Part A [Caption, The Innocent Eye Test, Mark Tansey, 1981] The way we interpret and understand paintings comes from a vast multitude of influences. Our own personal life experiences have the strongest impact on how we perceive art, which is why art writing is so subjective to an individual. In Mark Tansey’s ‘The Innocent Eye Test’, painted in 1981, a cow is shown a painting of other cows, whilst onlookers wait to see her reaction. As a cat owner, I have spent many hours playing nature and bird videos for entertainment, and my 5-month old kitten will excitedly jump at the screen, often batting her paws and looking behind the television to find the bird that just flew out of reach. This mirrors the idea of the cow looking at a painting, and from my experience, I believe the cow would imagine the painting was real. This raises the question; how do we define reality within a picture plane? Ultimately, as paintings are fiction, a painting of a cow is obviously not a cow. Neither is the cow looking at
11
Embed
[Caption, The Innocent Eye Test, Mark Tansey, 1981] The ...art, which is why art writing is so subjective to an individual. In Mark Tansey’s ‘The Innocent Eye Test’, painted
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Part A
[Caption, The Innocent Eye Test, Mark Tansey, 1981]
The way we interpret and understand paintings comes from a vast multitude of
influences. Our own personal life experiences have the strongest impact on how we perceive
art, which is why art writing is so subjective to an individual. In Mark Tansey’s ‘The
Innocent Eye Test’, painted in 1981, a cow is shown a painting of other cows, whilst
onlookers wait to see her reaction.
As a cat owner, I have spent many hours playing nature and bird videos for entertainment,
and my 5-month old kitten will excitedly jump at the screen, often batting her paws and
looking behind the television to find the bird that just flew out of reach. This mirrors the idea
of the cow looking at a painting, and from my experience, I believe the cow would imagine
the painting was real.
This raises the question; how do we define reality within a picture plane? Ultimately, as
paintings are fiction, a painting of a cow is obviously not a cow. Neither is the cow looking at
the cow, remember, it is a painting of a painting, and all elements of this picture plane exist
together. Ultimately, it all exists as a painting, but not as reality. The cow is as entranced by
the painting within the painting - entitled ‘Young Bull’, by Paulus Potters, 1674 - just as the
audience is entranced by the cow.
The Innocent Eye test could be interpreted as a metaphor, indicating that all art viewers and
critics are the cow. It engages with a degree of irony as well, poking fun at the art world and
the haughtiness of some critics and artists. There is no superiority when a cow is determining
the results of your experiment.
[Caption: Viewing the Innocent Eye Test, 2003]
In this second image, there are onlookers to the painting, it appears as if one person is
lecturing and telling the others his opinions on the image. This almost identically mirrors the
actual image, where the scientists watch over the cow to gage his reaction. To add another yet
layer of depth to it, I am also looking at the image through a computer, writing my opinions
on it, so where does this chain of viewing end? I am being judged at university on my
interpretation of this painting, just like the cow in the painting is being judged for her
interpretation. It becomes a constant cycle.
Many critiques of art are in some way biased or significantly influenced by previous
experience. This isn’t necessarily a negative, everybody, whatever previous knowledge they
have, can enjoy and appreciate art, and we need a wide variety of people to critique artists.
However, to combat the idea of preconceived prejudice, in 1857, art critic John Ruskin
stemmed the term, ‘the innocent eye’.
‘The whole technical power of painting depends on our recovery of what may be
called the innocence of the eye; that is to say, of a sort of childish perception of these flat
stains of colour, merely as such, without consciousness of what they signify, - as a blind man
would see them if suddenly gifted with sight.’ [John Ruskin, 1857]
To fully understand this quote, it needs to be taken apart and analysed.
The ‘…childish perception’ refers to a way of looking that is completely untainted by any
sort of social influence. Children have a naturally inquisitive, curious mind, without any of
the pressures or burdens that adults may have. Inexperience is a positive here.‘...of these flat
stains of colour’ describes to a way of looking at an image as simple, one dimensional areas
of colour. ‘…without consciousness of what they signify’ means without any preconceived
notion of what the image actually represent. For example, we would not see a painting of ‘a
watering can,’ we would just see a collection of random shapes and areas. ‘as a blind man
would see them if suddenly gifted with sight’, explains that we need to look at art with fresh
eyes, as if we had never been able to see before. The point Ruskin is ultimately trying to
make, is that art is best viewed without having any prior knowledge or thoughts, and that
having an open mind is important.
