T e c h n i c a l A r t i c l e Rembrandt’s Textural Agency: A Shared Perspective in Visual
Art and Science a b s t r a c t
The authors hypothesize that Rembrandt developed new painterly techniques in order to Steve DiPaola, Caitlin Riebe engage and direct the gaze of the observer. Although these and James T. Enns methods were not based on scientific evidence at the time, they are nonetheless consistent with a contemporary under- standing of human vision. The authors propose that artists in the late early-modern period developed the technique of tex- fundamental feature of human vision is ern understanding of mind-eye dy- tural agency—selective variation A in image detail—to guide the that our experience of a scene or an artwork is not uniformly namics, artists’ selective application detailed [1]. Each eye contains only a small area (about the of detail is also consistent with the observer’s eye and thereby influ- ence the viewing experience. size of a thumbnail viewed at arm’s length) in which the cone specialized neural processing of hu- They conclude with the presenta- receptors are packed densely enough to provide us with de- man vision: Coarse brushwork cor- tion of laboratory evidence that tailed color and shape perception. Thus, viewing experience responds to low-spatial-frequency Rembrandt’s techniques indeed actually extends over time, including periods of fixation, in information, which is transmitted guide the modern viewer’s eye as proposed. which eye position is almost stationary and visual information very rapidly to many regions of is taken in, interrupted by saccades, rapid movements of the the visual system to help orient eye from one image region to another, during which we are the eyes to points of possible inter- also effectively blind [2]. This makes seeing a highly interactive est, whereas fine brushwork cor- process, in which information acquired in a fixation influences responds to higher-spatial-frequency channels that transmit the content of mental experience, while at the same time men- more slowly to the centers involved in detailed and prolonged tal content (including goals and cognitive strategy) guides our inspection [10,11]. eyes to new image regions in order to acquire further high- Modern artist Harley Brown also exploits the tendency for resolution information [3–5]. the observer’s gaze to follow a line or edge. Brown uses what To differing degrees, many modern artists are aware of this he and others describe as the “lost and found edge” technique: understanding of human vision and deliberately seek to incor- Because the eye often prefers to follow regions of strong con- porate and exploit it in their work. A specific technique typically associated with 20th-century painting is to use painterly brush- work on the textural plane to direct and coerce the viewer’s gaze through a painting, thereby influencing fixation points and eye Fig. 1. John H. Sanden, Reverend Cole Close-up, oil painting, 1999. (© John H. Sanden) gaze paths within the work. Well-known portraitist John Howard Sanden [6] describes the “center of focus” techniques he uses to help structure the experience of the viewer. For example, in Fig. 1, increased textural and color detail rendered in the sitter’s left eye and eyebrow are intended to move the viewer’s gaze to these locations, thus drawing attention to the intelligent yet playful personality of the sitter. Sanden’s loose directional brush strokes under the eye also guide the viewer’s gaze to the accentuated eye area, both by the implicit gestures of the spi- raling paintbrush and by repetition of asymmetric curvature in both the eyes and the mouth. Directing the gaze to selected regions in a portrait is one tool a modern artist has for emphasizing certain character traits of the sitter and for giving viewers a glimpse into the collaboration between sitter and painter in the development of a portrait [7–9]. In addition to consistency with the mod-
Steve DiPaola (researcher), Simon Fraser University, School of Interactive Arts and Tech- nology, 102nd Avenue, Surrey, BC V3T 0A3 Canada. E-mail:
See
©2010 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 145–151, 2010 145 entered the currency of our modern dis- course. Fig. 2. H. Brown, A commonly held belief about the Charlo Girl, oil painting, 1978. Renaissance is that science and art (© Harley Brown) were very much intermingled, as a re- sult of the introduction of the scientific method, which provided a new process for discovery and placed an emphasis on empirical evidence and the importance of mathematics. In Renaissance art, the crowning achievement of this new inter- mingling was the development of highly realistic linear perspective. The develop- ment of perspective can be seen as part of a much broader trend in both the sci- ences and arts towards realism. Berger [14] describes what he and others see as a monolithic view in academic discourse on the early modern period. Martin Jay termed this view “Cartesian Perspectival- ism” [15]: The eye is treated as an ab- stract Cartesian point or pinhole camera that forms the visual image and presents it to the brain for interpretation, rather than