at our senses is both richly patterned and inherently unpredictable, and our perceptual systems must very rapidly parse it into meaningful information. This process, which occurs seemingly instantaneously and effortlessly, actually involves a huge range of neurobiological processes. The most basic of these, however, is the imposition of boundaries or distinctions on an otherwise continuous stream of data. In fact, the sensory system operates almost entirely by detecting not 'things' in the world but differences. From this we build up an impression of a world that is divided into discrete 'things' rather than a continuous whole. The fundamental role of the perceptual system in imposing distinctions on the world is something that James, Bergson, and Spencer-Brown, among others, have pointed out.
4. Reality is fundamentally indeterminate prior to perception. An ancient philosophical problem concerns the nature of the reality existing outside or beyond the scope of our perceptions. Philosophers have often posited an external reality that lies behind our sensory impressions of the world, full of the material objects upon which our sensory impressions are based. While many have acknowledged that our senses do not necessarily give us 'true' knowledge of the world we perceive, as they are vulnerable to error and illusion, this results from the imperfections of our sensory apparatus rather than any ontological uncertainty about how the world is constructed. Opposing this view, I will argue that we do not perceive a fixed, determinate reality about which we make imperfect judgements, but rather we perceive a world that is profoundly indeterminate in its constitution. To speak of a world 'in itself' as having inherent properties or qualities, which are fixed attributes of the objects we assign them too, is nonsensical when we understand the way the perceptual system operates.
I will support these claims by showing examples from art history, my own work as an artist, and some scientific experiments in which I have collaborated with neuroscientists and psychophysicists to study the perceptual response to art works. My contention is that one of the most important questions now facing us is to understand how it is that our mental apparatus, which is after all part of the world, is able to create determinate states from an inherently indeterminate reality. I will conclude that it is necessary to develop a new cross-disciplinary approach to investigating such questions that draws on insights from art, philosophy and science.
Training facilitates object recognition in cubist paintings
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2010
To the naïve observer, cubist paintings contain geometrical forms in which familiar objects are hardly recognizable, even in the presence of a meaningful title. We used fMRI to test whether a short training session about Cubism would facilitate object recognition in paintings by Picasso, Braque and Gris. Subjects, who had no formal art education, were presented with titled or untitled cubist paintings and scrambled images, and performed object recognition tasks. Relative to the control group, trained subjects recognized more objects in the paintings, their response latencies were significantly shorter, and they showed enhanced activation in the parahippocampal cortex, with a parametric increase in the amplitude of the fMRI signal as a function of the number of recognized objects. Moreover, trained subjects were slower to report not recognizing any familiar objects in the paintings and these longer response latencies were correlated with activation in a fronto-parietal network.These findings suggest that trained subjects adopted a visual search strategy and used contextual associations to perform the tasks. Our study supports the proactive brain framework, according to which the brain uses associations to generate predictions.
To the naïve observer, cubist paintings contain geometrical forms in which familiar objects are hardly recognizable, even in the presence of a meaningful title. We used fMRI to test whether a short training session about Cubism would facilitate object recognition in paintings by Picasso, Braque and Gris. Subjects, who had no formal art education, were presented with titled or untitled cubist paintings and scrambled images, and performed object recognition tasks. Relative to the control group, trained subjects recognized more objects in the paintings, their response latencies were significantly shorter, and they showed enhanced activation in the parahippocampal cortex, with a parametric increase in the amplitude of the fMRI signal as a function of the number of recognized objects. Moreover, trained subjects were slower to report not recognizing any familiar objects in the paintings and these longer response latencies were correlated with activation in a fronto-parietal network.These findings suggest that trained subjects adopted a visual search strategy and used contextual associations to perform the tasks. Our study supports the proactive brain framework, according to which the brain uses associations to generate predictions.
Indeterminacy and realism in cinema and art
Tagungsband Realismus nach den europäischen Avantgarden, Verlag für Kommunikation, Kultur and Soziale Praxis, Bielefeld, (in press).
