Robert Pepperell

Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art

Indeterminate art, in which familiar objects are only suggestive, invokes a perceptual conundrum as apparently detailed and vivid images resist identification. We hypothesized that compared with paintings that depict meaningful content, object recognition in indeterminate images would be delayed, and tested whether aesthetic affect depends on meaningful content. Subjects performed object recognition and judgment of aesthetic affect tasks. Response latencies were significantly longer for indeterminate images and subjects perceived recognizable objects in 24% of these paintings. Although the aesthetic affect rating of all paintings was similar, judgement latencies for the indeterminate paintings were significantly longer. A surprise memory test revealed that more representational than indeterminate paintings were remembered and that affective strength increased the probability of subsequent recall. Our results suggest that perception and memory of art depend on semantic aspects, whereas, aesthetic affect depends on formal visual features. The longer latencies associated with indeterminate paintings reflect the underlying cognitive processes that mediate object resolution. Indeterminate art works therefore comprise a rich set of stimuli with which the neural correlates of visual perception can be investigated.

Give Me Gestalt! Preference for Cubist Artworks Revealing High Detectability of Objects

In cubist paintings by Picasso, Braque and Gris it is possible to detect everyday objects like guitars, bottles or jugs, although they are often difficult to decipher. In this art-science collaborative study the authors found that participants without expertise in cubism appreciated cubist artworks more if they were able to detect concealed objects in them. The finding of this strong correlation between detectability and preference offers wide implications for art history and human cognition as it points to a mechanism that allows us to derive pleasure from searching for and finding meaningful patterns.

Seeing without Objects: Visual Indeterminacy and Art

ABSTRACT This article discusses the perceptual phenomenon of visual indeterminacy in an art-historical and scientific context and considers the phenomenons role in certain heightened states of awareness. Further philosophical implications of the phenomenon are discussed, specifically the suggestion that visual indeterminacy may point to an inherent contradiction in the relationship between mind and world. This discussion is then related to a body of artwork produced by the author over some 20 years. The article concludes that visual indeterminacy is a fruitful subject for further interdisciplinary research, as it draws on ideas from the arts, sciences and humanities.

Einstein Picasso: Space, Time, and the Beauty that Causes Havoc, and: Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain (review)

If we are to find a reliable way of integrating knowledge between science and art, then the intellectual traffic must pass in more than one direction. There seems to be no shortage of scientists willing to make low-level interventions in art theory using insights from their own fields to generate apparently novel interpretations of cultural artifacts. Along with the two authors reviewed here, we could also mention the surgeon Leonard Shlain, the physicist Erich Harth and the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, along with the neurologist V.S. Ramachandran, whose ideas on the neurology of art appreciation form the basis of this year’s Reith lectures for the BBC (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2 003/reith2003_lecture3.shtml ). One is hard pressed, however, to name any prominent artists who have attempted equally serious interventions in, say, advanced neuroscience, laparoscopic surgery, particle physics or evolutionary psychology. Were they to try, it is likely their efforts would receive— let’s put it diplomatically—a “guarded” reception. Indeed, my experience when commenting on matters scientific, or even philosophical, to members of those communities is that an artist’s views can often be entertained with polite interest and then bracketed. The fact that specialists from a wide spectrum of disciplines feel qualified to critically engage with art may be a positive testament to its pervasive cultural resonance. But there must be other reasons why so many scientists feel compelled to devote so much intellectual energy to revealing what art seems to keep hidden: are such projects the indulgent byproducts of an already well-established reputation, are they symptomatic of an inadequacy in orthodox art history, or do they actually represent an emerging kind of human knowledge that harmonizes hitherto inconsonant disciplines? In his book Einstein Picasso, Arthur I. Miller, the eminent historian of science, stokes the ongoing debate about the connections between avant-garde Parisian art and theoretical physics in the period leading up to the First World War. As we approach the centenary of the birth of both cubism and relativity, it seems the possibility of their having had some contemporary symbiosis continues to fascinate. Miller produces a “parallel biography” of two titanic figures in order to demonstrate how in their early careers “they were both working on the same problem” (sleeve note and p. 174)—the problem being the limitations of classical representations of space and time. It’s worth saying that this is a hotly contested claim with heavyweight art historians, including Linda Dalrymple Henderson and John Richardson, categorically rejecting any cross-pollination between Einstein’s theories and the development of cubism. (The other significant volume on the subject, Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time and Light by Leonard Shlain [1993], is oddly not mentioned by Miller.) There are undoubtedly some striking parallels between the early circumstances of both Picasso and Einstein: both experienced periods of poverty and rejection, both relied on a close circle of friends for intellectual nourishment, and both produced—almost simultaneously—seminal work that entirely reshaped their respective disciplines. Moreover, they each drew on the work of polymath Henri Poincaré, Einstein quite directly and Picasso through the conduit of his friend Maurice Princet. But it is the philosophical proximity of cubism and relativity that seems, in retrospect, to need accounting for, and it is the nature of this proximity—in what ways were cubism and relativity similar?—that to my mind leaves the greatest scope for misinterpretation. Miller is among those who see both projects as essentially reductionist, which is to say that each seeks to expose some underlying, geometric sub-structure of reality that would remain otherwise concealed. He is not alone in taking this line, and it chimes with views about cubism that were expressed at the time cubism came to critical notice. So, for example, we read that: “For their [Picasso and

