PART A
Look at the painting The innocent Eye Test by Mark Tansey. The phrase ‘the innocence of the eye’ was coined by 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 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.
Tansey’s painting ‘the innocent eye test’ was painted in 1981 and depicts scientists/ observers (from around the turn of the 20th century) observing a female cow who is in turn looking at the highly realistic painting ‘The young Bull’ by Paulus Potter (1647). Monet’s grainstack (snow effect)1891, is also visible hanging on the wall of what is probably an art gallery. It would appear that the humans in the painting are waiting to see if the cow responds to a visual representation of the bull and/or tries to eat the hay answering the question to the test – can the cow distinguish between a painting and reality?
The title of the painting ‘The Innocent Eye Test’ refers to a quote made by the Victorian art critic John Ruskin in 1857 as quoted at the top of this page. ‘The innocent eye’ refers to a new way of seeing for the viewer and artist that is free from the academia and tradition of the past. A pure mind that has not been influenced by culture or history. An ability to represent or view nature with the eyes of a child or a blind man suddenly able to see. In relation to Tansey’s cow, Florian Werner asks whether she will be interested in the bull because she;
‘..mistakes his picture for the real thing. Or does she have an innocent eye and like a young child, can see only two-dimensional coloured areas on the canvas but not the three- dimensional world that these areas represent?’ (Werner 2011:97)
Tancey leaves us in a state of unknowing. He cleverly invites us, the viewer, to engage further with the scenario and try to predict the results.
Mitrovic (2013:72) explains that the art historian Ernst Gombrich rejected Ruskin’s ‘innocent eye’ theory and referred to it as a ‘myth’. Humans are incapable of perceiving with this ‘innocent ‘ perspective. Reality is socially constructed. Gombrich believed there could be no visual perception independent of conceptual classification and that one cannot perceive what one cannot classify (Mitrovec 2012:72). Gombrich and Popper argue that one first perceives an object and then recognises what it is based on culturally assigned concepts(Mitrovec 2012:73) Mitrovec states that;
‘Gombrich’s thesis that there is no innocent eye thus implies that all our visual experience is always determined by our capacity to conceptualise the contents of our perception.’ (Mitrovec 2013:72)
Perhaps Ruskin did not mean for his ‘innocent eye’ statement to be taken literally. Writing in a time when art was questioning itself due to the introduction of photography, Ruskin may have been suggesting new ways forward for art that did not rely on realism. The ‘innocent eye’ theory could be seen to have influenced artists like Picasso who strove to paint like a child and not like Da Vinci! The modernist art movement became self-critical and devolved from tradition adopting new ways to represent reality.
Interestingly, Tansey’s painting shows different ways of representing reality on canvas.
The Dutch realistic painting by Potter is of a subject that no-one had painted on such an impressive scale before. The bull was also symbolic of prosperity and power. Monet’s haystacks were also part of the ‘en plein air’ impressionist movement that depicted the reality of the everyday and everyday scenes. Could we ask at this point, what is the best way to represent reality? Tancey’s painting itself is painted in grey monochrome in a traditional style that could actually elude us into thinking it is an photograph. Only the faded scientists at the back that look more like an illustration tell us that this is a painting. These depicted realities could encourage us to explore further realities;
‘In a painted picture, is it the depicted reality, or the picture plane or the multidimensional reality the artist and viewer exist in? That all 3 are involved points to the fact that pictures are inherently problematic…In my work, I’m searching for the pictoral functions that are based on the idea that the painted picture knows itself to be metaphorical, rhetorical, transformational, fictional. My work investigates how different realities interact and abrade.’ (Tansey, M.)
If we consider the ‘innocent eye test’ again, we could now be looking at a metaphorical painting that places us, the viewer, as part of the test. A painting within a painting which allows us to question what is reality? Does this painting challenge us to develop an ‘innocent eye’? Are we able to step outside of our socially constructed reality and glimpse the world through neutral, naive eyes?
The painting of the bull could be a metaphor of our ‘powerful’ socially constructed reality. Like the cow, we could accept this reality as real and absolute truth, or we could reject this reality and see through the illusion (as the cow would see blobs of paint).