This paper will address two moments in cinematic history: a shot that occurs in Robert Wiene's avant-garde production of THE CABINET OF DR CALIGARI (1920) and the attempt by the main protagonist in Antonioni's BLOW-UP (1966) to discern a phantom figure in a blurry section of a photograph. Both are examples of what I term ,visual indeterminacy', where images resist easy or deny immediate interpretation. Visual indeterminacy is in fact quite a common perceptual phenomenon. Although not very widely studied in science it has been recognized for centuries by visual artists and writers. I will discuss the phenomena of visual indeterminacy, its perceptual basis, and its wider implications for our understanding of how we see the world. In particular, I will note the impact of indeterminacy on our notion of the ,real' by looking at the work of the artist Gerhard Richter, whose images veer between the mechanically and expressionistically abstract to the photographic. Richter's declaration that works of art should defy easy interpretation will be considered in relation a wider modernist preoccupation with indeterminate meaning.
This paper will address two moments in cinematic history: a shot that occurs in Robert Wiene's avant-garde production of THE CABINET OF DR CALIGARI (1920) and the attempt by the main protagonist in Antonioni's BLOW-UP (1966) to discern a phantom figure in a blurry section of a photograph. Both are examples of what I term ,visual indeterminacy', where images resist easy or deny immediate interpretation. Visual indeterminacy is in fact quite a common perceptual phenomenon. Although not very widely studied in science it has been recognized for centuries by visual artists and writers. I will discuss the phenomena of visual indeterminacy, its perceptual basis, and its wider implications for our understanding of how we see the world. In particular, I will note the impact of indeterminacy on our notion of the ,real' by looking at the work of the artist Gerhard Richter, whose images veer between the mechanically and expressionistically abstract to the photographic. Richter's declaration that works of art should defy easy interpretation will be considered in relation a wider modernist preoccupation with indeterminate meaning.
Connecting art and the brain: an artist’s perspective on visual indeterminacy
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2011
In this article I will discuss the intersection between art and neuroscience from the perspective of a practicing artist. I have collaborated on several scientific studies into the effects of art on the brain and behavior, looking in particular at the phenomenon of “visual indeterminacy.” This is a perceptual state in which subjects fail to recognize objects from visual cues. I will look at the background to this phenomenon, and show how various artists have exploited its effect through the history of art. My own attempts to create indeterminate images will be discussed, including some of the technical problems I faced in trying to manipulate the viewer’s perceptual state through paintings. Visual indeterminacy is not widely studied in neuroscience, although references to it can be found in the literature on visual agnosia and object recognition. I will briefly review some of this work and show how my attempts to understand the science behind visual indeterminacy led me to collaborate with psychophysicists and neuroscientists. After reviewing this work, I will discuss the conclusions I have drawn from its findings and consider the problem of how best to integrate neuroscientific methods with artistic knowledge to create truly interdisciplinary approach.
In this article I will discuss the intersection between art and neuroscience from the perspective of a practicing artist. I have collaborated on several scientific studies into the effects of art on the brain and behavior, looking in particular at the phenomenon of “visual indeterminacy.” This is a perceptual state in which subjects fail to recognize objects from visual cues. I will look at the background to this phenomenon, and show how various artists have exploited its effect through the history of art. My own attempts to create indeterminate images will be discussed, including some of the technical problems I faced in trying to manipulate the viewer’s perceptual state through paintings. Visual indeterminacy is not widely studied in neuroscience, although references to it can be found in the literature on visual agnosia and object recognition. I will briefly review some of this work and show how my attempts to understand the science behind visual indeterminacy led me to collaborate with psychophysicists and neuroscientists. After reviewing this work, I will discuss the conclusions I have drawn from its findings and consider the problem of how best to integrate neuroscientific methods with artistic knowledge to create truly interdisciplinary approach.
