Looking
Into Pictures: An Interdisciplinary Approach
to Pictorial Space
by Heiko Hecht, Robert Schwartz, and Margaret
Atherton (Eds.)
The MIT Press, Cambridge MA,. 2003
435 pp., illus. 126 b/w, 5 col. Trade,
$ 58.00
ISBN: 0-262-08310-8.
Reviewed by Fred Andersson
Department of Art History and Musicology
Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund,
Sweden
konstfred@hotmail.com
This acclaimed volume is a collection
of papers and texts by philosophers and
psychologists from both sides of the Atlantic,
published two years ago. It presents,
in a comprehensive manner, an important
move within current picture theory towards
"reconsidering pictorial space".
Of utmost importance here is the implied
distinction between pictorial space (or
different kinds of pictorial spaces)
and ordinary perceptual space: a distinction
that many psychologists have failed to
make. Now, I will begin with some rather
personal and preliminary reflections before
regarding each individual contribution
in the book. Because from my perspective,
as an art historian with an interest in
pictorial semiotics, the project of reconsidering
pictorial space has to be placed in a
wider context before the details of individual
projects can be scrutinized. For me, the
main question is a rather basic one: Could
the changed understanding of pictorial
space further a better dialogue between
disciplines such as art history and psychology?
Could both sides gain something from such
a dialogue? I think the answer is yes,
and I think that books such as this one
are absolutely necessary for the dialogue
to happen at all.
On the other hand, it may not seem obvious
at first sight why an art historian or
even an "art theorist" or "art
critic" should be interested in psychology
at all. Our aesthetic and historical science
or Wissenschaft (as we prefer say in Sweden,
like in Germany) is generally idiographic,
not nomothetic. In other words: we write
of the uniqueness of single phenomena,
or of the specificity of the specific,
just as implied by the Greek etymology
of the word "idiographic" (idios
/ grafein). We are interested in interpretations
of certain actions, works and utterances.
We are also interested in the historical
and hermeneutic ground for such interpretations.
And from semiotic theoretical perspective,
we might inquire not only what something
means and why it means this (in
relation to the historical "situatedness"
of every interpretation), but also how
it means. We might, in other words, inquire
the constitution of actions, works and
utterances as signs.
Those psychological and aesthetic theories
that never reach the level of culturally
determined signs and interpretations are
then deemed to be quite uninteresting
for us. We easily recognize the danger
of an approach such as that of Semir Zeki
in his Inner VisionZeki clearly
aims at a biological interpretation of
the whole cultural history of images,
but the distance between such broad historical
hypothesizing and the rather limited physiological
phenomena isolated by modern brain science
must be judged as way too far. To explain
art historical development as some kind
of unconscious consequence of the modularity
of vision (kinetic art as the art of region
V5, to take one example from Zeki) would
from our perspective amount to just one
speculative trend among many others.
Equally problematic in this context are
theories that simply take for granted
that looking at a picture is just like
looking at a real scene, and/or that pictures
couldnt possibly be defined as signs.
Because from our perspective, the interesting
thing isnt the various possible
similarities between image and reality,
but rather the ways in which they differ.
Part of the meaning of any work lies in
its deviation in relation to established
norms for the representation of reality
and society, and in relation to what is
considered to be normal vision. These
deviations are rhetorical in a
most basic sense, in that they exhibit
the character of the image as image or
the utterance as utterance, not as image
or utterance of some denoted thing.
This gives even images a basic sign quality
in terms of connotationsi.e. features
that are exclusively connected to the
Expression plane of the sign, thus indicating
a rupture between a possible Expression
plane and a possible Content plane (I
write "possible", because pictorial
semiotics still operates at a rather tentative
and open level). If we, on the contrary,
suppose the existence of an image that
is just like reality, it would have neither
this division between Expression and Content,
nor any connotative qualities connected
to the Expression plane. It would therefore
be meaningless in a strict sense, i.e.
completely transparent and neutral. And,
to finally acknowledge the utmost absurdity:
It would even be Reality itself .
Anyone would realize that this idea is
absurd, and that images must be something
else than Reality. Still, images have
constantly appeared in mainstream psychological
experiments and literature as surrogates
for and equivalents of real scenes. From
classical Gestalt theory and onwards,
psychologists have faced serious difficulties
in coming to terms with the difference
between 2D and 3D perception, in case
this difference was even acknowledged.