Mark Tansey’s painting ‘The Innocent Eye test’ is creating an image on two levels. The first being the visual representation of a scientific experiment that is questioning whether an animal ( in this case a cow) has an ‘innocent eye’. Whether it does or does not is not revealed. We, as the viewer, are given the opportunity to hypothesise what the answer to the test will be. Ruskin’s theory that humans should try to recover this innocent eye to free them of cultural restraints and allow them to view and create art in a primal way is perhaps meant metaphorically and should not be taken too literally. Ruskin is suggesting that artists and viewers should try to throw off the social and cultural socialisation that we all receive through life. We would then be free to explore new realities. This is perhaps what has driven art through the 20th Century.
On a second level, we can also view Tansey’s painting as metaphorical. Tansey is making a statement to the viewer about reality and how different realities ‘react and abrade’ (Tansey). Tansey shows us different realistic paintings within the painting but then also suggests different realities regarding the painting itself. Is the reality the depicted/painted reality, the picture plane reality or the reality between the artist and viewer? Is it possible that Tansey’s representation of multiple realities is a way to deconstruct our conditioned minds and look at the world in new ways and with an innocent eye?
List of Illustrations
Fig 1. Tansey, M. (1981) The Innocent Eye Test [oil on canvas] at https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/484972 (Accessed 14/11/2019)
Fig 2. Potter, P. (1647) Bull [oil on canvas] At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paulus_Potter_-_Young_Bull.JPG (Accessed 14/11/2019)
Fig 3. Monet, C. Grainstack in the morning – snow effect (1891) [oil on canvas] At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monet_grainstack-in-the-morning-snow-effect-1891_W1280.jpg (Accessed 14/11/2019)
Bibliography
Danto, A.C (1992) ‘Beyond the Brillo box: The Visual Arts in Post-historical Perspective.’ London: University of California Press. viewed at https://books.google.co.uk/ (Accessed 14/11/2019)
Turner, C. (2010) Through the eyes of a child . At https://www.tate.org.uk/tate-etc/issue-19-summer-2010/through-eyes-child (Accessed 14/11/2019)
The Innocent Eye Test At https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/484972 (Accessed 14/11/2019)
Mitrovik, B (2013) Visuality After Gombrich: the Innocence of the Eye and Modern Research in the Philosophy and Psychology of Perception. Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte. (76) : 71-89 at https://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/2374 (Accessed 14/11/2019)
Tansey, M (1992) ‘Notes and comments’ in ‘Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A sourcebook of Artists’ . Stiles K. Selz P. (2012) University of California Press viewed at https://books.google.co.uk
Werner, F. (2011) ‘Cow: A Bovine Biography’. Canada:Greystone books viewed at https://books.google.co.uk
The Ackerman Blog. Artist Mark Tancey: Ineraction between different realities. At http://www.ackermansfineart.com/mark-tansey/ (Accessed 14/11/2019)
PART B
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.
It is important to initially obtain an accurate definition and hence understanding of the term ‘perspective’. The Tate Online defines perspective as ‘the representation of objects in three-dimensional space(i.e for representing the visible world) on the two-dimensional surface of a picture.’ The Cambridge Online Dictionary states that the noun ‘perspective’ is the way that objects appear smaller when they are further away and the way parallel lines appear to meet each other at a point in the distance.’ It is also described as ‘a technique of depicting volumes and spatial relationships on a flat surface’. (www.dictionary.com)
From these definitions we can observe that artists have attempted to create perspective across history and within certain cultures. The 20,000 year old Palaeolithic paintings on the cave walls at Lascaux indicate that our ancestors had attempted creating perspective by using the contours of the cave wall to give the animals and scenes an illusion of depth.
Moving forward to the 15th Century Renaissance Italy, the architect Brunelleschi devised a method called ‘linear’ perspective to create accurate representation. He used parallel lines that converged on a single vanishing point on the horizon line. This later developed into two and three point perspective that was adopted by Italian artists such as Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Renaissance linear perspective is commonly deemed to be the first time ‘perspective’ (linear) was discovered/ invented despite the fact that there is some evidence that attempts had been made in Greek and Roman art.
Beyond the Renaissance, other perspective methods have been used to convey an illusion of depth and realism. For example, aerial perspective allows for distant objects to be fainter and more blue creating an illusion of distance and anamorphosis which requires viewers to stand in a specific vantage point.
