Followers

Monday, 30 May 2016

Op Art

The Neuroscience of Op Art 

Artists, like neuroscientists, are masters of visual systems. Through experimentation and observation, artists have developed innovative methods for fooling the eye, enabling flat canvases to appear three-dimensional, for instance. Neuroscience—and more recently the subfield of neuroaesthetics—can help to explain the biology behind these visual tricks, many of which were first discovered by artists. “I often go to art to figure out questions to ask about science,” says Margaret Livingstone, Takeda Professor of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School. “Artists may not study the neuroscience per se, but they’re experimentalists.”

During the 1960s, Op Art—short for “Optical art”—combined the two disciplines by challenging the role of illusion in art. While earlier painters had created the illusion of depth where there was none, Op artists developed visual effects that called attention to the distortions at play. Abstract and geometric, their works relied upon the mechanics of the spectator’s eye to warp their compositions into shimmering and shifting displays of line and color. The Museum of Modern Art announced this international artistic trend in 1965 in a seminal exhibition titled “The Responsive Eye.” Since then, neuroscientists have continued to probe the mechanisms by which the human eye responds to these mind-bending works.

The notion that eyes are drawn to areas of contrast is foundational to visual neuroscience. Hard-edged boundaries between light and dark attract attention and become exaggerated through visual perception. A black circle on a white background, for example, will appear darker than the same black circle on a gray background—to scientists, this phenomenon is known as “center/surround antagonism.” A similar effect occurs in Hermann’s Grid, first discovered by the physiologist Ludimar Hermann in 1870, in which “ghostlike” gray squares flicker at the intersections of black-and-white matrices.

A comparative effect results from color contrasts. Stare at a blue-and-white-striped square for a few seconds, and chances are a yellow halo will appear in your visual field. “Yet there is no yellow in this work, none at all,” the Venezuelan Op artist Carlos Cruz-Diez once explained. “You see yellow because, when the blue hits the black, that is the effect on the retina. It’s an optical effect known as simultaneous contrast.”

Simultaneous contrast—the visual phenomenon behind the viral striped dress that appeared black and blue or white and gold depending on the viewer—is the principle that the perception of a color is dependent on what other colors surround it. Bright colors cast a shadow of their complementary (or opposite) color—blue contrasts yellow, red contrasts green—which is why the area surrounding the blue square takes on a golden hue.

While illusions such as these are hard-wired in the human visual system, others emerge through lived experiences. By observing the natural world, the eye learns to interpret areas of low contrast (like clouds) as a transparent overlay atop areas of higher contrast (like the sky). American painter Edwin Mieczkowski takes advantage of this phenomenon, creating images that are simultaneously hard-edged and blurry. Mieczkowski’s Monobloc No. 1 (1966) tricks the eye into viewing areas of the painting that are low-contrast as misty layers in front of a uniform black-and-white background. The longer one looks at the painting, the more these areas seem to float towards the viewer and into the three-dimensional world.

The appearance of motion in Op Art continues to drive research in neuroscience today. In 1957, Donald M. MacKay discovered that radiating lines (now called MacKay rays) create a glimmer of movement, though artists have used this mind-bending technique for centuries. One explanation for this effect lies in small, involuntary rapid-eye movements, called “microsaccades.” When presented with heavily patterned, high-contrast images, the eye (which is drawn to contrast) can’t focus its attention.

“My paintings are multifocal,” the British Op artist Bridget Riley once explained. “Not being fixed to a single focus is very much of our time.” Without a clear point to fix on, the eye involuntarily moves around an image, bringing elements of the picture in and out of focus.

Op artists Marina Apollonio and Victor Vasarely applied centuries-old lessons of linear perspective to their abstract compositions in order to create illusory effects. Linear perspective is “a phenomenon of optics that light travels in a straight line,” says Livingstone, though she notes that artists discovered it before scientists were able to explain its effect. Around 1415, the Renaissance architect Filippo Brunelleschi is thought to have invented linear perspective, the first mathematical method for tricking the human eye. It involved arranging a composition around a vantage point that appeared to recede into the distance. The Op artists proved this method could be applied outside of representational painting. Vasarely used linear perspective to manipulate the colors and shapes of abstract forms, creating images that appear to balloon out into space.

While Op artists studied the science of perception, scientists have in turn looked to Op Art to ask questions about visual processes. Though their experimental techniques differ radically, their conclusions are often the same: The human visual system is not a mirror for the outside world. Rather, it is capable of seeing far beyond what is actually there.


—Sarah Gottesman

 

Thursday, 3 September 2015

George Segal. Book by Jan Van Der Marck

George Segal has forged a language that communicates a truth about people here and now which is intensely personal, yet abstract enough to be universally understood . His works are at once authoritative as conveyors of a message and impressive as statements about form. They can be read either way.
 In a very effective way , Segal has deftly projected , in his plaster casts of people and their quietly pathetic environments , the timeless dilemma of mans choice between imprisonment and freedom, and possible a search for meaning, in the modern industrial society .





Monday, 27 July 2015

Artist as creator.

During World War One, the Dadist movement a reaction against the concept of European civilisation superiorority  , and a measure of man kinds progress. This was due to the carnage and death produced by the war. The Dadist set out to destroy all the cultural manifestation of European civilisation, with the purpose of undermining the power structure of the elites that had caused  the war.All cultural activities identified as facets or examples of civilisation became there target. Art being one of their target and especially the idea of the, artist or creator having a position of elevation or superior status, they deminished the status that works of art held within society.The Dadist proclaimed that there was no fundamental difference between a man made object and a machine made object, and should be given the same status in society or no status as the case may be. The umbilical cord between object and creator must be severed, the only personal intervention with regard objects is one of individual choice, not the act of creation.The Dadist were an anti art movement, and anti capitalist and wished to destroy both.
       It could be argued that they failed in both , art was not destroyed but evolved to encompass the concept of ready made manufacted objects being works of art, and the artist and art word  giving them the status of art. The concept of the artist is not necessarily that of creator ,but one who is an artist and creates art in the process of choosing. Art has not been destroyed but has encompassed the very ideas that the Dadist sort  to destroy it with. More than ever it could be argued the Art  World has come to be identified with the powerful elite, and has indeed become a symbol of status and power , contemporary art is now symbolic capital . The Dadist far from destroying art and elites power structure, has created a new art married to power and status.in 2007 at Sotheby's auction a leather jacket given the title No One Ever Leaves was sold for 690,000 dollars, a world record for a leather jacket, but as a work of art given uniqueness by its title and being bestowed with the status of art by artist Jim Hodges and the Art World, and financial institutions. The same auction sold a sold a shampoo polisher for 2.6 million when it became New Hoover, Delux Shampoo Polisher and given the status of art by Jeef Koons.


Saturday, 20 September 2014

Till Baumgartel.

Baumgartels figures inhabit what he describes as a multioptional society, in which large sections of society have abandoned all the old certainties and dogmas and all promise of salvation, and live in environments that reflect their their inner hopelessness and despair.Baumgartel method or practise is to use sketchbooks as a point of departure to transfer received ideas to canvas or paper. These ideas or images create a sense of Melancholy. The scene that the figures in habit does not quiet fit and creates a scense of displacement.Many of his scenes take place in a nocturnal environment which creates a feeling of displacement eg Out after dark. To quote the artist " tries to capture madness, beauty, questionable things, strange things, in his pictures to create a certain resonance. The painting resemble theatrical stage sets that suggest decay and past glories. The figures are isolated and do not communicate.In many cases the scene is exterior and interior at once, suggesting the tension between the exterior and inner world of the figures.