On Reflection


by Jonathan Miller
1998, London, National Gallery Publications
ISBN: 1 85709 236 8

Reviewed by Wilfred Niels Arnold


Jonathan Miller, who enjoys formal training in the natural sciences and medicine, has been praised on both sides of the Atlantic for his many and varied media accomplishments. Be it on stage, in television, or with the printed word, and engaged with anything from offbeat comedy, through Shakespeare, to "The Body in Question," he is noted for novel and entertaining perspectives. The present book, "On Reflection," was published as a companion to one of Dr. Miller's recent projects, an exhibition at London's National Gallery of 60 art works entitled "Mirror Image."

There are color reproductions on almost every page and the narrative glides through 15 chapters dealing with subjects such as the qualities of gleam, shine, flare, glimmer, and lustre; the differences between reflections in ponds and windows compared with mirrors; and analyses of artist's self-portraits. The art is nicely reproduced on good quality paper. The content of the captions is frequently repeated in the text, as if offering a choice between long and short journeys for the reader. A list of the art works in the exhibition (by gallery room), a picture list in the book (by page), a selected bibliography of 55 entries, and an index that works, are assembled on the final 25 pages. The digits and title on the even-numbered pages are printed as mirror images; this quirky device was supposedly the brain child of the designer. Application to the first few pages would have made the point.

Not surprisingly, most of the chosen paintings include mirrors in their compositions, some almost filling the picture others seemingly registering as an aside. Miller spends considerable time on psychological aspects of mirrors and reflections, for looking at and looking through, seeing backwards, and as metaphors for mind and soul. Our commentator is also adroit at discovering detail and, at times a bit pedantic, telling us where to look and the intent of the artist! More mundane explanations, for example that many of the old masters were simply demonstrating virtuosity by pulling off difficult renditions on a flat surface, are given scant attention. Likewise, I was surprised that the discussion of Edouard Manet's "Bar at the Folies-Berg¦re" neglected to mention the distinct possibility that the artist painted the barmaid and her mirror image on separate days and "got-it-wrong," albeit with an intriguing end result. These are minor criticisms.

On the other hand, failure to find as much science as I anticipated was a bit of a disappointment. For example, modern photometric devices can be used to scan both painting and subject and in some of the present cases of reflections from polished pots and armor it would have been of interest to quantify the degrees of exaggeration the artists employed. Although there are only a small number of line drawings some of them, for instance the diagram on page 121 depicting the fields of view for left and right eye and the overlapping region, do not have enough information in the caption for someone without prior knowledge of the subject. Also, the composite figure on page 91, showing birds-eye views of subject, mirror, and image, contains an unfortunate error. The last panel depicting the emotional distress arising from the mannequin jumping behind its own image has the part in the hairline of the former on the wrong side, it should be on the red-sleeve side of the head.

The borderlands of the hard sciences and the arts are rough hoeing. All too often the science suffers because the cultivator is undecided about the depth that readers will accept. A successful balance was obtained by Vicki Bruce and Andy Young for "In the Eye of the Beholder: the Science of Face Perception," which was recently reviewed in Leonardo. "On Reflection," is a visually attractive book, but will be more frequently picked up from a coffee table than pulled from a reference shelf.