Perspective is often referred to as having been invented or discovered yet the meaning and implications for each term are quite different. The term ‘invented’ means to design and/or create something that has never been made before. The term discover means to find out something that you did not know before. If perspective was ‘discovered’, it would mean that it would have to already be in existence and be completely independent of any human opinions. Searle refers to these things as ‘brute’ facts and gives examples such as mountains and trees. If perspective was ‘invented’ it would need to be created by a human and would be influenced by their society /culture. )(Searle,1995:72)
Depending on how ‘perspective’ is defined can influence whether it can be described as having been invented or discovered. If we assume that by perspective we mean ‘linear’ perspective (Cambridge online dictionary) it could be argued that this has been discovered. Brunelleschi used Renaissance understanding of mathematics and geometry to base his methods of creating linear perspective. The absolutist view on mathematics is that it is ‘universal, objective and certain with mathematical truths discovered … and then established by proof. Mathematics must be woven into the very fabric of the world.’ (Ernest, 1996) If the absolutists are correct then linear perspective, based on pure and objective truths, was discovered or ‘found’. However, an opposing view termed ‘fallibilist’ opposes this notion and argues that maths is ‘revisable, changing with new mathematical truths being invented, or emerging as the by-products of inventions rather than discovered.’ (Ernest,1996). This would suggest that perspective would have been invented.
We can also view perspective as ‘a technique of depicting volumes and spatial relationships on a flat surface’. (www.dictionary.com) If we accept that the volumes and spatial relationships of objects would exist without human viewing, we can thus surmise that any attempt to recreate this reality on a two-dimensional surface would have to be invented or created.
The implications of arguing the point that perspective or perspective methods are invented suggests that methods of creating can be fluid and ever changing due to new inventions. One example of this can be found in the Cubist movement. In the early twentieth century, artists such as Picasso and Duchamp invented a new way to represent a three-dimensional object on a two- dimensional surface. The Tate states that:
‘By breaking objects and figures down into distinct areas – or planes the artists aimed to show different viewpoints at the same time and within the same space and so suggest their three dimensional form. In doing so they also emphasized the two-dimensional flatness of the canvas instead of creating the illusion of depth. This marked a revolutionary break with the European tradition of creating the illusion of real space from a fixed viewpoint using devices such as linear perspective, which had dominated representation from the Renaissance onwards.’ (Tate online)
This opens up opportunities for artists to create new ways of inventing perspective techniques in the future.
In conclusion, I believe that artists are ‘discovering’ the reality and truth of the spatial distance between objects and ‘inventing’ techniques to depict this three-dimensional effect on a two-dimensional surface. This can be seen in the various techniques by artists used over history that show different ways of creating the illusion of perspective.
List of Illustrations
Fig 1. Lascaux Paleolithic cave painting , France. At http://www.lascaux-dordogne.com/en/lascaux-cave (Accessed 15/11/2019)
Fig. 2 Fresco from the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor, second-style wall painting, preserved by ash in 79 AD. At /www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/247017 (Accessed 15/11/2019)
Fig 3. An example of using anamorphosis perspective. Holbein, H the younger (1553) . ‘The Ambassadors‘ [oil on oak] At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors_(Holbein) (Accessed 15/11/2019)
Bibliography
Elkins, J. (1994) The poetics of perspective , Cornell University Press. At https://books.google.co.uk (Accessed 15/11/2019)
Ernst, P. (1996) Is mathematics invented or discovered? in PoME journal 12, November 1999 ,At http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/e/pome/pome12/article2.htm (Accessed 15/11/2019)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Lascaux and prehistory. At http://www.lascaux-dordogne.com/ (Accessed 15/11/2019)
Miraoeff, N. (1999) An introduction to Visual Culture, New York: Routledge
Searle, John R. (1995) The construction of Social Reality, London:Penguin Books
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/247017
Make a list of the things you know to be invented and things you know to be discovered. Consider what distinguishes them and where perspective is best places. Try to be attentive to counterarguments.
Things Discovered : The earth is spherical, fire, penicillin, electricity, gravity, evolution.
Things invented: combustion engine, light bulb, matches, radio, the internet.
I would argue that objects and their spatial relationships to one another is something that exists independently of humans and would have to have been ‘discovered’ by the development of human consciousness and visual perception. The human techniques used to create ‘perspective’ have been invented because various different cultures and their social realities have invented different ways of representing this reality – from ancient cave paintings to the Cubist movement in the twentieth Century.
Lara's Understanding Visual culture (Visual Studies 1) blog 