Art and Externalism
Journal of Consciousness Studies (in press)
How have artists understood the relationship between the mind and the world? This paper presents statements by a number of artists that speak of how subjective experience is constituted by the unity of inner self and outer reality, or how objects in the world can acquire mental properties. I will discuss some reasons why artists hold these views and how they might contribute to the ongoing debate between internalist and externalist theories of mind. Drawing on the conception of mind-world relations attributed to artists, a way of understanding perceptual experience will be outlined that stresses the reciprocity between head-bound and world-bound processes. This approach allows the opposing, and seemingly incompatible, views of internalists and externalists to be embraced within a more inclusive schema.
How have artists understood the relationship between the mind and the world? This paper presents statements by a number of artists that speak of how subjective experience is constituted by the unity of inner self and outer reality, or how objects in the world can acquire mental properties. I will discuss some reasons why artists hold these views and how they might contribute to the ongoing debate between internalist and externalist theories of mind. Drawing on the conception of mind-world relations attributed to artists, a way of understanding perceptual experience will be outlined that stresses the reciprocity between head-bound and world-bound processes. This approach allows the opposing, and seemingly incompatible, views of internalists and externalists to be embraced within a more inclusive schema.
The New Mind: Thinking beyond the head
Co-authored with Riccardo Manzotti, AI & Society (in press)
Throughout much of the modern period the human mind has been regarded as a property of the brain, and therefore something confined to the inside of the head — a view commonly known as 'internalism'. But recent works in cognitive science, philosophy, and anthropology, as well as certain trends in the development of technology, suggest an emerging view of the mind as a process not confined to the brain but spread through the body and world — an outlook covered by a family of views labeled 'externalism'. In this paper we will suggest there is now sufficient momentum in favour of externalism of various kinds to mark a historical shift in the way the mind is understood. We dub this emerging externalist tendency the 'New Mind'. Key properties of the New Mind will be summarized and some of its implications considered in areas such as art and culture, technology, and the science of consciousness.
Throughout much of the modern period the human mind has been regarded as a property of the brain, and therefore something confined to the inside of the head — a view commonly known as 'internalism'. But recent works in cognitive science, philosophy, and anthropology, as well as certain trends in the development of technology, suggest an emerging view of the mind as a process not confined to the brain but spread through the body and world — an outlook covered by a family of views labeled 'externalism'. In this paper we will suggest there is now sufficient momentum in favour of externalism of various kinds to mark a historical shift in the way the mind is understood. We dub this emerging externalist tendency the 'New Mind'. Key properties of the New Mind will be summarized and some of its implications considered in areas such as art and culture, technology, and the science of consciousness.
Saturday, 18 September 2010
The Pansophic Principle: Seeking common ground between the Arts, Sciences and Humanities.
The forefront of human endeavour is extraordinarily diverse. At one time we have physicists building the CERN particle accelerator to search for the Higgs Boson, philosophers arguing whether mental properties lie inside the brain our outside it, and artists cutting rotating discs in the sides of buildings. Seemingly incompatible as they are, all these activities must somehow be connected: they are all attempts to probe, investigate, understand, and convey the peculiar nature of reality and human experience; they are all aspects of a single world.
Pansophy was defined in the seventeenth century by Comenius as ‘universal knowledge’. At a time when it was theoretically possible for one person to read all the books in circulation the ambition of synthesizing all human knowledge must have seemed attainable. In our own age, with the exponential growth in disciplinary specialism, it is unlikely that one person could absorb all the information relating to their own named discipline, let alone a fraction of the all information in print.
The advent of moveable type in mid-fifteenth century Europe contributed enormously to the spread of ideas during the Renaissance and the consequent emergence of novel ideas and technologies. Access to printed information generated not just new knowledge but combinations of knowledge that had hitherto existed in disconnected planes. Libraries and compendia allowed scholars to cross-reference and even stumble unexpectedly on remote ideas that they were then able to piece together into new systems of thought.
