Last week Steve pointed out that a lens-based optical system like a camera or the eye can only focus at one field of depth at a time — meaning, as some sample images he presented illustrated, that other parts of the scene will be out of focus. The images Steve presented were of a landscape. In one image, some plants in the foreground were in focus, whereas a distant mountain was a blur. In the second image, the mountain was in focus, the foreground a blur. [Here I have combined them in one image.] Why, Steve asked for the original images, did painters — at least before the invention of photography — not paint the blur like this? More generally, why don’t artists paint what they see?
The images Steve presented were provocative, but they were not entirely consistent with the way the eye filters and processes information. The major difference is that the photosensors in the digital camera form a regular matrix of identical elements, which is why a photograph of a uniform texture would appear as a uniform texture. In the eye, the photosensors are not uniformly distributed — they are much more densely packed in the center of vision, the fovea. Furthermore, they are not of the same nature across the retina. The sensors near the fovea are sensitive to color, whereas those in the periphery are less so.
Thus, if painters were to paint what they actually saw in one glimpse of a scene, the image would not only be blurred for depth, as Steve’s photos, but it would be also blurred radially around the center of fixation. Furthermore, the image would be colored only towards the center; around the edges it would be monochrome, although not necessarily black and white. [Here I show a quickly-made demonstration based on one of Steve’s images. For the size of the image on the monitor, the peripheral blur is exaggerated.] In short, a “physiological photo,” if such a thing could be made, would be even less like an artist’s painting than Steve’s sample photos. Which of course only emphasizes the question, why don’t painters paint what they see?
The photograph captures a moment in time, but the “physiological photo” would not do so. The reason is that the information that the eye records fades quite rapidly — if that input does not change. In the laboratory it is possible to present an image to a person in such a way that the light falling on the retina remains constant. The startling result is that after some seconds, the image will fade, the person will see nothing. In normal life we never experience this fading simply because it is impossible to stabilize an image in this way — the eye moves, the body moves, or the scene itself moves.
Thus, if an artist were interested in painting from the “physiological photo”, that is, what the eye really sees in a moment analogous to the moment it takes for a camera to record an image, he or she would need to paint very rapidly, or he or she would have nothing more to present than a blank canvas.
In normal life we are partially aware of the natural blur in peripheral vision, we don’t perceive our lack of color vision in the periphery unless we make an effort to do so, and the fast-fading of vision doesn’t come into play because what we look at changes so quickly. What we see is much more than the information the eye captures in a moment — by analogy, much more than the digital camera can capture in a moment — because our vision integrates over time, over space, over wavelength, across movements of the eye. Not to mention that we have two eyes, each receiving a somewhat different image, the two of which are seamless integrated in our vision. All of this integration — particularly that over time — means that comparing normal vision and the type of image recorded by a photograph is comparing things of quite different natures.
Why don’t artists paint blur? We could as easily ask, why doesn’t the digital camera focus consecutively at different depths and digitally process the information to present a uniformly focused image? Artists don’t paint the blur because their visual systems are so adept at integrating information that the blur (and all sorts of other distortions) are not noticeable — in short, because the visual system is miraculously advanced technology. The digital camera doesn’t produce a multi-focused image (despite the “auto-focus” feature) because, despite fine optics and a huge memory, it is a relatively crude device. This, of course, is why photography is an art form — in the end it is still the photographer doing the real work.
In answer to the question, why don’t artists paint what they see?, the answer I think is that they do paint what they see, or try to, but what they see is an integration over a much longer “expose” than a photographer is used to working with.
Karl,
Bravo!
Karl,
A worthy question, though it’s not quite the question I asked, or meant to ask. But from this point, one could go further in considering what gets integrated into what the artist “sees” beyond merely the retinal stimulus. We know from many studies of eyewitnesses, for example, that what someone believes they see can be greatly affected by where their attention is directed, which in turn depends on a whole slew of factors. Certainly emotional state matters to what is noticed.
In photography, the defensiveness since the advent of digital processing leads often to photographers claiming something like: “I’m representing as faithfully as possible how the scene felt to me at the time.” No doubt sincere, but it seems a curious evasion of responsibility for how the image looks.
Karl,
That is a super explanation. In particular I liked the physiological photo presented by you in support of the ‘seeing eye’ and its manifestations on our visual field. The demonstration that you attempted reminded me of the mirror in the background of the painting by Jan Van Eyck (‘Arnolfini Wedding’). The convex mirror in the painting tends to exemplify the immediate like the eye’s fovea while presenting additional grades of diffusivity on the outside.
I enjoyed reading this one.
