Visual perception and stereoscopic imaging: an artist's perspective
Mason, Steve
This paper continues my 2014 February IS and T/SPIE Convention exploration into the relationship of stereoscopic vision and consciousness (90141F-1). It was proposed then that by using stereoscopic imaging people may consciously experience, or see, what they are viewing and thereby help make them more aware of the way their brains manage and interpret visual information. Environmental imaging was suggested as a way to accomplish this. This paper is the result of further investigation, research, and follow-up imaging. A show of images, that is a result of this research, allows viewers to experience for themselves the effects of stereoscopy on consciousness. Creating dye-infused aluminum prints while employing ChromaDepth® 3D glasses, I hope to not only raise awareness of visual processing but also explore the differences and similarities between the artist and scientist―art increases right brain spatial consciousness, not only empirical thinking, while furthering the viewer’s cognizance of the process of seeing. The artist must abandon preconceptions and expectations, despite what the evidence and experience may indicate in order to see what is happening in his work and to allow it to develop in ways he/she could never anticipate. This process is then revealed to the viewer in a show of work. It is in the experiencing, not just from the thinking, where insight is achieved. Directing the viewer’s awareness during the experience using stereoscopic imaging allows for further understanding of the brain’s function in the visual process. A cognitive transformation occurs, the preverbal “left/right brain shift,” in order for viewers to “see” the space. Using what we know from recent brain research, these images will draw from certain parts of the brain when viewed in two dimensions and different ones when viewed stereoscopically, a shift, if one is looking for it, which is quite noticeable. People who have experienced these images in the context of examining their own visual process have been startled by the effect they have on how they perceive the world around them. For instance, when viewing the mountains on a trip to Montana, one woman exclaimed, ”I could no longer see just mountains, but also so many amazing colors and shapes”―she could see beyond her preconceptions of mountains to realize more of the beauty that was really there, not just the objects she “thought” to be there. The awareness gained from experiencing the artist’s perspective will help with creative thinking in particular and overall research in general. Perceiving the space in these works, completely removing the picture-plane by use of the 3D glasses, making a conscious connection between the feeling and visual content, and thus gaining a deeper appreciation of the visual process will all contribute to understanding how our thinking, our left-brain domination, gets in the way of our seeing what is right in front of us. We fool ourselves with concept and memory―experiencing these prints may help some come a little closer to reality. 
 From crashing through a story of Mike May, a quote, the brain imposes knowledge in order to see. But I think there might also be beauty in not imposing knowledge, in being open to everything, and being open to every possible interpretation. In ways, there's something liberating about my vision in the sense that so much of what I see can be anything. It's fascinating to think that an object or even a person can be anything. It means that almost anything can be beautiful. Mike May said this several years after restoration of his site in One Eye. He lost his site as a small child and regained it in his forties. He had no visual memory to help him recognize what he was looking at. He couldn't even recognize his wife. Claude Monet and the Futurists, among others, were also addressed the encumbrance of memory in appreciating beauty. From Art and Physics by Leonard Schlein, Monet once said he wished he had been born blind and later gained sight. That way he would be able to look at the world free of the knowledge of what the objects were so that he could more appreciate color. Robert Hughes comments, on the early 20th century Futurist artist Marinetti in Shock of the New, Marinetti's enemy was the past. He attacked history and memory with operatic zeal, and a wide range of objects and customs fell under his disapproval, from Giovanni Bellini altarpieces to the erratic Italian love of pasta. This dichotomy between the ability to see and the dependence upon memory to determine what we see is of primary concern to artists. Our past expectations become a hindrance to our experiencing beauty in the present. It is in the creation of a relationship of visual objects to memory that matters, that makes art. An experience concerning this relationship of shapes and other visual information not remembered as names or things or otherwise identifiable objects becomes metaphoric of what the artist sees. A change is required in the way we look at things, a shift as it turns out to a different part of our brain. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we were capable of thinking. This from Stephen Pinkers, How the Mind Works. From necessity, we learn to deal with information quickly by reducing it what we observe to manageable size. This information must be processed by our brain to be identified and an appropriate response generated. All this in a fraction of a second. We have been forced to see in terms of what we conceptualize and know from memory. I see what is happening, compare it with previous experiences and feel emotion. Is this feeling one of fear or joy? Do I stand or run? Do I respond or disregard? This reductionist way of interpreting visual data is imprinted in our brain. An example of this is the way we understand the human face and body. We think profiles and straight on views, not three quarter ones or foreshortening. You think of a hand like this, not like this. This is exemplified in the art of ancient Egypt. Look at this Egyptian stele in this slide. Both the head, hips, legs and feet are all in profile while the shoulders, chest and hands are in frontal view, all avoiding any foreshortening. This is the way we think these body ports, not what we really see. Our vision is influenced by social construct and technical convention as well. We might think a king more important than his servant and an artist might paint him larger. Thus, artists must often unlearn what they know about familiar objects, people and social norms and look at them in a fresh and altered way