Due perhaps to the fact that images were
used as surrogates for real scenes, psychologists
have had a limited conception of typical
image-hood or picture-hood: as if an image
per definitionem must be a photograph
or a drawing/painting in linear perspective.
This limited approach has come to be known
as the projective model of pictorial
space: the notion that an image typically
is a 2D projection or "shadow"
of a 3D distal object, seen from one single
viewpoint.
This model was challenged in the 1980s,
notably by Margaret A. Hagen, whose propositions
in Varieties of Realism and other
texts stirred some controversy. If we
refrain from the culturally determined
idea that pictorial realism equals projective
and/or photographic realism, so goes Hagens
basic line of argument, then there is
no reason to believe that any system of
depiction would be more optically valid
than another, and consequently there is
"no development in art". This
seems to be in tune with anthropological
relativism and the semiotic turn in picture
theory: Any kind of image would be considered
as merely a selection of relevant aspects
and structures of the visual world, and
no specific kind of selection would be
preferred as the absolutely normal and
neutral case.
Hagens position is however open
to various criticism. For example: if
there is no development in art (i.e. in
the construction of pictorial spaces),
how would we then account for the fact
that a photograph by means of its mechanical
generation is at least a close approximation
of what happens when optical rays reflected
from surrounding objects project themselves
on to the retina of the eye? How is it
possible to deny that the invention of
such images was once a novelty, constituting
a new development in terms of realism?
Wouldnt that be tantamount to denying
that the basic functions of everyday vision
must be essentially the same for all humans
and all cultures? Wouldnt the absence
of development also imply the absence
of a shared reality or world-view against
which such development could be measured?
If this is a relevant philosophical problem
(and Im not at all sure that it
is), then Ernst Gombrichs explanation
of art historical change would face a
different and even diametrically opposed
problem. In analogy with Poppers
dictum for the general theory of science,
Gombrich saw the image as a kind of hypothesis
to be falsified and replaced by more accurate
images when tested against sensuous visual
experience. If we stick to theories of
this kind, there would be no doubt that
there is a shared Reality in a strong
sense: i.e. a Reality outside of subjective
experiences, completely external to the
mind. Under such conditions, and contrary
to Hagens view, there would necessarily
be development in art (or in "image-making"),
just because we would never know if an
image or even vision itself corresponds
to the real world "out there".
The problem is that this approach furthers
a traditional, normative version of art
history, in which art aims at some ideal
(even Hegelian) correspondence between
image and reality, and in which periods
without realism in a classical or Western
sense are seen more or less as periods
of decline. It is at this point that Hagens
theory becomes highly interesting as a
challenge to art history as a discipline.
Its a wonder that it hasnt
caused more attention outside of psychology.
Maybe the reason is that it is still very
hard to even understand what it would
mean that there is no development in art.
Were surely too stuck with developmental
and teleological thinking: a one-sided
Western "perspective".
To reconsider pictorial space is to offer
a new framework for posing and understanding
questions of this kindquestions
about the relation between Image and Reality.
It gives art historians and other non-psychologists
a good reason to study psychology, and
furthers an interdisciplinary approach
in which the whole process of construction
and reception of images is under scrutiny,
rather than just a fine-grained analysis
of the reception of isolated stimuli.
Three elements would be indispensable
for such an approach. First: to consider
the fact that an image is in itself an
object in space and not just the equivalent
of some proximal stimulus on the retina.
This approach means that there is always
a dual character of picture perception:
we perceive the picture as material object
at the same time as we perceive the image
that is visible in the object.
Second: to consider the fact that there
are many kinds of images other than flat
ones in linear perspective, and also many
situations in which we see something in
something else, without referring to these
experiences as images. Third: to consider
the fact that to look at something and
to construct an external image of it are
two very different things: the eye is
neither a camera, nor a simple perspective
device.
The volume at hand has three thematic
sections corresponding quite exactly to
these elements. Part one is called "The
Dual Nature of Picture Perception";
part two, "The Status of Perspective";
and part three, "The Nature and Structure
of Reconceived Pictorial Space".
Part one is prefigured by Richard Wollheims
essay "In defense of seeing-in"a
comprehensive introduction to his influential
theory of seeing-in, and also a
beautiful piece of writing. What makes
Wollheims theory so important, and
even indispensable in any basic curriculum
about picture perception, is that it offers
a clear-cut philosophical distinction
between Shape, Image and Illusion. The
simplest shape always offers the possibility
of seeing it as somethinglike
Wittgenstein did when he gave a list of
possible interpretations of a triangle
in his Philosophical investigations.
