kathy white - 517167 - uvc - assignment 1 · 2020. 4. 14. · kathy white 517167 uvc – assignment...

Kathy White 517167 UVC – Assignment 1

- 1 -

Understanding Visual Culture Assignment 1 Part A Brief: Look at the painting The Innocent Eye Test by Mark Tansey (below). The phrase ‘the innocence of the eye’ was coined by the British critic John Ruskin in 1857:

“The whole technical power of painting depends on our recovery of what may be called the innocence of the eye; that is to say, of a sort of childish perception of these flat stains of colour, merely as such, without consciousness of what they signify,-as a blind man would see them if suddenly gifted with sight.”

Consider what Ruskin is saying and give an interpretation of Tansey’s painting in light of this. (1,000 words)

Introduction

Ruskin wrote about the ‘innocence of the eye’ at the beginning of the Realism art movement (1848

to 1900) which, as its name suggests, was primarily concerned with how things appeared to the eye.

Considered to be the first modern art movement, art produced during this time featured detailed

life like depictions. One of the main influences of this movement was the introduction of

photography.

Mark Tansey’s image was painted in 1981, a considerable amount of time after Ruskin had written

about ‘the innocence of the eye’. Art trends had changed greatly between the two events and this

should be considered in my response.

John Ruskin

John Ruskin wrote about ‘the innocence of the eye’ in 1857 in his book The Elements of Drawing.

The text goes on to talk about how as children we discover the colour of things through

experimentation. Ruskin uses the example of sunlit grass appearing yellow. When you compare the

grass with primroses, it’s only when you get between the sun and the grass that you realise it isn’t


- 2 -

yellow. The sun makes one appear that way, whereas the primroses actually are yellow. He

concludes his observation by saying “Very few people have any idea that sunlighted grass is yellow”

(Ruskin, 1857: 64)

Whilst researching for this assignment, I came across an article on the Tate website that referenced

what Ruskin wrote in relation to art produced by children. I don’t agree with this correlation; I

believe Ruskin was referring to painting what we see with a naive eye, painting reality exactly as it is,

as opposed to what we know them to be. Following on from Ruskin’s text above, as adults we know

that grass is green; we have forgotten that when looked at for the first time it would appear yellow

in bright sunlight.

To further understand what Ruskin wrote, I will break it down and analyse each element.

1. “… of a sort of childish perception of these flat stains of colour … “

This would imply that paintings are flat, two dimensional. But depending on where the flat

stains of colour are placed you can create perspective and a third dimension to the image.

2. “… without consciousness of what they signify …”

I think the technical power of painting relies upon the significance of what they signify.

Otherwise what is the purpose of the piece of art?

3. “… as a blind man would see them if suddenly gifted with sight.”

I don’t entirely agree with this analogy. Blind people will already have some element of

understanding of what a view looks like and will know that grass is green. This would

prejudice their view of what they see. Georgina Kleege, in The Visual Culture Reader, writes

about Martin Milligan, a blind philosopher. She says:

He concedes that vision might afford him some aesthetic pleasure

while viewing a landscape or painting, but insists that he can know

what he wants to know about the visible world from verbal


- 3 -

descriptions, and that this knowledge is adequate for his needs, and

only minimally different from the knowledge of sighted people.

(Kleege 2013: 343)

Mark Tansey

Mark Tansey painted The innocent Eye Test in 1981, more than a hundred years after Ruskin first

coined the phrase. It is a painting of a cow looking at a painting of a cow, surrounded by scientists

who are there presumably to see his reaction. Has the cow been tricked into believing the painting is

real?

Most of us will, at some point, have seen how animals react when they see other animals on the

television or see themselves in the mirror. I do a lot of underwater photography and have had

numerous encounters with marine life that see themselves reflected in my glass dome port and

come for a closer look. So why is it not feasible that a cow could be tricked into thinking the painting

is real?