The internet, arguably the most significant development in knowledge distribution since moveable type, offers our own age much the same opportunity to access diverse ideas and find the underlying connections between them, but on a far grander scale. Searching for a term like ‘indeterminacy’ will yield references in areas as disparate as philosophy, mathematics, quantum physics, spiritualism, medical science, art theory, and music. Inevitably the term has a unique history and meaning in each case, yet there is also a sense in which it refers to the same phenomena across all.
An immense task now faces humankind. Knowledge continues to be generated at an ever-expanding rate. New specialisms and hybrid disciplines emerge with increasing frequency. But if we accept the pansophic principle that all this knowledge is, in the end, about the same thing — the nature of reality and human experience — then who is doing the work of reconciling this enormous diversity in order to find within it the patterns and connections that would allow a broader rather than narrower understanding of our condition? This is possibly one of the most important challenges facing human inquiry at this time, and the internet can facilitate this in a way that has few historical precedents.
The pansophic principle, however, is not aimed at the simple unification of all knowledge into an all-encompassing truth. It is not a means of homogenizing human ideas or beliefs into a unitary system — an ambition with unfortunately sinister historical precedents. The diversity and incompatibility of human ideas is part of what gives intellectual life its richness and capacity for innovation. Rather, the challenge is an essentially contradictory one: to appreciate and respect the differences between strands of thought, with their disparate histories and contexts, yet at the same time actively locate the productive resonances between them
Pansophy was defined in the seventeenth century by Comenius as ‘universal knowledge’. At a time when it was theoretically possible for one person to read all the books in circulation the ambition of synthesizing all human knowledge must have seemed attainable. In our own age, with the exponential growth in disciplinary specialism, it is unlikely that one person could absorb all the information relating to their own named discipline, let alone a fraction of the all information in print.
The advent of moveable type in mid-fifteenth century Europe contributed enormously to the spread of ideas during the Renaissance and the consequent emergence of novel ideas and technologies. Access to printed information generated not just new knowledge but combinations of knowledge that had hitherto existed in disconnected planes. Libraries and compendia allowed scholars to cross-reference and even stumble unexpectedly on remote ideas that they were then able to piece together into new systems of thought.
The internet, arguably the most significant development in knowledge distribution since moveable type, offers our own age much the same opportunity to access diverse ideas and find the underlying connections between them, but on a far grander scale. Searching for a term like ‘indeterminacy’ will yield references in areas as disparate as philosophy, mathematics, quantum physics, spiritualism, medical science, art theory, and music. Inevitably the term has a unique history and meaning in each case, yet there is also a sense in which it refers to the same phenomena across all.
An immense task now faces humankind. Knowledge continues to be generated at an ever-expanding rate. New specialisms and hybrid disciplines emerge with increasing frequency. But if we accept the pansophic principle that all this knowledge is, in the end, about the same thing — the nature of reality and human experience — then who is doing the work of reconciling this enormous diversity in order to find within it the patterns and connections that would allow a broader rather than narrower understanding of our condition? This is possibly one of the most important challenges facing human inquiry at this time, and the internet can facilitate this in a way that has few historical precedents.
The pansophic principle, however, is not aimed at the simple unification of all knowledge into an all-encompassing truth. It is not a means of homogenizing human ideas or beliefs into a unitary system — an ambition with unfortunately sinister historical precedents. The diversity and incompatibility of human ideas is part of what gives intellectual life its richness and capacity for innovation. Rather, the challenge is an essentially contradictory one: to appreciate and respect the differences between strands of thought, with their disparate histories and contexts, yet at the same time actively locate the productive resonances between them
Friday, 17 September 2010
Mind and reality (Thich Nhat Hanh)
‘Recall a simple and ancient truth: the subject of knowledge cannot exist independently from the object of knowledge. To see is to see something. To hear is to hear something. To be angry is to be angry over something. Hope is hope for something. Thinking is thinking about something. When the object of knowledge (the something) is not present, there can be no subject of knowledge’ (1991:45-46).