This is a conscious, fully cognitive act.
Its very different from seeing-into
immediately see someone or something in
the image. And this process is, in turn,
very different from simply seeing
something, and to be fully convinced that
its real. In some cases this conviction
turns out to be wrongthen, and only
then, we have an illusion in the strict
sense. One of Gombrichs many mistakes
was that he insisted on a close connection
between Image and Illusion, which also
meant that he neglected the difference
between knowing and not knowing that something
is fictional. Wollheims account
offers a much better ground for further
investigations.
In the same section, there are a number
of illuminating examples of how such investigations
might be done. Rainer Mausfeld draws upon
a wide range of interdisciplinary research
to demonstrate that the dual nature of
picture perception is but one example
of a general human ability of experiencing
simultaneous and sometimes conflicting
aspects of one and the same phenomenon
(the duality of metaphors and other rhetorical
figures of language is one other example).
H. A. Sedgwick discusses some important
explanations of depth perception in direct
vision and in images. Reinhard Niederée
and Dieter Heyer sketches the outlines
of a revised model of picture perception
that takes the dual aspect seriously,
and that considers the whole range of
non-photographic, non-planar and/or non-pictorial
cases in which something is seen in something
else (for example in a curved mirror,
a shadow or a sculpture). They also offer
some useful diagrams.
Mark Rollins summarizes this section and
presents what he calls SDT (Strategic
Design Theory) as a general attempt in
current cognitive science to reconcile
the classic conflict between "top-down"
psychological theories that emphasize
constructivist explanations (as those
typically referred to by Gombrich) and
"bottom-up" theories that prefer
to explain recognition and depth perception
as direct or even innate (including Gestalt
theory, the ecological approach of James
J. Gibson, and Rudolf Arnheims stance
within art theory). There is a general
agreement today among both neurologists
and cognitive theorists that this conflict
has become obsolete in the light of new
findings. According to SDT, innate capabilities
combined with "trial and error"
of the constructivist type can form "perceptual
strategies" in individual development.
This is still a quite fresh area, and
Rollins essay is maybe the one contribution
that would be hardest for a non-academic
reader to comprehend. Because in order
to understand what a combination of opposites
would mean, one first has to understand
the opposition . . .
Typical of some "top-down" theories
is the claim that Western or linear perspective
is merely a convention (and not, as with
Margaret Hagen, one valid pictorial
space among others). In the strongest
sense, this view would mean that there
is no natural connection at all between
an optical array and its projection in,
for example, a photograph. Nelson Goodman
once expressed this view as a part of
his basically nominalist conviction that
likeness is not a decisive factor for
depiction at all. However, it seems that
Goodman mixed up two different things
here. Its true that several different
objects can generate the same 2D pattern
if projected, and that the patterns thereby
can yield different interpretations. But
this doesnt necessarily imply that
the optical rules of projection are in
themselves arbitrary. The generation of
a pattern is something else than the interpretation
of the same pattern.
Another flaw in many accounts that take
the conventional nature of perspective
for granted is that we are supposed to
experience our natural environment almost
like a globe seen from the inside: All
lines would then be curved, and they would
converge in all possible directions. Such
notions are very popular among both artists
and art historiansI once embraced
them fully myself. But whatever the phenomenological
reality of curved, subjective space (it
would belong to peripheral vision and
maybe even to the "optical unconscious"
in the terms of Rosalind Krauss), we know
that the straight lines are straight because
in our brains the curved projection on
the retina is straightened out. Here again,
we have to make a clear distinction between
the generation and the interpretation
of a given 2D pattern. And the assumption
that a truly naturalist painter would
represent all straight lines as curved
is as illogical as the assumption of one
writer who once supposed that the deformations
of space in Paul Cézannes paintings
were due to a hypothetical astigmatism
of the artist. Say that Cézanne
was really an astigmaticthen he
would have seen some contours as double
and/or distorted. Had he then depicted
them just the way he saw them, the depiction
would have been perfectly correct by any
naturalist standards. Because when comparing
the canvas and the 3D scene, the astigmatic
would of course see the same distortion
in both!
In section two of the book ("The
Status of Perspective") five authors
give us an abundance of useful and revealing
arguments against forced conventionalism.
