Visual
Thought: The depictive space of perception
(Advances in Consciousness Research: 67)
by Liliana Albertazzi, Editor
John Benjamins Publishing Co., Philadelphia,
PA, 2006
380 pp. Trade, $132.00
ISBN: 978-9027252036.
Reviewed by Amy Ione.
Berkeley, CA 94701
ione@diatrope.com
Those of us who adopt an interdisciplinary
research agenda know that each project
requires technical facility in disciplines
that are often unrelated within the "typical"
academic mindset. Because it is easy to
overreach, groups and organizations that
foster cross-disciplinary thinking are
of the utmost importance to our success.
These structures, at their best, create
environments for communication and exchange,
while encouraging the rigor needed to
do it "right." Leonardo publications
and events, as readers of Leonardo
Reviews know, have long been at the
forefront in forging excellence in cross-disciplinary
approaches and in fostering collaborative
efforts as well. Less well known is the
Mitteleuropa Foundation, an Italian-based
research center in cognitive systems and
ontology, founded in 2002. Their research
group in form analysis, for example, works
on visual perception, emphasizing scientific
phenomenology and Gestalt psychology.
Within this context, they have also reached
out to art practice, Japanese landscape
design, and other areas. Directed by Liliana
Albertazzi (Trento University and Mitteleuropa),
the core group includes (among others)
Athanassios Economou (Georgia Institute
of Technology), Ernest Edmonds (Sydney
University), Frederic Fol Leymarie (Goldsmiths
College, London), Michael Leyton (Rutgers
University and D.I.M.A.C.S), Nancy Nersssian
(Georgia Institute of Technology), Gert
J. van Tonder (Kyoto Institute of Technology),
and Dhanraj Vishwanath (Rochester Institute
of Technology).
Visual Thought: The Depictive Space
of Perception, the first volume produced
highlighting their research, originated
from a 2004 symposium on form perception
and understanding that was devoted to
the primary level of visual appearances
in the phenomenal field. Overall, this
publication wrestles with how we experience
vision and best model its complexity.
Divided into three parts, the authors
present a well-rounded perspective of
the possibilities. Part I examines the
perception of visual spaces, Part II turns
to the depiction of visual spaces, and
Part III, in turn, considers the relationship
between the first two topics. Gestalt
psychology, particularly Rudolf Arnheim’s
writings, is a thread woven throughout
the essays. In this respect, it is a timely
retrospective, given that Arheim died
at the age of 102 on June 9th, 2007.
Like Arnheim, the authors of this book
incorporate experimental analysis, theoretical
arguments, art practice, and design. In
light of the Mitteleuropa Foundation’s
emphasis on Gestalt thinking, the emphasis
on Arnheim’s work was not surprising.
Albertazzi sets the stage for the articles
in an exceptionally well-done introductory
chapter on visual space. Carefully argued
and comprehensively referenced, her essay
examines the diverse types of "spaces"
visual analyses must confront. These include
the optical space of psychophysics and
of neural elaboration, the qualitative
space of phenomenal appearances and the
pictorial space of art. Portraying them
as co-present in our environment, Albertazzi
speaks to the different rules of organization
found in these kinds of "visual spaces."
She also addresses the specific singularity
and reciprocal dependence that must be
individuated as a preliminary step, before
conceiving their implementation in terms
of cognitive agents. The strength of the
chapter is in its overview of the Gestalt
legacy (its thinkers and principles) and
how Gestalt’s history now impacts
experiments, contemporary thought, and
contemporary research and theoretical
fashions.
"Pictorial space, a modern reappraisal
of Adolf Hildebrand" by Jan J. Koenderink
and Andrea J. van Doorn shows how well
conceived the papers are in combining
specific details and generalized information.
In this case, the authors advance the
idea that it is critical that we distinguish
spatial perspectives and analyze the work
of the German sculptor Adolf Hildebrand
to delineate their point. Hildebrand became
interested in perceptual spaces due to
his interactions with the painter Hans
von Mareesand and the philosopher and
theoretician of art and aesthetics Konrad
Fiedler. Surprisingly, although Hildebrand
was a sculptor, his influential treatise
The Problem of Form treats
aesthetic perception as largely pictorial
perception. Graphic illustrations, references
to experimental work, and some discussion
that personalized Hildebrand as an artist
allowed these authors to effectively use
him as a starting point in distinguishing
the structure of pictorial space from
that of visual space, while also showing
where they intersect.
Gert J. van Tonder’s essay was perhaps
the finest in the volume. In it, van Tonder
showed his knack for combining solid scientific
analysis with qualities often seen as
"outside" of the scientific domain. Titled
"Order and complexity in naturalistic
landscapes: on creation, depiction, and
perception of Japanese dry rock gardens,"
he opens with the comment that he knows
that what he intuits as order and complexity
is closely related to his subjective experience
when looking into a classical Japanese
dry rock garden (karesansui) design.
