Leonardo Digital Reviews
 LDR Home  Index/Search  Leonardo On-Line  About Leonardo  Whats New








Reviewer biography

Current Reviews

Review Articles

Book Reviews Archive

Vision and art: The biology of seeing

Livingstone, M.
(2002) Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, NY.
ISBN 0-8109-0406-3

Reviewed by Cynthia Ann Bickley-Green, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
Art Education, Director Distance Education School of Art,
East Carolina University. Greenville, NC 27858


BICKLEYGREENC@MAIL.ECU.EDU


Art Education and Research in Neurobiology Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing by Margaret Livingstone, a neurobiologist at Harvard University, does not lead the reader to the meaning of the marks of artists, but rather to consider the commonalties of the visual evidences in painting and neurological processing. Why does one set of images from a group of artists such as the Impressionists look similar? Or when we look at the configurations of the marks in different drawing compositions, we can see that they all look like lines. They are lines on a field. Even when the lines have width, we do not see a shape.


When we look at the neurobiological genesis of the forms, we can learn some of the neurobiological connections and locations which are active when we are drawing or painting. Livingstone clearly discusses how the human visual system is subdivided in two parts: the 'Where' and the 'What' systems. The 'Where' system is responsible for our perception of motion, space, position, depth, and figure/ground (edge) separation. It cannot detect color. This is a fast, identifying system that rapidly locates the presence of potentially useful, sometimes threatening information. The 'What' system is responsible for form and color. It is much slower and codes for additional identifying information.


Livingston groups or connects cognitive, visual systems to the representation of the images from those systems in visual art images. The 'Where' system is the primary network that gives the experience of linear perspective. Cells in our visual cortex according to Livingstone's description represent orientation at each point in the visual field. During visual processing neurons become selective for features such as contours, corners, and curvature. She also suggests that this is the system that is primarily employed in Cubism. The 'What' system gives the experience of color areas. The Impressionist images are the result of the artist attending to the 'What' system (Livingstone, 2002). In summary, we might say that the styles of art are formed by the artists' selective attention to the visual experience of a particular visual processing area. This neurobiological understanding results in a paradigm shift in our understanding of the history of styles in art. Livingstone groups and connects the evidence of visual art images to the processes of human vision and cognition thereby suggesting that during certain periods of art history artists who worked in a particular style were all attending to a set of similar neurological processes.

This grouping or paradigm is not completely new. It is the neurobiological connection and evidence that makes Livingstone's work so important. Since the early Renaissance, art theorists and artists have examined the relation of visual images and evidence to the visual system. Among the most celebrated are Leonardo da Vinci and Goethe. In the 20th century, the Russian painters Kandinsky (1912) and Malevich (1915) recognized that the elements of art such as line and color were the result of mental activity. It is interesting to realize that in his description of the development of personal style in art, Wžlfflin (1932) too grouped art images into two categories: the painterly and the linear. These are analogous to Livingstone's What and Where system. Wžlfflin based his work on a systematic observation of the visual elements represented in the visual images.

Much of the literature related to the non-objective art movement pointed to the process of image making as the result of mental processes. Hans Hoffman and Josef Albers consciously studied the experience of perception and how it could be manipulated through painted images. What Livingstone contributes to this discussion is the physical location of some of these psychological experiences related to image making and an awareness of additional processes.

Relatively current art literature too has explored the creation of linear marks as primary methods of communication of psychological processes (Ruberti, 1991). Without the rigorous neuropsychological proof provided by Margaret Livingston, Ruberti groups and categorizes the images of Post-Informal art (Jackson Pollock, Remo Bianco, Franco Bemporad, Pierre Clerc, George Noël), the images of child art collected by Rhoda Kellogg (1955, 1969), and various decorative images from cultures around the world. Ruberti labels this collection of images as protosymbolic pictures. He writes that the source of the images are located in parts of our brain. Proto-symbolic implies that the marks do not stand for anything. In fact, these primary marks do symbolize visual experiences that Livingstone has begun to define and her research gives definitive locations of the sources. This is useful to art educators and other art professionals because it illuminates aspects of visual communication and suggests new directions for the development of visual communication pedagogy and criticism.

In the epilogue to her book Livingstone discusses the possibility that some styles of learning might be associated with artistic talent. Additional work in neurobiology with the focus of examining the teaching/learning transaction in visual art may reveal some aspects that will have direct application in the art class. For example, one might speculate that since drawing in three-dimensions directly engages the Where system and drawing from memory engages more of the What system, the student will add different knowledge (and not inconsequentially different neural connections) to his or her memory when drawing from observation. The task of drawing from observation would provide critical information for later drawings to be done from memory. Perhaps new art curricula would be developed to give all students more observational drawing as a means of collecting imagery. One might also speculate that non-objective image making or drawing will utilize in other parts of the neural pathway. Educators might also consider the idea that increased use or attention to a particular set of neural operations increases the ability and efficiency to use that set of operations. More drawing in art may lead to more ability and efficiency in all similar drawing tasks that might be in math, science, and engineering. As noted earlier, drawing from life observation using the Where system will provide the store of images that are used in other drawing and visualizing tasks.

The last decade of the 20th century was sometimes referred to as the decade of the brain. Livingstone' book Vision and Art is one of the fruits of this research. Her work and ideas enhance and extend our appreciation of visual art. The implications of the work she has done can extend beyond the walls of laboratories and museums into our classrooms to assist us to develop more effective educational experiences for all students. One might propose that in the next fifty years art educators will know what  cognitive processes lead us to judge why a composition 'works'; why one painting is great and another mundane; and, the subject of this review, why Art Educators might profit from looking at new research in neurobiology. The work of Margaret Livingston Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing develops more precise definitions of cognitive processes utilized during art making. Her work will cause art educators and general educators to develop new propositions and theorems about art, art-making, and the teaching/learning transaction. The work may also give new tools in art analysis and criticism. style='font-family:Arial;color:black'>References for some of the materials I refer to in the review:

Railing, P. (1989). From science to systems of art: On Russian abstract art and language 1910/1920 and other essays. Artists Bookworks. East Sussex, England.

Rhodes, C. (2000). Outsider art: Spontaneous alternatives. Thames & Hudson, London.

Ruberti, U. (1991). Il Post-Informale in Europa. Rome: Leonardo-DeLuca Editori.

Wölfflin, H.  (1932). Principles of art history: The problem of the development of style in later art history. London: ____________. Translator M. D. Hottinger (Originally published as Kunst Geschictliche Grundbegriffe, 1915 ).

 

 

top







Updated 1st December 2003


Contact LDR: ldr@leonardo.org

Contact Leonardo: isast@leonardo.info


copyright © 2003 ISAST