Mark Tansey, The Innocent Eye Test, 1981. Image via The Met.


- 4 -

In reality, I don’t believe it was Tansey’s intention for us to think this could be plausible. Rather it is

making a mockery of the phrase coined by Ruskin. He is suggesting that if we don’t believe a cow

could be fooled then why would we believe a painting could be so realistic that if we looked at it

with an ‘innocent eye” we would believe it is real.

If this is the case, I think maybe it is harsh to make fun of this so long after it was written.

Even so, the painting is comical, even down to the gentleman on the left hand side waiting with a

mop to clear up after the cow!

Maybe Tansey is playing with us and is really testing the viewers innocent eye, rather than the cows.

Do we believe that what we are seeing could be real? The perspective in the image is certainly good

enough to convince us of this. Perhaps he is implying that we are the cow and that we consider the

paintings we view to all be real?

The painting the cow is looking at, “The Young Bull” was painted by Paulus Potter in 1647. I’m not

sure if this is significant or if it could have been any painting of a cow that was used.

Paulus Potter, The Young Bull, 1647. Image via Wikipedia.


- 5 -

Tansey has been clever to conceal the elements of Potter’s painting that aren’t needed by

positioning some of the men in front of where the sheep are and one of them has taken the place of

the shepherd in the original piece of art.

I believe Tansey’s painting makes a point. No matter how realistic a painting is and how good the use

of perspective is; we could not be fooled into thinking it was real; no matter how innocent our eye

is.

(956 words)


- 6 -

Part B Brief:

What are the implications of saying perspective was invented, and what are the implications of saying it was discovered. Assess these two possibilities and give reasons for the one you believe is correct. (800 words)

Introduction

Before I consider the implications of each scenario, I first want to look at some definitions.

There are several different uses of the word perspective; for the purposes of this assignment, I am

assuming the question refers to the following definition:

Perspective – “the art of creating an effect of depth and distance in a picture by representing people

and things that are far away as being smaller than those that are nearer the front”. (Oxford Learner’s

Dictionaries)

Taken from An Introduction to Visual Culture, Mirzoeff writes “Perspective is a system of depicting

that convergence in relation to a ‘vanishing point’, the place where the lines are taken to converge

that is necessarily invisible because in reality objects do not converge.” (Mirzoeff, 2009: 26)

The following definitions of invention and discovery have both been taken from the Oxford Learner’s

Dictionaries:

Discover – “to be the first person to become aware that a particular place or thing exists”.

Invention – “to produce or design something that has not existed before”.

Some things that have been discovered:

• Gravity

• Mount Everest

• The Great Barrier Reef

• Volcanoes

• Space


- 7 -

Some things that have been invented:

• Electricity

• Computers

• Cars

• Cameras

• Penicillin

Perspective in art

It is widely believed that the Italian Renaissance architect Filippo Brunelleschi (1377 – 1446) devised

linear perspective circa 1420. Viewing art painted before this time, it is evident that it was known to

artists earlier than this but was probably never documented.

Brunelleschi studied how and why objects and lines changed when viewed from different angles or

distances. The system created the illusion of depth using three essential components; a ‘vanishing

point’ at eye level, the horizon line and parallel lines (orthogonals).

Leonardo da Vinci: Adoration of the Magi Linear perspective study for the Adoration of the Magi, silverpoint, pen, and bistre heightened with white on prepared ground by Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1481; in the Uffizi, Florence. Image via Encyclopedia Brittanica


- 8 -

The system continued to be used for several centuries by the Baroque painters, the Neoclassicist

painters, Impressionists and Post Impressionists. It was around this time that a significant change in

direction took place.

Toward the end of the 19th Century, French painter Paul Cezanne (1830 – 1906) began to ignore the

rules of perspective; he used the principles to support his representation of time.

In his painting Still Life with Plaster Cupid painted c. 1894 it is thought that the lines of the floor and

table do not accurately represent perspective as he was using different points of view to paint the

still life from and thus showing movement of time through where he was when he painted a

particular element of the image.