as a complex organ that interacts dynamically with the brain. In support of this interpretation, Alberti commented in his classic On Painting that this trend “hailed mathematics over physics or physiology” [16] in its recasting of vi- sion. This prompts us to wonder whether other, more organic, forms of painterly trast in tone or color, when such edges that a closer look at late Rembrandt and intention have been buried by the static disappear, the eye can be guided to a his performative discourse with Italian understanding of perspective through new artistic center of focus [12]. While art suggests instead that it does. Specifi- which this period has been viewed. It also several examples of this technique are cally, Rembrandt experimented with and raises the paradoxical possibility that, al- evident in Fig. 2, most blatant are the developed these techniques in reaction though scientific thinking may have con- lost edges along the elbows, which lead to, and as a further step beyond, the tributed to this mechanized view of vision directly into the edges and detail of the more uniformly detailed artworks of the during the early modern period, science downward-looking face. How these tech- Italian Renaissance. As Harry Berger, Jr. may now be called upon to restore the niques of textural agency work in detail, [13], puts it, textural agency techniques eye to a more properly dynamic under- both in guiding the unconscious gaze help to guide the viewer’s gaze through standing of vision. and in altering the conscious viewing ex- the “act of finishing the painting” as a perience of the observer, is, we think, of personal and subjective mental act, great interest to artists and vision scien- rather than experiencing the artwork Early Modern Painting tists alike. Both parties have an interest in the more mechanical way one might Modes in better understanding the interface of view a uniformly detailed photograph. If To help provide a framework for our his- intuition and consciousness, although Rembrandt used and developed some of torical and scientific discussion, we turn each brings different tools and perspec- these techniques, then it can also be ar- to Berger’s “The System of Early Modern tives to the problem. In what follows, gued—more speculatively—that his un- Painting,” in which he describes four we explore the role of selective textural derstanding of human vision, at least at painting modes: decorative, graphic, detail in structuring the art viewing ex- an intuitive level, was consistent with our optical and textural [17]. The decorative perience, both reviewing art history and own modern understanding of human vi- mode uses pigment, color, light and tech- presenting an empirical attempt to test sion. We acknowledge that a phrase such niques to give a sense of beauty and to the textural agency hypothesis with a as “intuitive understanding” can be con- honor the painting and the subject. In study of eye tracking. tentious, especially given different con- the graphic mode, subjects are painted notations in art and science. It is beyond as they are known or thought to be—as the scope of this paper to resolve these people imagine they really are and ap- arly odern E M issues, yet we think it is worth considering pear. Lifelike, naturalistic imitation of Painting: A Monolithic that a historical artist necessarily silent on 3D forms in space and spatial relations Mechanistic View? a question that has become of interest are significant in the graphic mode, as Art historians usually assume the delib- to us only recently can nonetheless be is the visualization of knowledge such as erate use of textural agency does not credited through the historical record from anatomical studies. Berger posits stretch back to Renaissance painters of of his artworks with understanding, at that the transition from decorative mode the early modern period. We conjecture some level, a scientific principle that has to graphic came as patronage changed
146 DiPaola et al., Rembrandt’s Textural Agency from religious clientele to that of the merchant class. In the optical mode, things are painted as they are seen, with an emphasis on the conditions of visibility that affect, al- ter or in some cases interfere with the graphic mode. This mode offers the observer a more active interpretive role than does the graphic mode. The optical mode brings about a shift from an “objec- tive” to a “subjective” set of cues. Finally, the textural mode concerns “the trace,” the work of the brush in “real time” and as an extension of the painter’s body. The textural mode can therefore be read as an interpretive act, calling for an interpretive response from the viewer. Fig. 3. Rembrandt, (left) Early self-portrait, 1629, with more uniform and higher levels of Texture generates conflicting modes of textural detail versus (right) a late self-portrait, 1661, with reduced and more selective use of textural detail. observership and can be seen as a win- dow to the graphic mode. Berger claims that the textural mode “obscures where the graphic clarifies [and] softens where ers can “imitate, emulate, appropriate, Titian’s facture, for all the revelation of it