With some clear and simple demonstrations,
the German philosopher Klaus Rehkämper
shows exactly what could be expected as
well as not expected from the use of a
linear perspective device. I think this
short and brilliant text should fit as
an obligatory in any basic course of art,
photography, or art history. Rehkämpers
compatriot, the semiotician and communication
theorist Klaus Sachs-Hombach, defines
in the same section the basic assumptions
of contemporary pictorial semiotics. This
is a theory in which the sign character
of images doesnt require arbitrary
signs (like Umberto Eco and others supposed
in the 1960s) but a sign relation grounded
in a visual resemblance between the Expression
plane and the Content plane. Sachs-Hombach
also makes clear that in order for this
definition to work, resemblance as a condition
for the pictorial sign cant be sufficient,
only necessary. This means, roughly spoken,
that the resemblance resulting from a
projection or from other analogue relations
is something else than the interpretation
of such relations, which brings us back
to the basic distinction between patterns
and interpretations of patterns.
The third contributor here, John Willats,
makes a similar distinction in terms of
optical laws and symbolical rules. In
a decisively anti Hagen argument,
he proposes a developmental theory in
which the alleged stages of childrens
drawing abilities are translated into
a taxonomy of what Willats calls denotation
systems and drawing systems.
His three classes of denotation systems
correspond to the three types of formal
elements traditionally assigned to painting:
1) Optical, such as dots and hatchings,
2) Linear, such as strokes and
contours, and 3) Planar, i.e. 3D
objects as represented by 2D regions.
His five drawing systems correspond to
the developmental stages from primitive
to high order properties in the rendering
of the visual world: 1) The topological
drawing, such as tadpole figures,
2) The orthogonal projection, as
in engineering drawings, 3) The variants
of oblique projection, such as Japanese
perspective 4) Perspective in the
narrow sense, and finally 5) Inverted
perspective, as in the ancient icons
of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Each one of these denotation systems and
drawing systems might, according to Willats,
include the application of both optical
laws and symbolical rules. The combinations
of the categories, for example tadpole
figures as topological with regard to
the drawing system and as linear/planar
with regard to the denotation system,
would then be optically lawful to a greater
or lesser degree, and to a greater or
lesser degree subjected to symbolical
(i.e. conventional) rules when interpreted.
This approach is, as Ive already
indicated, decisively anti Hagen:
Because it implies once again that realism
is a matter of development. Willats writes:
"The flaw in Hagens argument
is that some periods in art history do
show a definite developmental sequence,
and this is also true in the development
of childrens drawings" (p.
129). This is the only passage in which
Willats explicitly addresses art history.
One should object that he too readily
seems to take for granted the analogy
between the development of individuals
and the development of cultures. As for
his reference to "some periods",
it would be interesting to know what periods
he has in mind. Would he mean our standard
Western examples of increasing realism:
Archaic-Classic-Hellenistic, Cimabue-Giotto-Masaccio?
What would such isolated examples be worth
from a wider, anthropological perspective?
The cave paintings of early Paleoliticum
might, as with Hagen, serve as powerful
counter-examples.
Such reservations aside, one of the indisputable
merits of Willats contribution is
that he reworks old distinctions into
a valid and coherent system for image
description. Thats what picture
theory and pictorial semiotics basically
needs. Another merit is that he fully
acknowledges the fact that all depiction
cant be described in terms of projective
geometry. In his related essay, Patrick
Maynard offers a number of exciting examples
of visual analogies and resemblances with
no causal links involved. He then goes
on to suggest that to truly reconsider
pictorial space, we must relate the phenomenon
of "3D to 2D" to the wider field
of depiction in general. This idea means
that we would have to really describe
the contents and devices of such diverse
phenomena as sculpture, figural ornamentation,
pictograms and so on. Such descriptions
would involve not only transitions from
3D to 2D, but also from full 3D to relief,
from 2D to 1D (shapes as represented by
orientations) and from 1D to 0D (relations
as represented by positions). At least
this is what could be inferred from Maynards
closing arguments. And Im sure that
such a project would actually be the
project for an extended interdisciplinary
program combining art historical, psychological
and semiotic perspectives.