Steve,
Interesting point, it makes me think about how dramatic a change it made for me to paste the two parts of your image together. In the original photos, I felt a sense of constraint: I could see near, or far, but not both (within an image). Putting the image together, even in the crude way I did, somehow dispelled these felling of constraint or frustration. This makes me realize the potential that digital photography gives — obviously not news to you, but for me something of a revelation. Thanks for the inspiration for this post.
reminded me of the mirror in the background of the painting by Jan Van Eyck (’Arnolfini Wedding’). The convex mirror in the painting tends to exemplify the immediate like the eye’s fovea while presenting additional grades of diffusivity on the outside
Sunil,
Thanks so much for pointing that out — yes of course, I see it now. I was trying to think of examples of paintings like the “physiological photo” but I was coming up blank.
June,
Thanks for the comment. I realize I left out the “question of the day” part of the post. Maybe an appropriate one would be, “What would your dream digital camera do, if it had amazing powers of integration?”
I would like a camera that could automatically weave together images I took with the camera pointing in different directions.
Karl and Steve:
Speaking of weaving together, I wonder if there is a way to average out the two Steve shots, with their different focuses, so that the image would begin at left with the one and progress across in a blending sequence to end up as the other on the right.
Karl:
And…my dream camera would just that: it would record images of my dreams as they occur in the night.
Jay,
That would be quite some camera! I think it may be a good thing we don’t have those available yet.
As for blending the images, there is quite a bit that could be done with filtering and merging, given that the blurred image has less power in the higher spatial frequencies. If I weren’t busy with painting I would love to play with this, it’s very tempting!
Karl:
Thou shalt succumb! And I look forward to the result.
Yeah, I think photographers and painters are two very different species. One flies and one walks.
One isnt better than the other, theyre just very different creatures.
I think a painter can be a lens, but theyre naturally a feeling creature, that looks at more than they can see. Photographers have to look at what is physically in front of them as they have no other choice. They can’t photograph a feeling as it doesnt exist in reality.. which must frustrate them! ;-)
Folks:
Was Man Ray a photographer?
Interesting post, Karl.
I agree that artists don’t usually paint “the blur,” but if you look at many of the faces in the paintings of Francis Bacon, especially those of George Dyer (his one-time lover who killed himself on the eve of Bacon’s first major retrospective), he actually does paint the blur. Bacon loved to paint from candid snapshots, many of which had blurred faces when people moved at the moment the picture was taken. I think Bacon wanted to capture the sense of immediacy, of movement that the blur represents. I also think that he was playing around with concepts of identity, i.e., that identity is always fluid rather than static–a blur and not a clear image.
–Bob (ArtBlogByBob.blogspot.com)
Bob,
Thanks for the info on Francis Bacon, I’ll look into it.
Jay,
Yes, in addition to his painting, Man Ray worked in photography commercially, as an artist, and as a teacher. What I’ve seen (little) is mostly portraits, some using alternative techniques such as solarization. Most famous is probably the Ingres-like woman’s back with violin f-holes added.
I was responding to Art News Blog. Judging from Art’s comment, painters and photographers are birds of a different feather. In Man Ray’s case we are looking at someone who used key aspects of photography in a painterly fashion, entirely eschewing the lens.
Phainter,paintographer or both?
Steve:
Rayograph. I knew I could find it. Man Ray would place objects of various transparencies directly onto a sheet of photo paper and then expose it.
Hey Jay, I was generalizing as some painters and photographers may blur the lines between painting and photography. Most photographers and painters think very differently though.
Mind if I call you Art?
As for me it all blurs together. Sometimes I’ll make most of the photographic decisions pending a painting in something like Harvard Graphics.
Steve:
Speaking of that Man Ray violin thing: you’re saying that the holes in the woman’s back are ingress-like. If the holes go all the way through, is her front then egress-like? But I digress.
Jay, I think you regress.
Steve:
Speaking of that Man Ray violin thing: you’re saying that the holes in the woman’s back are ingress-like. If the holes go all the way through, are the holes in her front then egress-like? But I digress.
Why did that comment repeat itself?
Well yess. At least I didn’t distress.
this information has helped a great deal, i am currently painting “what an artist sees”. being an art student, its what i do painting on weird things etc, i managed to make a curved canvas, it seems to replicate the curvature of the human eye. also i have had to make a joiner of 4 photographs joined (photoshop) together, because the average person has a total visual range of 180 degrees, e.g. 4 photos taken at regular angles should do it, after joining these together i used a gusian blur on the edges at slowly decreasing amounts, this replicated the depth of field effect you are talking about problem is now painting it, a blur may be hard to do, but i am confident of my craftsmanship, thanks for reading my big comment, excuse bad spelling and all that jazz, i am only a student, and i can only do so much, some people paint others spell :)