Yet, as he further explains, he also knows
that no specific grid, ratio, clearly
identifiable fractal dimension or other
measure reveals why he experiences the
garden as a calming space innervated by
a subtle balance of tensions. The qualitative
and quantitative tension are addressed
through experimental work that uses a
computational model for image segmentation
using forward-inverse medial axis transformation,
nicely supplemented by his training with
the Ueoto gardening school and
studies of classical gardening history.
This allows van Tonder to convincingly
show that there is substantial overlap
between the visual features that classical
gardeners manipulated and the perceptual
grouping factors used by the Gestalt school
to describe the process of figure-ground
segmentation. In addition, van Tonder
points out that investigations suggest
that karesansui design (focusing
primarily on rocks and trees) simplifies
the segmentation process, equalizes the
salience of parts and wholes over a range
of spatial scales, and balances the salience
of figure and ground. Karesansui
design seems to "recruit" mechanisms of
perceptual completion to reconstruct visual
features that are otherwise too complex
to present in their totality, thereby
achieving even more perceptually complex
results with sparse design compositions
of interest. If there is a downside to
the van Tonder essay, it is its length.
Informative and packed with information,
each paragraph covered so much ground
that I am certain I failed to entirely
digest the depth of the article and the
structure and complexity of the details
he presented.
Equally compelling is Timothy L. Hubbard
and Jon R. Courtney’s "Evidence suggestive
of separate visual dynamics in perception
and in memory." The visuals, experimental
methodology and discussion of dynamics
arising from physical forces provide the
kind of varied frameworks that serve to
make Visual Thought so fascinating.
Here, comparing three "unstable" examples
of frozen action stimuli with aesthetic
artworks that imply movement reminded
me the historical innovators in science
and art who aspired to bring movement
to still pictures (e.g., moving panoramas,
magic lantern theaters, etc.). One section,
on the Tai-chi tao symbol, has stayed
in my mind. A series of schematic alterations
they used in their experiments omitted
the small dot in each side of the yin/yang
symbol. How/whether this small part of
the pattern that is inserted in the duality
of the circle affects the viewer’s
perceptual relationship would be of interest
to me, since it is widely interpreted
as one of the ways this symbol conveys
the idea of the interdependence of all
phenomena to the viewer.
Also of note are essays by Dhanraj Vishwnath,
Barbara Tversky, Alf C. Zimmer,
Jana Hol_ánová, and
Frederic Fol Leymarie. For example,
Dhanraj Vishwnath’s essay, "Coplanar
reflectance change and the ontology of
surface perception" grapples with the
question: what is surface? He further
asks whether the properties and descriptive
modes applicable to a surface specified
in our ontology of the external world
are the same as those that our internal
perceptual ontology specifies. While the
questions may seem simple, his approach
to them was original and quite stimulating.
Taking issue with inferential models of
perception (such as Marr’s), Vishvanath
proposes that representational conflict
is intrinsic to any percept of surfaces
regardless of whether the identity of
surfaces is defined by a change in surface
geometry or lightness alone. While his
proposals and examples were persuasive,
some of the reproductions were hard to
read/comprehend. For example, in Vishwnath’s
essay the three-part figure on coplanar
reflection change failed to make his point
visually. I simply could not see the changes
between the (b) and (c) sequences mentioned
in the caption. Under the image it states
that there was an addition of a thin demarcating
bead along the perimeter of the main surface
discontinuity to perceptually enhance
the discontinuity feature. I found myself
unable to perceive or conceptualize how/where
(b) and (c) differed. I suspect this is
due to inadequate contrast in the printing
or the small size of the graphics.
The last chapter of the book, which celebrates
the contributions of the late John Willats
to the field, added an incredibly human
dimension to the book. I was delighted
the editor decided to include it, and
must admit I read this chapter first.
Jan J. Koenderink’s tribute speaks
of his friendship with Willats, Willat’s
art and academic projects, and how much
the field lost when he passed away. The
tribute brought to mind that vision is
not a dry, academic topic confined to
research agendas. Rather, as those of
us who study it know well, it is something
we experience so fully we are compelled
to learn more about it. Indeed, it is
because what we see "happens to us" that
studies of visual cognition are tantalizing,
thought provoking, and evocative. Willats’
artwork, some of which is reproduced in
this section, further makes this point,
as does his excellent article in the book,
"Rudolf Arnheim’s graphic equivalents
in children’s drawings and drawings
and paintings by Paul Klee." Finally,
Koenderink’s thoughts bring some
fascinating background to Willats’
theory of pictures presented in Art
and Representation, by exposing more
of the man behind the theory.
In summary, the volume combines interdisciplinary
expertise in an examination of conscious
qualitative states in perception. Its
primary theme is the co-presence and interaction
of diverse types of spaces in vision,
like the optical space of psychophysics
and of neural elaboration, the qualitative
space of phenomenal appearances, and its
relation with the pictorial space of art.
The essays agree that these qualitatively
distinct "spaces" follow different rules
of organization, although they co-exist.
Essay after essay affirms that Visual
Thought is a high quality book, one
that expands visual thought beyond science
and philosophy. Nicely combining theory
with experimental work, this book is also
a fine contribution to the many fields
that intersect with our visual experience
in the broadest sense.