Paul Cézanne, Still Life with Plaster Cupid, c. 1894 oil on canvas, 70.6 x 57.3 cm (Courtauld

Gallery, London). Image via Khan Academy.


- 9 -

Perspective in photography

Writing about perspective relating to photography, la Grange writes “The fact that there are

differences between the way the eye and camera focus and judge perspective means that the

camera can make one type of thing look like something else when photographed.” (la Grange, 2005:

45)

This is demonstrated by Martin Parr in his series of images “Small World”. In the image below, Parr

photographed tourists at an angle who were trying to use photographic perspective in an amusing

way by it looking like they were holding the tower up.

Martin Parr, ITALY, Pisa. The Leaning Tower of Pisa. From ‘Small World’, 1980. Image via Magnum

Photos.

Invention v Discovery

Looking at the list of things discovered above, they are all physical items. Although this is not a

prerequisite for something to be discovered, they all have this in common. Perspective is not a

physical thing that you can touch or feel but does that mean it couldn’t have been discovered?

In drawing comparisons to other things that were invented, I compare it to mathematics which is

widely documented. Robert Matthews writes “The fact that 1 plus 1 equals 2, or that there’s an

infinite number of primes, are truths about reality that held even before mathematicians knew


- 10 -

about them. As such, they’re discoveries – but they were made using techniques invented by

mathematicians.” Matthews goes on to say, “In short, maths is both invented and discovered.”

(Matthews, Sciencefocus.com)

In Art History: A Very Short Introduction, Arnold writes “… the discovery of perspective in the

Renaissance, when artists developed the technical ability to accurately represent space.” (Arnold,

2004: 50)

Although Arnold uses the word ‘discovery’ they also talk about when artists ‘developed’ the ability

to represent it. To me this implies that their view is that perspective already existed and must

therefore have been discovered. What artists have done over time is to invent ways to show this in

their art.

This is supported by Nicholas Mirzoeff who wrote “Perspective created a new means of representing

visual power from already available materials.” (Mirzoeff, 2009: 29).

The main difference between invention and discovery is that discovery relates to something that

was already there but not yet found, whereas invention relates to something new being created.

I believe perspective sits somewhere in between the two. Even though it is not a physical item,

perspective exists and must have therefore been discovered. What has been invented is a way to

explain and represent it.

(796 words)

Reference:

Mirzoeff, N. (2013). The visual culture reader. London: Routledge

Arnold, Dana. (2004). Art History: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). OUP Oxford.

Kindle Edition.

la Grange, Ashley.(2005) Basic Critical Theory for Photographers. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


- 11 -

Ruskin, John. (1857). The Elements of Drawing. eBook: The Project Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30325/30325-h/30325-h.htm

(Accessed 2 March 2020)

Through the eyes of a child

https://www.tate.org.uk/tate-etc/issue-19-summer-2010/through-eyes-child


Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries - Discover

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/discover


Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries – Invent

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/invent?q=invent


Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries – Perspective

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/invent?q=invent


Was maths invented or discovered? By Robert Matthews

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/was-maths-invented-or-discovered/

(Accessed 4 April 2020)

Source of Illustrations: The Innocent Eye Test

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/484972


The Young Bull

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Bull#/media/File:Paulus_Potter_-_De_Stier.jpg



- 12 -

Pisa, Italy

https://pro.magnumphotos.com/Asset/-29YL53P4JZB.html


Still Life with Plastic Cupid

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/becoming-modern/avant-garde-france/post-

impressionism/a/czanne-still-life-with-plaster-cupid


Adoration of the Magi

https://www.britannica.com/art/linear-perspective

(Accessed 4 April 2020)

kathy white - 517167 - uvc - assignment 1 · 2020. 4. 14. · kathy white 517167 uvc – assignment...

Documents