hardens” [18]. and sublate” [22] prior art and Rem- his textured surfaces, continues to re- We wish to extend Berger’s view of brandt’s performative mastery of this main just beyond the reach of compre- hension. In comparison, Rembrandt’s the textural mode to include a level of process. Berger refers to this as “revision- technique seems quite straightforward, agency. Our primary proposal is that the ary allusion,” which allowed Rembrandt’s much more accessible to direct visual textural mode can be used to enrich, in- implied reconstructions to “creatively analysis [27]. vite and move the viewer’s gaze via the distort the past” in order to reflect the artist’s intention, so that the oft-cited di- present and “more immediate[ly] focus We know that Rembrandt revered and rect connection between artist’s trace and on critique” [23]. emulated late Titian. In typical Rem- observer’s perception can be understood The adoption of oil painting as a brandt style, he appropriated and ex- as more than a metaphor. Stated in its medium was controversial when it first tended Titian’s practice of leaving traces strongest form, our hypothesis is that the appeared. Titian quickly recognized its of the artist’s gesture in the texture of the creative act of painting begins with the merits and added several innovations to painting, with the result that his gestures artist’s hands, and that these hands leave early oil painting techniques. The fact also embodied a deep communicative a trace that can be used to hint at, guide that the mature Rembrandt was deeply link with the eye gaze of his viewers. and sometimes even coerce the viewer’s influenced by 16th-century Venetian In further support of this interpreta- gaze through the act of completing the painting—especially by Titian and Gior- tion, Virgil Elliott states that “the highly painting as a mental experience. In our gione—was not unknown when Ken- refined imagery of [Rembrandt’s] exploration of this hypothesis, we restrict neth Clark published his classic study on younger days gradually gave way to a ourselves to Rembrandt’s portraits, in Rembrandt and the Italian Renaissance. rougher, more painterly finish in his particular those done late in his life. When an inventory was taken of Rem- middle and later years, perhaps due to brandt’s possessions, an album was found changes in his eyesight” [28] (Fig. 3). devoted almost entirely to Titian’s work. Rather than attributing these changes Rembrandt’s Portraits, As Vasari noted, Titian’s late works were to a visual impairment—a diagnosis con- Eye Gaze and Intent “carried out in bold strokes, broadly ap- sistent with a mechanical understanding In his 2000 book Fictions of the Pose: Rem- plied in great patches in such a manner of vision but not the dynamic interplay brandt against the Italian Renaissance, one that they cannot be looked at closely but between eye and brain—we propose that of Berger’s main points concerns what from a distance appear perfect” [24]. a mature Rembrandt was simply continu- he thinks “the Rembrandt look ‘sees’” Noted art historian David Rosand de- ing his lifelong critique of and discourse [19]. What Rembrandt sees, challenges, scribed the appeal of these late paint- with the Italian Renaissance. Specifically, critiques and at times parodies is “the em- ings as “tactile as well as visual, inviting he was performatively inventing another, barrassment of the Renaissance riches” us to touch as well as to look” [25]. Sev- more painterly technique, one “more of the Italian model. Berger asserts, ex- enteenth-century Venetian critic Marco cognizant of his discourse with his view- panding on Kenneth Clark [20], that Boschini reported that toward the end ers” [29], more personal and direct than “Rembrandt transformed his style by of Titian’s painting process he painted what Berger has called the graphic and the study of Italian Renaissance art” more with his fingers than with the optical modes. [21]. This dialogue between Rembrandt brush, comparing himself to God, who and Italy, one-directional as it may seem, formed the human body out of earth ew ook at the gave way to both a classical and an anti- with his hands [26]. Titian never taught A N L classical style in Rembrandt’s art and, his assistants, but, as Vasari reports, each Influence of Textural more importantly, saw a shift in the dis- disciple took whatever he could from the Agency course in the other direction, present- master’s example. The same can be said When first examining the textural agency ing Italy through Rembrandt’s eyes. for Titian’s most significant followers, hypothesis from the perspective of mod- Berger shows the process by which paint- like Rembrandt. Rosand describes how ern vision science, we were surprised to