‘The Innocent Eye Test’, suggests that Ruskin’s theory of the innocent eye is faulty. There is
no such thing as an unbiased viewer. The cow will ultimately be tricked into believing
another cow exists, because that is what he recognises those painted marks as. However,
every living thing has memories, thoughts and opinions, and our own personal history is not
something we can ignore.
The simplicity of seeing a cow looking at art is humorous in the first place, and for those who
understand Ruskin’s theory of the innocent eye, the irony doubles, and becomes an inside
joke, something for those ‘in the know’ to laugh about. There are many paintings heavily
bombarded with feminist, political or social messages, and having an understanding of the
history behind that can actually positively affect your experience of viewing the artwork, so
you don’t need to look at art with ‘fresh’ eyes to be able to appreciate it or have full impact of
its power. Perhaps ‘innocence’, then, needs to have a new definition, not as being ‘childish’
or ‘naïve’, but as ‘being without preconceptions, improved by previously attained knowledge,
with always bettering self. We do not need to regress to childhood to be able to appreciate
something as if it were brand new.
One of the main issues I had with Ruskin’s statement was that he assumed an unbiased eye
comes, ‘as a blind mad would see if suddenly gifted with sight’. A blind man would not have
the innocence Ruskin is assuming. Seeing is not only limited to the visual. If you walked
around in the dark, blind to the world around you, you would still be able to feel objects. You
can ‘see’ with your hands, if you are practiced enough. A blind man recognises a person
walking by, using the feel of the wind rushing past. In that sense, ‘light’ can also be
considered as nothing other than a movement, passing through the air. Colour is simply a
reflection of the way those lights are reflected off our eyes, and is so uniquely individual to
each person. When a blind man feels rocks and trees, they are no less vibrant to him, than
reds, yellows and greens seem to those who are able to see. It is assumed that Ruskin’s blind
man has lived a secluded life, and has never experienced society or had any life experience. I
can assume that a blind man knows a lot about what it means to ‘see’.
However, Ruskin is definitely influenced by the time he lived in. He was certain that a
childish perception of colour and form was a trait of a highly skilled artist. However, what a
modern artist can actually take from him is a reminder to not let the preconceived knowledge
that ‘the grass is green’, stop you from actually looking at the grass outside, and exploring the
various yellow, blue or even brown tones within, alongside the dark muddy shadows and
reflected highlights of sunshine. What an art critic must realise however, is that we are never
going to be able to look at something completely innocently, that difference of opinion is
what makes art, and debates about art, so interesting and necessary.
Part B
Was perspective invented or discovered? These types of philosophical questions have been
debated for centuries, and we are never any closer to figuring out any concrete answers.
However, I am going to try and discuss both sides, and come to my own conclusions. Was
perspective invented for human benefit, or has it always been there, existing whether we
discover it or not?
[Caption: The Crucifiction, Master of the Berswordt Altar, 1400] 1
Perspective is a method of depicting converging lines towards a vanishing point, in order to
convey depth, and was initially developed by Italian artist Filippo Brunelleschi in the early
15th Century. It followed on naturally from the discovery of vision, as they accepted the
theory that light bounces off objects and is reflected back into our own eyes, forming an
inverted image on the back wall. In order for this knowledge to be understood widely, it was
described to follow a pyramid of lines which meet together at a single point, the base of the
pyramid being the object, and the point being the back of our eyes. Perspective aims to
replicate that pyramid on paper, a clever and technical illusion of reality. However, it is not
perfect, and actually does not accurately imitate vision, since we as humans see with two
eyes, and so simply exists as an aesthetic function. Another artist who is known to have laid
1Art made before the development of perspective was flat, and had very little depth represented, as most artists before the 14th century could not understand how to transform the vision in front of them, perfectly three dimensional, onto paper.
the foundations for perspective was Masaccio2, a revolutionary painter of his time due to his
talent in creating three-dimensional images, using Brunelleschis’ foundations.
[Caption: Diagram of Brunellschis experiment, showing Perspective].