Connecting Art and the Brain: An Artist's Perspective on Visual Indeterminacy

In this article I will discuss the intersection between art and neuroscience from the perspective of a practicing artist. I have collaborated on several scientific studies into the effects of art on the brain and behavior, looking in particular at the phenomenon of “visual indeterminacy.” This is a perceptual state in which subjects fail to recognize objects from visual cues. I will look at the background to this phenomenon, and show how various artists have exploited its effect through the history of art. My own attempts to create indeterminate images will be discussed, including some of the technical problems I faced in trying to manipulate the viewers perceptual state through paintings. Visual indeterminacy is not widely studied in neuroscience, although references to it can be found in the literature on visual agnosia and object recognition. I will briefly review some of this work and show how my attempts to understand the science behind visual indeterminacy led me to collaborate with psychophysicists and neuroscientists. After reviewing this work, I will discuss the conclusions I have drawn from its findings and consider the problem of how best to integrate neuroscientific methods with artistic knowledge to create truly interdisciplinary approach.

Do Artists Use Linear Perspective to Depict Visual Space

The question of how to accurately depict visual space has fascinated artists, architects, scientists, and philosophers for hundreds of years. Many have argued that linear perspective, which is based on well-understood laws of optics and geometry, is the correct way to record visual space. Others have argued that linear perspective projections fail to account for important features of visual experience, and have proposed various curvilinear, subjective, and hyperbolic forms of perspective instead. In this study we compare three sets of artistic depictions of real-world scenes with linear perspective versions (photographs) of the same scenes. They include a series of paintings made by one of the authors, a selection of landscape paintings by Paul Cézanne, and a set of drawings made as part of a controlled experiment by people with art training. When comparing the artworks with the photographs depicting the same visual space, we found consistent differences. In the artworks the part of the scene corresponding to the central visual field was enlarged compared with the photograph, and the part corresponding to the peripheral field was compressed. We consider a number of factors that could explain these results.

Computer aided creativity: practical experience and theoretical concerns

In this paper I will outline some of the practical experiences and theoretical concerns that have informed some 15 years of research into the relationship between human creativity and technology. I will discuss a number of approaches to the design of effective creativity enhancing systems and identify the key theoretical concerns that have informed the practical research. Finally, I will present some conclusions about the nature of human and synthetic creativity arising from my published work. At conference the paper will be presented using a variety of audio-visual illustrations.

3D modeling and motion parallax for improved videoconferencing

We consider a face-to-face videoconferencing system that uses a Kinect camera at each end of the link for 3D modeling and an ordinary 2D display for output. The Kinect camera allows a 3D model of each participant to be transmitted; the (assumed static) background is sent separately. Furthermore, the Kinect tracks the receiver’s head, allowing our system to render a view of the sender depending on the receiver’s viewpoint. The resulting motion parallax gives the receivers a strong impression of 3D viewing as they move, yet the system only needs an ordinary 2D display. This is cheaper than a full 3D system, and avoids disadvantages such as the need to wear shutter glasses, VR headsets, or to sit in a particular position required by an autostereo display. Perceptual studies show that users experience a greater sensation of depth with our system compared to a typical 2D videoconferencing system.

Comparing artistic and geometrical perspective depictions of space in the visual field

Which is the most accurate way to depict space in our visual field? Linear perspective, a form of geometrical perspective, has traditionally been regarded as the correct method of depicting visual space. But artists have often found it is limited in the angle of view it can depict; wide-angle scenes require uncomfortably close picture viewing distances or impractical degrees of enlargement to be seen properly. Other forms of geometrical perspective, such as fisheye projections, can represent wider views but typically produce pictures in which objects appear distorted. In this study we created an artistic rendering of a hemispherical visual space that encompassed the full visual field. We compared it to a number of geometrical perspective projections of the same space by asking participants to rate which best matched their visual experience. We found the artistic rendering performed significantly better than the geometrically generated projections.

The perception of art and the science of perception

For many centuries, artists have studied the nature of visual experience and how to convincingly render what we see. The results of these investigations can be found in all the countless artworks deposited in museums and galleries around the world. Works of art represent a rich source of ideas and understanding about how the world appears to us, and only relatively recently have those interested in the science of vision started to appreciate the many discoveries made by artists in this field. In this paper I will discuss some key insights into vision and perception revealed by artists, and show how they can help current thinking in science and technology about how best to understand the process of seeing. In particular, I will suggest some artistic ideas continue to present fundamental challenges to conventional ideas about the nature of visual experience and how it is represented.