dexterpexter's Journal: Cognitive Psychology and Art: Artists See Differently

Ran across an interesting article here.

The article describes a comparison of the eye-movements of a trained artist against the eye movements of a psychologist when looking at--and attempting to memorize--a work of art or photo. The purpose of the study (investigating the eye movements of each) was withheld from the subjects, and they were instead told that the study was on pupil dilation. The four photos presented demonstrate these comparisons.

Even more interesting is this observation, which in my experience is very true:
Art teachers have noted that when beginning students attempt to draw accurate portraits, they tend to exaggerate the size of key features: eyes and mouths are too big relative to the size of the head. Trained artists learn to ignore these temptations and draw the world as it really appears. Even world-famous artists such as Leonardo da Vinci have had to resort to tricks such as looking at their subject through a divided pane of glass in order to render proportions accurately.

The article concludes thus:
So why do artists look at pictures -- especially non-abstract pictures -- differently from non-artists? Vogt and Magnussen argue that it comes down to training: artists have learned to identify the real details of a picture, not just the ones that are immediately most salient to the perceptual system, which is naturally disposed to focusing on objects and faces.

This isn't a new concept, but its an interesting read nonetheless. I suppose this differentiates the art most people hang in their homes (purchased from your average home interior decor store) which usually portray a single major object or two in front of a second-thought background (and is usually quite derived) from art created for artists or through expression by a trained hand. "Art-art" tends to create interest, and is more complete and refined. Decor art is often there to support a theme--for example, a rooster-themed kitchen might feature a painting of a rooster standing against a single-colour background. Each has its place, of course. But making the jump from singular focus to bigger-picture is quite a challenge.

First thing I noticed in art class

[nizo]

I could draw what I thought I saw no problem. Though drawing what I ACTUALLY saw was something else entirely. Obviously the brain does a hideous amount of processing/filtering of images before it gets into the "thinking" part of your brain. In a way I felt that I had to learn to ignore much of the processing/filtering to really even get to the nitty gritty of drawing. Interestingly enough, some of my best drawings were done when I was totally exhausted (i.e. most of my brain had shut down).

Re:

[dexterpexter]

Something I suggest to folks in regards to getting a better feel for proportions is to take a photo of the subject, turn the photo upside down, and then try to replicate the upside-down photo. When *finished* drawing, rotate your work to view it as it would appear normally. Some people may see an improvement in their work. While some folks might be driven batty through this exercise (I certainly am and I think it actually makes me too technical and way less expressive), others may find that their brain

Re:

[Otter]

I recently started working through Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain, which is based on the approach you mention and does a good job of explaining the logic behind it. (Albeit with some not-quite-accurate neuroscience.)

Re:

[nizo]

Yeah I remember the "upside down picture" exercise from that book. One thing we did do in class for self portraits: the teacher gave us a list of "face proportion" tricks, so we could place the eyes/nose/mouth properly to start, and then fill in the details for our face. Granted given enough torture we could probably have placed them on our own, but starting out with a few "landmarks" in the right place made the whole experience much more enjoyable :-)