DiPaola et al., Rembrandt’s Textural Agency 147 learn that it had not yet been put to a or deny the hypothesis simply by having centered about each eye and one region direct test. Numerous previous stud- viewers examine original artwork while centered on each side of the chin, where ies have examined the gaze patterns of their gaze is recorded. the material of the collar meets the skin viewers inspecting works of original art of the neck, as illustrated in Color Plate [30,31], but in each case it was difficult C No. 2 and Fig. 5. The variation in tex- Testing the Textural to attribute the gaze patterns of viewers tural details for each eye and chin side gency ypothesis in directly to the selective emphasis in the A H was achieved using additional passes of painting involving the degree of textural Modern Viewers of progressively smaller brush strokes in the detail. The reasons for this lack of direct Rembrandt-Like Art painterly system algorithm as a base, with evidence are quite straightforward: When Our approach to testing the texture-gaze additional Gaussian blur and stroke ma- a painter selects one region over another hypothesis involved generating portraits nipulations where appropriate. region of the canvas for increased detail, that were plausible works of art, and yet This gave us the opportunity to com- these regions also invariably differ from in which the textural level of detail was pare gaze patterns of viewers examining one another in their meaningful content not correlated with other levels of analy- the original photo of the models (where (more detailed regions are usually of sis (content, lighting, spatial layout). textural detail is uniformly high for all foreground rather than of background This was done in three steps. We first image regions) with their gaze patterns interest), in relative degree of lighting photographed human models in a way when viewing the same models rendered (textural detail is usually increased for similar to four of Rembrandt’s most fa- as portraits with systematic variation of surfaces depicted as in direct light) and mous late portraits: Self Portrait with Beret detail in the chosen regions. Finally, to in relative spatial location (regions of in- and Turned-Up Collar (1659); Man with a ensure that our results would be specific creased detail are often at the center of Magnifying Glass (1661); Hendrickje Stof- to the degree of relative detail—indepen- the composition). Of course, such strong fels (1660); and Large Self-Portrait (1652) dent of relative location in the image—we correlations in an artwork—between the (Fig. 4). Second, we rendered these pho- presented viewers with both the original semantic level, the compositional level tographs in the style of Rembrandt using orientation and the mirrored image of and the level of textural detail—all likely a knowledge-based computer painterly the portraits. conspire synergistically to guide the gaze rendering system [32]; approximately of the viewer to selected regions of the 50 parameters of brush detail, color pal- ye racking painting. However, for the purposes of ette and other painterly attributes were E T putting the current claim—that tex- matched as closely as possible to the orig- and Art Viewing tural variations in themselves guide the inal Rembrandt portraits [33]. Third, we Methodology viewer’s eye—to a proper scientific test, selected four regions in each rendered Our study participants were students these inherent correlations in original portrait for selective manipulation with in psychology at the University of Brit- portraits make it impossible to confirm regard to textural detail: one region ish Columbia (32 in all, mean age = 20
Fig. 4. Four original Rembrandts and photographs of human model analogues (© Steve DiPaola) used in the eye tracking study.
148 DiPaola et al., Rembrandt’s Textural Agency years, 11 male) who volunteered for a study advertised as “Eye Movements and Art.” Participants were each tested sepa- rately in a 1-hour session, being told they would have the opportunity to view 30 portraits on a 19-in high-definition flat screen, each for a 5-second period, while their eye fixations and movements were recorded. The task they were given was simply to view all the portraits an initial time, with the goal of assigning a sub- jective rating of “artistic merit” to each portrait, using an 8-point scale. However, participants were also told that the rat- ings would be made only after each of the images had been seen once, so that the entire range of the scale could be used in a consistent manner (8 = best, 1 = worst). It was this first viewing period that interested us for the purposes of eye tracking, since it allowed us to measure whether relative differences in textural detail in the eye and neck regions of the portraits influenced gaze patterns. On a second viewing of the same portraits, in a new random order, participants then assigned ratings to the images. Participants’ eyes were monitored us- ing an SR Research Eyelink II tracking system, which sampled the position of the eye every 2 milliseconds. Saccades (eye movements) and fixations (periods of stable gaze) were assessed using the default settings: a saccade is a spatial shift with amplitude exceeding 0.5°, with an 2 acceleration threshold of 9,500°/sec Fig. 5. Detailed crops of the same painterly rendered portraits, showing each subject’s left and a velocity threshold of 30°/sec. A eye and neck region in greater detail (left image of each pair) versus each subject’s right eye brief period of calibration preceded the and neck region in greater