‘Consider the example of a table. The table’s existence is possible due to the existence of things which we might call “the non-table world”: the forest where the wood grew and was cut, the carpenter, the iron ore which became the nails and screws, and countless other things which have relation to the table, the parents and ancestors of the carpenter, the sun and rain which made it possible for the trees to grow’ (1991:47).
Hanh, Thich Nhat (1991) The Miracle of Mindfulness. London: Rider.
‘When we have a concept about something, its image appears within that concept. For example, when we have a concept of a table, we see an image of that table, but we must remember that our concept is not the thing itself. It is just our perception, which might in fact be very different from the table. A termite, for example, may perceive a table as a feast, and a physicist may perceive it as a mass of rapidly moving particles’ (1992: 54).
‘The notion that things can exist independently of one another comes from the perception that they have a beginning and an end. But it is impossible to find the beginning or end of anything’ (1992:60).
Hanh, Thich Nhat (1992) The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion. Berkley: Parallax Press.
(with thanks to Melanie Chan for the quotes)
‘Consider the example of a table. The table’s existence is possible due to the existence of things which we might call “the non-table world”: the forest where the wood grew and was cut, the carpenter, the iron ore which became the nails and screws, and countless other things which have relation to the table, the parents and ancestors of the carpenter, the sun and rain which made it possible for the trees to grow’ (1991:47).
Hanh, Thich Nhat (1991) The Miracle of Mindfulness. London: Rider.
‘When we have a concept about something, its image appears within that concept. For example, when we have a concept of a table, we see an image of that table, but we must remember that our concept is not the thing itself. It is just our perception, which might in fact be very different from the table. A termite, for example, may perceive a table as a feast, and a physicist may perceive it as a mass of rapidly moving particles’ (1992: 54).
‘The notion that things can exist independently of one another comes from the perception that they have a beginning and an end. But it is impossible to find the beginning or end of anything’ (1992:60).
Hanh, Thich Nhat (1992) The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion. Berkley: Parallax Press.
(with thanks to Melanie Chan for the quotes)
Saturday, 24 July 2010
The indeterminate in cinema and art
In this paper I will address two moments in cinematic history: a shot that occurs in Robert Wiene's avant-garde production of The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1919) and the attempt by the main protagonist in Antonioni's Blowup (1966) to discern a phantom figure in a blurry section of a photograph. Both moments are examples of what I term 'visual indeterminacy', where images resist easy or immediate interpretation. Visual indeterminacy is in fact quite a common perceptual phenomenon, and although not very widely studied in science it has been recognized and exploited for centuries by visual artists and writers.
I will discuss the phenomena of visual indeterminacy, its perceptual basis, and its wider implications for our understanding of how we see the world. In particular, I will note the impact of indeterminacy on our notion of the 'real,' and close by looking at the work of the artist Gerhard Richter, whose images veer between the mechanically and expressionistically abstract to the photographic and hyper-real. Richter's declaration that works of art should defy easy interpretation will be considered in relation a wider modernist preoccupation with indeterminate meaning.
Keynote presentation
Realism after the European Avant-Garde Conference
University of Paderborn, Germany, October 2010
I will discuss the phenomena of visual indeterminacy, its perceptual basis, and its wider implications for our understanding of how we see the world. In particular, I will note the impact of indeterminacy on our notion of the 'real,' and close by looking at the work of the artist Gerhard Richter, whose images veer between the mechanically and expressionistically abstract to the photographic and hyper-real. Richter's declaration that works of art should defy easy interpretation will be considered in relation a wider modernist preoccupation with indeterminate meaning.
Keynote presentation
Realism after the European Avant-Garde Conference
University of Paderborn, Germany, October 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)