The example that Maynard gives in this
context also demonstrates another dual
function that images can have: as image
and as decoration. Of the example in question,
an octopus ornament on a Mycenean pot
from the 12th Century BC, Maynard
writes that: "the image pays the
pot back, for the decorates the
pot". Thus, the literal curvature
of the pot enhances the dynamic, floating
curvature of the depicted animal. Such
examples are important, because not one
point in this ornament may correspond
to any view we might get of a real octopus,
and yet the depiction as a whole is so
compelling. By contrast, Robert Hopkins
essay in the same section represents a
much more narrow account of the "convention
vs. resemblance" debate, limited
to issues of veridicality in depiction
of spatial detail.
The third section ("The Nature and
Structure of Reconceived Pictorial Space")
comprises various aspects of the experience
of pictorial space in terms of depth recognition,
depth discrimination, and spatio-temporal
logic. James E Cutting focuses on the
compression of space in photography with
lenses of different length (from short
to telephoto) and how such compression
means a shift of the implied position
of the observer in relation to the image.
Sheena Rogers presents an empirical study
of how observers tend to judge the veridicality
of sizes and distances in relation to
the horizon ratio in images. The team
of John M. Kennedy, I Juricevic and J.
Bai give an overview of findings regarding
corners, lines, and points as carriers
of information about the contours of represented
objects. Hermann Kalkofen considers a
number of examples of images that violate
the expected norms that pictures dont
show the observer, that they should utilize
only one principle of projection at a
time, and that they should conform to
the "unity of space and time".
He considers, in other words, a number
of "irreconcilable views".
But the most extensive as well as the
most intriguing contribution here is Jan
J. Koenderinks and Andrea J. van
Doorns inquiry into depth discrimination.
Using a simple but sophisticated experimental
design, Koenderink & van Doorn make
observers record their estimations of
pictorial relief in images by tilting
a gauge device on a computer screen in
relation to specific points in the image.
The data are then mapped on to 3D renderings
of the pictorial relief generated
by each single observer. The images used
are photographs of figurative and abstract
sculpture (Brancusi). This process makes
the experiment extra interesting for us
art historians, who are often faced by
the difficulty of photographing 3D works
without making them appear flat. The choice
of objects also makes it possible to enquire
the extent to which depth discrimination
is dependent on the familiarity of the
thing seen.
As for materials, the smooth character
of marble sculpture is an important factor
in a related experiment reported by Koenderink
& van Doorn. Here, the observer is
asked to consider specific points on the
surface of a torso as seen in a photograph,
and to mark the corresponding points in
another photo of the same torso, taken
from another angle. The task would be
expected to be especially difficult if
the spatial transitions of the object
are very smooth, as in this case. The
experiment aims at showing to what extent
information about the 3D extension of
objects are available in single, 2D views
of them. It is thus in complete accordance
with J. J. Gibsons program of ecological
physics: to map the invariants of the
visual environment. Or, differently put:
to map the likenesses and the differences
between picture perception and ecological
perception.
In this account lies the possibility of
a detailed definition of pictorial space
as distinct from 3D, Euclidian space.
It thus reinforces Wollheims notion
of seeing-in. It shows that we
see realistically depicted objects as
literally situated in the surface
of the image, not at all behind
it. To demonstrate this for a student
audience, one just has to show a photograph
of a head in a portrait painting, taken
at an oblique angle of about 45-30 degrees.
All observers will agree that they see
a quite normal head, and not the deformed
shape we would expect from the laws of
trivial projective geometry. (This phenomenon
was recently thematized in a series of
photographs by the Finnish artist Jorma
Puranen.) Using the abovementioned gauging
method, Koenderink and van Doorn have
empirically shown that the difference
in estimated pictorial relief under frontal
and oblique viewing conditions are really
minimal.
Its clear, thus, that pictorial
space is neither identical to the image
surface, nor to the 3D space of distal
objects that it might in some cases depict,
but that it rather constitutes a separate
space in-between. One might say that this
"third space" is neither fully
present (like the literal picture plane),
nor fully absent (like the distal objects).
Edmund Husserl once made a similar distinction
when he spoke of the Bild-Ding
(the image as material object), the Bild-Subjekt
(the image as motive) and the Bild-Objekt
(the depicted thing). In strict semiotic
terms, pictorial space would be a Content
for which the existence or non-existence
of material referents would be completely
irrelevant. Without mentioning semiotics,
Koenderink and van Doorn arrive at a similar
conclusion: "We consider the issue
of veridicality irrelevant in this context".
That picture theory is in this manner
freed from notions of truth and falsehood
can only be of benefit for the increased
knowledge of how images depict,
rather than what and why.