detail (right image of each pair). (© Steve DiPaola) first viewing by each participant. The 30 portraits viewed by each par- ticipant consisted of 10 critical portraits (2 models × 5 images) and 10 “filler” We next examined where participants portraits that we selected from an assort- Eye Tracking Results tended to fixate in the portraits and ment of fine-art books covering portraits The eye tracking of the first viewing pe- found, consistent with many previous by noted artists of different periods and riod by our participants yielded promising studies [34,35] that a majority of all fixa- styles (e.g. Lenbach, Hopper, Freud, Kin- support for the textural agency move- tions (~60%) centered on the two eye stler). Each of these filler portraits was ment hypothesis. All results reported regions in each photograph. The next viewed twice within a session, in an ef- were statistically significant (having a less most frequented region lay in a stripe fort to balance the fact that the models than 5% likelihood of a difference being along the nose extending to the mouth in the critical photos were also repeated reported where none existed). (~25%), with the relatively few fixations within a viewing session. The five critical We began by examining the overall level that remained (< 15%) inspecting loca- images taken of each model consisted of of activity in the eyes of participants view- tions that varied from image to image the studio photo and four Rembrandt- ing the filler portraits, the studio photos around the silhouette of the face, hair renderings of the photo—either the left of our models and the critical portraits. and shoulders. With specific regard to or the right eye in greater detail com- These results (Fig. 6a) indicated that a our Rembrandt-like portraits, an even bined with either the left or the right Rembrandt-like rendering resulted in a larger percentage of all fixations were in neck region in greater detail. In order to calmer eye. Participants made a signifi- the two eye regions: F(1,124) = 21.02, p < test all combinations of critical images in- cantly smaller number of fixations when .001. Interestingly, there were almost no volving the four models, the four textural viewing filler and photo portraits than fixations directly in either of the two neck regions and the two image orientations when viewing the critical images: F(1,62) regions we had manipulated for textural (original, mirror), the 32 participants = 35.70, p < .001. This supports the idea detail, although these regions did have were divided into four groups, with each that reducing the amount of textural de- an influence on the fixations made to group of eight participants viewing all tail in a portrait causes the eye to inspect the two eye regions. Figure 6b shows an four image variants of the 2 models in fewer locations overall but to dwell lon- increased likelihood of a fixation on the one of two orientations. ger in each one. detailed eye when it was on the same side
DiPaola et al., Rembrandt’s Textural Agency 149 as a less-detailed neck region, as though of the photos was around 700 millisec- tic quality, is that the artist’s selection of the detailed eye became an even more sa- onds (ms), the first fixation in an eye re- regions of a portrait for more and less de- lient attractor in fixations in the context gion of greater textural detail was more tail has a direct influence on viewing be- of a less-detailed neighboring region: than 70 ms earlier: F(1,62) = 3.93, p < havior and on aesthetic experience. The F(1,124) = 16.30, p < .001. .05. Furthermore, the first fixations to relative level of detail chosen by the artist When we measured the time it took eye regions of greater detail were more guides the eye in at least two important for the first fixation to land in either of than 170 ms earlier than to eye regions ways. First, regions of greater detail serve the two eye regions of the portraits, we of reduced detail in the same portraits: as attractors for more detailed inspection observed a strong influence of textural F(1,62) = 21.74, p < .001. When we ex- by the viewer (fixation frequency). Sec- detail. Figure 6c shows that, whereas the amined the conditional probability of ond, and perhaps even more important, time to first fixation in the eye regions successive fixations in the same region the relative detail in a region in a por- versus a different region, there was a trait that is not fixated directly (e.g. the stronger trend for viewers’ gazes to move neck regions in our portraits) guides the Fig. 6. (a, top) Mean number of fixa- from an eye region of reduced detail to viewer’s gaze by increasing the salience tions during the first 5-sec viewing period one of greater detail than in the opposite of a detailed region that is the target of for three different types of portraits. (b, middle) Proportion of total viewing time (5 direction: F(1,62) = 5.09, p < .05. multiple fixations (i.e. the eye regions). sec) spent examining the two eye regions in These results clearly suggest that rela- This study therefore provides strong each portrait for photos (light gray bar) and tive differences in textural detail guide support