patternsthatconnect

I promise to stop going on about this, after today. I recently posted twice about the optical mixing that goes on when you look at this painting.
The other photo I used seemed to emphasise the blue and green that are there only because you put them there optically. Here is a photo that I think shows that the ‘green’ is physically yellow and the ‘blue’ is physically white. You might even find it difficult to see the green and blue in this shot – which is more like the ‘real thing’.

Strictly speaking it’s not optical mixing here, is it? That would suggest that our eye/brain merges two (or more) colours, but what happens, I think, has more to do with after-images. Maybe the green and blue are after-images we project onto the yellow and white. The longer you look at it, the more you see the blue and green.

How brilliant is this? (a reblog of Michael’s blog, that quotes Richard Wiseman’s blog…) You just click on ‘Read More’ and follow the instruction to follow the instructions in the image. It only takes a few seconds to do, and I think you will love it when you actually do it. See if you can resist smiling!

This was published on Richard Wiseman’s blog today. It’s your own personal rainbow! Follow the instructions in the image. … Read More

via Michael’s Blog

Joel was right! some of us need help to see optical effects. In my recent blog I asked viewers to look at a painting and to note what they saw. I then brought their attention to the subjective formation of white discs. I added a poll to find out how many people saw the white discs without being helped, how many saw them as a result of being helped and whether anyone was unable to see the white discs even after having been directed towards them

When I last looked  we were getting something close to a 50/5o split between “I saw with aid” and “I saw without aid” (with 14% claiming  not to have seen the white discs at all).

I know the research would be much more conclusive with 420 or 4,2000 participants, rather than the 42 that have actually taken part so far. However, if these results are anything like typical of the general population, I suggest they show that there is a role for curators to help us to see. I have often been suspicious of labelling works of art in galleries because the label (a linguistic filtering process) could get in the way of the primary experience (pre-linguistic) of the viewer. Yet, we have seen that helping us to observe what’s there is helpful for something like 50% of us.

I suggest that, in looking at art, we differentiate between the three ‘stages’ of viewing: 1)observation, 2)interpretation and 3) judgement. I could argue that curators more readily help us to do 2 and 3 and that 1 is a more ethical space to occupy.

Oh! And for those who claim not to be able to see the white discs, this is where to look:

Marked to give you an idea - you won't see them where I have drawn round them, but if you look in the corresponding places elsewhere on the grid, then you will, no doubt, see them

My son Joel suggested that some people tend only to see optical effects when someone else brings them to their attention. Will you join me in an experiment?

Look at this painting and note what you see, especially noticing the optical effects.

Glow Grid: abbiedawn, 13 05 11, Acrylic on Canvas, 61cm x 61 cm

Now, did you see the white discs in the middle of the squares, secondary in intensity to the coloured discs, or is it only now I have mentioned it that you can see them?

Please let me have your answer by using this poll

Thanks for your help.

I am fascinated by these subjective glowing discs

They remind me of halos

Do you also start to see glowing white circles  in the centre of each square?

These glowing discs are constructed by our eye/brain, based on certain stimuli. Do you see the outer disc too (not as clear as the central one, clearly)?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Donald D. Hoffman‘s book Visual Intelligence has many wonderful things in it. Here’s one little experiment he says you can do on a napkin and impress your friends.

You start with red lines

and then add black lines as extensions of the red ones (better if the pens are the same tip size , unlike mine)

where does that glowing red disc come from?

(if you don’t see it at first look away slightly or reduce the image )

where does that glowing red disc come from?

even my son Luke must be able to see this one!

And again the question becomes how much of what we see is really out there and how much of it do we construct? An important question, not only for art and science. (Hoffman has some interesting answers in this article .)

He also has some great photos on Flickr here’s a link