Affiliation:
1. Nicole Ruta works as postdoctoral research fellow in the Laboratory of Experimental Psychology at KU Leuven University .
2. PhD is Professor of Fine Art at Cardiff School of Art and leader of the Fovolab at Cardiff Metropolitan University .
3. Born in Bristol in 1980, Alistair studied Fine Art and Contemporary Multimedia at The University of Wales , Newport .
Abstract
Abstract
Prior to the discovery of linear perspective in the fifteenth century, European artists based their compositions more on imagination than the direct observation of nature. Medieval paintings, therefore, can be thought of as ‘mental projections’ of space rather than optical projections, and were sometimes regarded as ‘primitive’ by historians as they lacked the spatial consistency of later works based on the rules of linear perspective.
There are noticeable differences in the way objects are depicted in paintings of the different periods. For example, human figures in pre-linear perspective works often vary greatly in size in ways that are not consistent with the laws of optics. Some art historians have attributed this to ‘hierarchical scaling’ in which larger figures have greater narrative significance. But there are examples of paintings that contradict this explanation.
In this paper we will consider an alternative to the hierarchical scaling hypothesis: that medieval artists used relative size to elicit empathy and to reflect the perceptual structure of imagination. This hypothesis was first proposed by the art historian Oskar Wulff, but has largely been dismissed since. We argue that artists of this period, far from being naïve, used sophisticated techniques for directing the attention of the viewer to a particular figure in a painting and encouraging them to ‘see’ the depicted space from that figure’s point of view. We offer some experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis and suggest that the way artists have depicted space in paintings has an important bearing on how we imagine and perceive visual space.
Reference27 articles.
1. Antonova, C. (2010). On the problem of “reverse perspective”: definitions east and west. Leonardo, 43(5), 464–469.10.1162/LEON_a_00039
2. Antonova, C., & Kemp, M. (2005). “Reverse Perspective”: Historical Fallacies and an alternative view. In M. Emmer, The Visual Mind II (pp. 399–431). Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: MIT Press.
3. Arnheim, R. (1956). Art and Visual Perception, London, England: Faber.
4. Arnheim, R. (1972). Inverted perspective in art: Display and expression. Leonardo, 5. 125–135.10.2307/1572546
5. Baldwin, J., Burleigh, A., Pepperell, R., & Ruta, N. (2016). The perceived size and shape of objects in peripheral vision. i-Perception, 7(4). doi: 10.1177/204166951666190
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献