for the idea that portrait art- Rembrandt-style renderings (dark gray and the modern viewer’s gaze when inspect- ists, perhaps even as early as Rembrandt, white bars), as a function of the relations between detail in the eye and neck regions. ing a portrait. This study provides defini- guided the viewer’s gaze through their (c, bottom) Mean time (milliseconds) of first tive evidence for this hypothesis, because selection of textural detail. Whether this fixation to one of two eye regions in photos the eyes of viewers were tracked in a con- guidance occurred because of an implicit and Rembrandt-style renderings. (© Steve text in which the only differences from (unconscious) understanding of the tex- DiPaola) one portrait to another were on the level ture-gaze link by artists or whether artists of textural detail. Unlike actual great discovered this explicitly (consciously) by works of art, the images we used in our observing their own visual behavior while test varied in textural detail while not their work was in progress is a fascinat- varying at all in their semantic content, ing question, but beyond the scope of the in the nature of the lighting depicted in present paper. We hope it is one of the the portrait or in the spatial location of questions that artists and scientists will the textural regions. Yet these images collaborate to pursue in the future. were viewed as plausible works of art by our participants, lending credence to the possibility that these results can be gener- Conclusion alized to the viewing of original portraits We have taken a two-pronged approach to painted by master artists. advance the hypothesis that Rembrandt Our confidence comes in part from and other artists that followed him devel- our analysis of the ratings the participants oped the technique of textural agency in made on their second viewings of each order to guide the observer’s gaze and of the portraits. These ratings showed viewing experience, selectively empha- considerable agreement among partici- sizing certain image regions by varying pants. Filler portraits judged to be the the relative level of image detail. These very best obtained mean ratings of 6.2 to artists may have thus explored the pos- 6.4 (standard error = .3); those judged sibilities that arise when the viewer’s eye the worst obtained mean ratings of 2.9 is guided to these selectively emphasized and 3.0 (standard error = .2). In this con- regions, as opposed to leaving the viewer text, the model photos garnered mean with greater freedom in their pattern, as ratings ranging from 3.5 to 5.2 (standard occurs in a more uniformly rendered error = .5) and the critical portraits ren- artwork of that period with strong per- dered from these photos ranged from a spective, and as now occurs when viewing mean of 4.2 to 5.2 (standard error = .4). photographs. Thus the early modern pe- Most importantly, when we gave eight riod could be credited not only with the separate participants the opportunity to development of perspective to its highest select which one of the four renderings form, but also with emergent attempts to of each model was the “very best,” with understand the inherently dynamic inter- all four images presented simultaneously action of eye and brain that characterizes in random quadrants on a 24-in iMac human vision. Our analysis supports the viewing screen, they selected the most contention of art critics such as Martin Rembrandt-like rendering (detailed eye Jay and Harry Berger, Jr., that the Renais- and neck regions on the same side of the sance application of science to art went image) at a rate significantly greater than well beyond the contribution of mathe- chance (chance = .250, obtained p = .352, matics and geometry to the construction chi-sq (1) = 7.04, p < .01). of an image. It may have also included What the eye tracking shows, in combi- an understanding, implicit or explicit, of nation with participants’ ratings of artis- the behavioral and experiential dynamics
150 DiPaola et al., Rembrandt’s Textural Agency that occur when a human eye with lim- (Ed.) Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Percep- 22. Berger [19] p. 79. tion (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968). ited spatial resolution is confronted with 23. Berger [19] p. 86. a large scene or image [36]. 2. M.F. Land, “Motion and Vision: Why Animals 24. R. Kimball, Rembrandt’s influences,The Spectator, In the second section, we empirically Move Their Eyes,” Journal of Comparative Physiology A Vol. 185, 341–-352 (1999). November 18 (2000). tested the hypothesis that the viewer’s 25. D. Rosand, Painting in Cinquecento Venice: Titian, gaze is guided by variations in textural 3. J.T. Enns and E.L. Austen, Mental Schemata and the Limits of Perception, in M.A. Peterson, B. Gillam, Tintoretto, Veronese (New Haven, CT: Yale University detail. The results demonstrated that and H.A. Sedgwick (Eds.), In The Mind’s Eye: Julian Press, 1990) p. 148. Hochberg on the Perception of Pictures, Film, and the World variation in image detail could influence 26. D. Rosand, “Titian and the Eloquence of the (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). viewing on at least two levels: simply guid- Brush,” Artibus et Historiae Vol. 2, No. 3 (1981). 