Livingston's colorful optical illusion demonstrations have been incredibly fascinating to me. For certain kinds of illusions, once a person knows the secret behind the trick, the illusion loses its power to fool the perceptions and the “magic” is lost. But with the illusions in Livingston's book, I find that no matter how much I know about the way my brain and my eyes are processing the information to create the illusion, I am unable to NOT see the illusion. For instance, the black and white grid on page 57 continues to shimmer with moving black dots and the red and green spiral on page 67 appears to bounce and pulsate whenever I try to look it over. I actually find both of these illusions quite difficult to look at for long periods of time without becoming somewhat dizzy. Even in reading the adjacent pages, particularly with the equiluminant red and green design, I found it difficult to focus on the words on the page, and instead found myself distracted by the dancing designs in my peripheral vision. I did notice, however, that in dimmer light, the image seems less inclined to dizzy me, and I wondered if it had to do with the overall luminosity of the page.
From our readings, I have become more conscious of color constancy in different lightings. I went to visit my mom this weekend, and the light in her bathroom had been changed from a soft, tungsten bulb to a harsher compact fluorescent bulb. In comparing the new light to the soft light in the hallway (still an older tungsten bulb), I realized that I would use the terms “cool, blue light” to describe the fluorescent bulb, while the terms “softer, redder light” would fit better for the tungsten bulb. I wonder what the spectral signatures of the two bulbs would appear like. It took me a while to adjust to the new light bulb in the bathroom. The colors still look the same, despite the drastically different kind of light. The contrast, though, between the hallway light and the bathroom light is impressive and distracting. I don't think I've previously given the lighting in a room enough credit for the tone and mood it sets.
I was very interested in the discussion of the Mona Lisa painting. One of the reasons why I think the smile is more apparent in the peripheral vision than in the central, more detail-oriented vision is that most of her smile's appearance is due to the facial shadows on her cheeks. These shadows are quite visible in peripheral vision, and they create the sensation of a smile. When looking straight on the mouth, the shadows fade back on her face, revealing her actual mouth formation. In examining the image components on page 73, it becomes clear that the shadows are not perceived at all in the central vision, lending support to my theory. I wonder how well we would be able to interpret the expressions on faces viewed only as blurry shadows.
Livingston says “that high-level cognitive processes, such as language, can override low-level processes, like interpreting emotional states” (73). Further proof of this comes from an experiment one of my psychology classes tried two years ago. We did the Stroop Task, which basically involves attempting to read the color of the word instead of reading the actual words. Part of why this is difficult is that our brains (once literate) are so trained to look for and read the letters/words, that it takes effort to overcome the (now) instinct to read the word rather than the color of it.
Monet's Rue Montorgeuil in Paris, Festival of June 30, 1878 (Livingston, p. 75), illustrates a moving picture. Because of the blurry, undefined edges, the painting appears in life-like motion. Poussin's painting, The Rape of the Sabine Women (Livingston, p. 76), which reproduces a scene in exacting detail, on the other hand, appears still and more like a snap-shot than a moving piece of art. This difference reminds me of a technique I learned for photography. In order to take a picture of an object in motion and make the picture look like it's in motion, either the object or the background must be blurry. Usually, people prefer the background to be blurry, since the object is the point of focus for the photograph. If instead, the photographer uses a faster shutter speed and keeps the camera stationary, the image appears stationary, and the feel of motion is lost. It is only through this blurry quality that a still image can give the appearance of motion and action.
In Livingston's explanations of the “where” and “what” systems of visual processing, she relies heavily on evolutionary biological explanations for the development of these systems. Solso also directs our attention to the evolutionary process that resulted in the development of our current eyes (and that they were not intended to look upon art, but for survival needs) (Solso, p. 84-86). I am curious though, how we know that only the primates have developed the “what” system. What sorts of tests can be/have been employed with animals?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I found Kit's mention of the Stroop test very interesting. I am familiar with that test. Yet what I found interesting was that she brought up the idea of processing the written word. There is so much involved in processing an image; what is just as or even more astounding is our ability to process the written word. I do not only mean the brain's ability to take in words, recognize them, and string them together into coherent thoughts, but the steps that must occur before that. First of all, there is the task of taking the words in, much in the same way we take an image in. Most often, when reading, the type is in black and the background white. Livingstone brings up the idea that depending on the lighting we are in, the black and white tints on a newspaper can change. Yet, we are still able to view it as black on white. Our ability to use color constancy makes that possible. I wonder if such a task was more difficult for Mr. R, whose entire world was in gray tones. For us, a black and white contrast stands out against a highly colored world. Yet in a world of gray tones, would the black and white contrast of the page be less noticeable? Second, Livinstone discussed peripheral vision and our ability to focus in on something despite the fact that we have peripheral vision. This is amazing when you think about it--that we are not constantly distracted by all that is in our visual field, and our brain is able to focus either in a central or peripheral way. The Stroop test shows us how visually hung up on words we are, and I wonder if it is nature or nurture that makes us this way. It would make sense at first to say that reading is a learned behavior, and society is who taught us to place such an emphasis on words. This is true. However, there is something to be said about recognizing contours. Livingstone says that "even babies, who have not learned the convention of line drawings, have no trouble recognizing line drawings of familiar objects" (61). And what are letters if not line drawings? The point I am trying to make is that perhaps part of why we are attracted to words is that they are solid line drawings, something we are perhaps innately attracted to.
I wanted to expand on Kit's analysis of Mona Lisa’s smile because that part of the reading really struck a cord with me as well. It is without a doubt one of the biggest enigmas in the art world. The ambiguity of her expression has been a point of debate for scholars and art aficionados alike because it can change depending on perspective and lighting. Seeing the “smile” manifest itself in the hazy, indistinct image of her face versus disappearing in the fine detailed image was astonishing because it demonstrates how complex the human eye is and how it has the power to see the same image in two completely different ways. Livingston also went on to talk about how she believed that a liar could be more accurately detected by simply examining their face in a blurred state rather than by hearing what they have to say.
I was curious to try this myself so I asked my roommate to tell me two statements: one that was a truth and one that was a lie in order to see if I could spot the difference. I tried squinting my eyes at first in order to get a blurred effect but that did not really give me the outcome I wanted to I stared at the wall next to her face for about twenty seconds until my vision was fuzzy and then slowly directed my gaze onto her. I did actually end up identifying the lie from the fact but whether that was simply coincidence or the success of the experiment was really hard to say. However, when I blurred my vision I did notice that something about my roommate’s eyes and forehead changed a little as if there was a greater tension in that area. If anyone else has time to try this I would like to hear what the experience was like for you.
For me, the idea of a where and a what system as evolutionary distinct was very interesting. The idea that our brains have developed beyond the simple recognition of fruit on the tree to be able to understand much more information.
This also serves to help us think about what may separate us from other animals and to think about how they're "what" systems may have evolved and to what function. Also going with this logic, what was beneficial evolutionarily for our brains to be able to perceptively process at a higher level?
It is also interesting to think about how these processes are largely separate biologically and neurologically, while in our head they are very much integrated, as the stroop test shows.
Post a Comment