4. J. Henderson, “Human Gaze Control During Real- ing the viewer’s gaze at a lower level of 27. D. Rosand, The Challenge of Titian’s “Senile Sub- World Scene Perception,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences eye-brain function, and influencing the lime,” The New York Times, 28 October 1990. Vol. 7, No. 11, 498–504 (2003). conscious attributions the viewer makes 28. V. Elliot, Traditional Oil Painting: Techniques and about the skill of the artist in portray- 5. D. Melcher and C. Colby, “Trans-Saccadic Per- Concepts of Classical Realism from the Renaissance to the ception,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol. 12, No. 12, ing the characteristics of the sitter. We Past (New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 2007) 466–473 (2008). p. 55. suspect that textural variations may even 6. John Sanden, Portraits from Life (Cincinnati: North 29. Berger [19] p. 104. influence the conversation between artist Light Books, 2004). and viewer that occurs at a meta-cognitive 30. Miall and Tchalenko [8]. 7. Harry Berger Jr., “The System of Early Modern level (including the larger community Painting,” Representations Vol. 62, Spring, 31–57 31. Livingstone [10]. of other artists and viewers), but this hy- (1998). 32. S. DiPaola, “Exploring a Parameterized Portrait pothesis will have to await a future test. 8. R.C. Miall and J. Tchalenko, “Painter’s Eye Move- Painting Space,” International Journal of Art and Tech- Of course, the present results are lim- ments: A Study of Eye and Hand Movement during nology Vol. 2, No. 1–2, 82–93 (2009). ited in their direct generality to the tex- Portrait Drawing,” Leonardo Vol. 34, No. 1, 35–40 (2001). 33. S. DiPaola, “Painterly Rendered Portraits from tural details of edge contrast and color Photographs Using a Knowledge-Based Approach,” and to artworks consisting of portraits. 9. M. Nicholls, D. Clode, S.J. Wood and A.G. Wood, In Proc: SPIE Human Vision and Imaging, Int. Society for “Laterality of Expression in Portraiture: Putting Your Optical Engineering. San Jose, p. 33 (2007). Future work will need to explore the Best Cheek Forward,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B idea of textural detail with much more Vol. 266, No. 1428, 1517–1522 (1999). 34. Melcher and Colby [5]. rigor than in this initial demonstration 10. M. Livingstone, Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing 35. E. Birmingham, W.F. Bischof, and A. King- and will also have to examine how varia- (New York: Harry N. Abrams 2002). stone, “Gaze Selection in Complex Social Scenes,” Visual Cognition Vol. 15, 341–355 (2008). tions in textural detail influence gaze 11. T.R. Vidyasagar, “A Neuronal Model of Attentional patterns in more complex scenes involv- Spotlight: Parietal Guiding the Temporal,” Brain Re- 36. S. Zeki, Inner Vision (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). ing multiple objects and perhaps even search Reviews Vol. 30, No. 1, 66–76 (1999). in more abstract artworks. Nonetheless, 12. Harley Brown, Harley Brown’s Eternal Truths for Ev- the proof-of-concept that textural agency ery Artist (Cincinnati: North Light Books, 2001). Manuscript received 5 September 2008. has an influence even in this one domain 13. Berger [7] p. 42. Steve DiPaola has a Ph.D. from the University inspires us, as we hope it will other artists 14. Berger [7] p. 31. and scientists, to examine the textural- of British Columbia in the combined fields of 15. Martin Jay, Scopic Regimes of Modernity, in Hal computer science, cognitive science and art. agency hypothesis more widely. Artists Foster (Ed.) Vision and Visuality (Seattle: Bay Press, While also a practicing artist, his main re- and scientists may each indeed at times 1988). search area is computationally modeling hu- use specialized language, but it seems 16. L.B. Alberti, On Painting [First Appeared 1435], man gesture, expression and creativity. that our questions about the human ex- Trans. John R. Spencer (New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- perience have a deep common core. versity Press, 1956), Book 1. Caitlin Riebe was an undergraduate researcher 17. Berger [7] p. 33. at the University of British Columbia and is Acknowledgments 18. Berger [7] p. 49. now a graduate student at Max Planck Insti- We would like to thank art historians Harry Berger tute in Munich. and Bronwen Wilson for their guidance. 19. Harry Berger Jr., Fictions of the Pose: Rembrandt against the Italian Renaissance (Palo Alto, CA: Stan- ford University Press, 2000). James T. Enns has a Ph.D. in Psychology from References and Notes Princeton University and is a Fellow of the 20. K. Clark, Rembrandt and the Italian Renaissance Royal Society of Canada. His research focuses Unedited references as provided by the authors. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966). on visual attention, consciousness, action and 1. J. Hochberg, In the Mind’s Eye, in R.N. Haber 21. Clark [20] pp. 3. human development.
DiPaola et al., Rembrandt’s Textural Agency 151 a word of thanks
Thanks to Our Supporters Leonardo/ISAST is a nonprofit organization that serves the international arts community by documenting work at the intersection of the arts, sciences and technology and by encouraging and stimulating collaboration through its programs and activities. Donations and grants are integral to the future of Leonardo. Contact
Leonardo Codex La Gioconda (Mona Lisa) Angel ($5,000 and above) ($500 to $999) ($249 and under) College of Extended Learning, Roy Ascott Anonymous, Aaron Alpar, Charles Ames, San Francisco State University Lars Ole Belhage Craig Anderson, Art Science Collaborations Roger Malina Anna Campbell Bliss Inc. (ASCI), Yasuhiro Asoo, Bret Battey, Marc The Malina Trust Leif Brush Battier, Mark and Lauren Beam, Patricia Sonya Rapoport James D. Burke Bentson, Timothy Binkley, The Birse Family, Rockefeller Foundation Richard Clar Marc Böhlen, Deborah Branton, Robert A. The San Francisco Art Institute Una Dora Copley Brown, Ronald Brown, Willi Bruns, Annick Al Smith Michele Emmer Bureaud, James Burke, David Carter, Rosa University of Texas at Dallas William Fawley Casarez-Levison, Webster Cash, Katherine Arana Greenberg Casida, Joel Chadabe, John Chowning, Richard Sforza Monument Greg Harper Clar, Computer Art Studio/Gunter Schulz, Ivo (The Bronze Horse) Michael Joaquin Grey Cristante, Elizabeth Crumley, Mary & Michael ($1,000 to $4,999) Rosemary Jackson Cunningam, Danish Film Festival, Bob Davis, Martin Anderson Larry Larson Goery Delacote, Lily Diaz, Agnes Denes, Emma Art Science Research Lab Lynn Hershman Leeson Lou Diemer, Steve Dietz, Augus Dorbie, Hubert Banff New Media Institute Guy Levrier Duprat, Elmer Duncan, Ann Elias, Sherban Lisa Bornstein Isabel Maxwell Epure, Theodosia Ferguson, John Fobes, Tim CalArts Merrill Lynch Foundation Fox, Alan & Mickey Friedman, Ryozo Fujii, Caldas University Arts Emanuel Nadler David Gamper, Jonathan & Donna R. Gennick, and Humanities Nessim & Associates George Gessert, Ken Goldberg, Yusef Grillo, Concordia University Sam Okoshken Karen Guzak, Craig Harris, Isabel Hayden, Donna Cox Steve Oscherwitz Margaret Hermann, Doris Herrick, Estate of Creative Disturbance Trudy Reagan Dick Higgins, Anthony Hill, Toshiyuki Hiruma, The Daniel Langlois Foundation David Rosenboom Gerald Holton, Hungarian University of Crafts Char Davies Jack Sarfatti & Design, Amy Ione, Susan Joyce, Raymond The Exploratorium Joel Silverman Jurgens, Eduardo Kac, Robert Kadesch, Penny Finnie Christian Simm Marshall Kaplan, Ken Knowlton, Zdenek Kocib, Steve Forestieri Tami Spector Kenji Kohiyama, Thomas Kostusiak, Kathleen John Hearst Meredith Tromble Laziza, Levi Family Foundation, Frederick Intel Corporation Loomis, Carl Machover, James Maher, William LABoral Centro de Arte y Creacion Industrial Flying Machine Marchant, Delle Maxwell, Elliot Mazer, Kevin The LEF Foundation ($250 to $499) Meehan, Minneapolis College of Art & Design, Alan Malina Loren Basch Mit Mitropoulos, Moët Hennessy-Louis Marjorie Malina Ray Bradbury Vuitton, Jason Monberg, Roger Mulkey, Geetha Jacques Mandelbrojt Bettina Brendel Narayanan, Alex Nicoloff, Greg Niemeyer, Christine Maxwell-Malina David Carrier Hiroshi Ninomiya, Elaine Petschek, Anne Ontario College of Art & Design Eva Craig Brooks Pfister, Glenn R. Phillips, Victor A. Sheila Pinkel Holly Crawford Pickett, Otto Piene, Ann Pizzorusso, Herbert & Michael Punt Eugene Epstein Joan Webster Price, Patric Prince, Wolf Rainer, Rhode Island School of Design Lawrence Fane Peter Richards, Ron Rocco, Peter Rudolfi, Itsuo Sakane Herbert Franke David M. Russell, Mr. and Mrs. Robert School of the Art Institute of Chicago Doreen Gatland Russett, Colin Sanderson, Piero Scaruffi, Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts Pamela Grant-Ryan Patricia Search, Allan Shields, Gregory C. Martin Segal Oliver Grau Shubin, Joel Slayton, John Slorp, Avril Sokolov, SFSU International Center for the Arts Linda Dalrymple Henderson Kirill Sokolov, Christa Sommerer, Rejane Spitz, Sonia Sheridan Robert Hill Anait Stephens, Robert Strizich, The Sun swissnex San Francisco Curtis Karnow Microsystems Foundation, Inc., Robin and SymbioticA Melinda Klayman Barbara Tchartoff, Tamiko Thiel, Rodrigo B. Marcia Tanner Kathleen Laziza Toledo, Heinz Trauboth, Mark Tribe, Karen Darlene Tong Thomas Mercer Tsao, Roman Verostko, Alexandre Vitkine, Makepeace Tsao Frieder Nake Natalie & Mark Whitson, Alan Thompson & UCLA Art / Sci Center Barbara Nessim Sharon A. Widmayer, Ioannis Yessios, Robert UC Santa Barbara, Media Arts and Technology Jack Ox Zimmerman Program Ed Payne and Liss Fain UC Santa Cruz, Digital Arts and Nancy Perloff New Media Dept. Frank Popper Universidade de Caldas Harry Rand Universidade do Minho Beverly Reiser University of Calabria Evolutionary Systems Mark Resch Group Eric Roll University of Denver School of Art Edward Shanken and Art History Leonard Shlain University of Évora, CHAIA Jesse Tischler University of Illinois Joan Truckenbrod eDREAM Institute Kelvin Tsao University of Plymouth, U.K. Jonathan Willard University of Washington DXARTS Barbara Lee Williams UTS Creativity and Cognition Studios Richard A. Wilson ZKM | Center for Art and Media Stephen Wilson Gary Zellerbach