and see what is really there. This involves not looking at a foot as a foot but instead seeing it as a shape of different tones and colors proportional to the rest of the figure. Lining up, sighting angles and measurements are often necessary. Note that this process of not looking at the subject in familiar terms as foot, toes, toenails and heel is necessary to encourage that part of our thinking which deals with concept and the abstract to relinquish control allowing the creative part to do what it does best, that is see the foot in order to draw it. Gravity and light are well known to the artist. If shadow doesn't ground an object, bind it properly or to place and time, then something seems amiss. Take away shadows and perspective and what have you got, a feeling of displacement or unease. We have learned that shadows give us a sense of time and placement. They are part of our subconscious thinking as with perspective indicating depth. This slide is an example of what happens when the artist plays on these expectations. Giorgio D'Aquirico was a master at putting the viewer in an unreal place where vanishing points made no sense and shadows indicated a time of day contrary to that of the light, a place that could only exist inside our imagination. Our perception of a constant shape and lightness across changes in viewing conditions tracks the object inherent properties from Pinker. The most dramatic example of this perceptual consistency concerns color. We learn to recognize a lion in all lighting conditions. In the sun coming through the trees, in the grass, and in the shadow of a rock. In our mind, the lion retains the same color in all situations, though physically its color may vary considerably. This color constancy or local color as artists like to call it, follows what Simear Zaki refers to as the golden rule of perception, namely comparison. The brain looks at colors and shapes in relationship to their surrounds and is able to see the same yellow no matter what the conditions. The ratio of the amount of light of differing wavelengths never changes. Information must be simplified and codified in order to be processed in the moment. The rules we use to gather information for survival often break down when compared with actually seeing what's really there. The yellow in the shade may in fact be violet, but because of neighboring colors we still see the same yellow. Our brains necessarily simplify as too much data can clog the system and prevent identification and timely action. Throughout history, scholars have noted the duality of our thinking. However, not until Sperry conceived of surgically dividing the two hemispheres of the brain, known as a commiserotomy, and with the subsequent advent of brain imaging systems such as the MRI and CAT scans to give a picture of the brain's activity, were different responses of each cortex observed. Characteristics of each side of the brain were identified. Typical features of the left were found to be linear, timed, logical and rational thinking that is doing and abstraction. Typical features of the right hemisphere were found to be imagination, spatial cognition, intuition, holistic thinking and all at once perception, being, metaphor. As one might conclude from these hemispheric polarities, the scientists who relies on empirical study requiring a logical, linear and conceptual methodology thinks mainly from the left side while the artist who thinks takes a more creative, holistic and emotional approach sees from the right. Metaphor is the cornerstone of fine art. There is a layering of different planes of comprehension. Like worlds of thought that are linear and logical, relationships are implied and directly expressed within a work. Realizing parallels often flies in the face of much thinking as they must be experienced and seen and not sequentially explained or thought. For example, a saison painting of a bowl of fruit is not an appetizing depiction of a set, but a set of relationships of shapes and planes of color. These reflect artists' need for balance and equilibrium even though the table would surely topple in the real world. As Joseph Campbell points out, one does not want to eat a saison apple, but rather experience the visual truth of it within the confines of the canvas. It is in understanding the relationships between the objects depicted and those of the objects of one's own experience, both visual and personal, that leads one to truly see the work of art before him. The still life is a painting of what he sees. The painting becomes a metaphor for understanding everything else. Again, as Campbell puts it, quote, nothing within the field, that is the border of the painting, has referenced to anything outside the field. Within that field, what is important is what is here and here. The relationship of part to part, of part to whole, and of the whole to each of its parts. And when that relationship is fortunately achieved, you have claritas, radiance, fascination, aesthetic arrests, aha, you are held, end quote. As artists and scientists employ different methodologies in trying to understand who we are and what we are striving to achieve, in the end we come to understand the same thing in very different ways. We create new languages to explain what we have discovered. Scientists communicate truth through experimental reasoning, while artists communicate through visual metaphor. Perhaps it's the inability to translate these languages that causes such conflict between the two and perhaps helps polarize society as well. At last year's conference, I presented the idea of environmental stereoscopic art as a way of becoming more aware or more conscious of the visual process and consequently gain greater insight into consciousness itself. I turned to chroma depth 3D glasses. These rely on differing refractions of incoming light for each eye, thereby placing colors at various distances from the viewer, due to the spontaneity afforded by these glasses by not having to create two images. The resulting change in consciousness from left to right brain thinking is palpable. This work, the mechanics of understanding, comes close to the way I see the world. These are at once sharp and distinct, yet as I look, the shapes change. They're one way now, another way depending upon my focus. I feel the presence of other forces in my head as I look. But as I look, it makes sense to me, aesthetic sense, emotional sense. One cannot see it in all, in only one glimpse. And I apologize for cutting this short. This work, Can You Read Me, may give a limited view of visual space created by layers of writing. The marks are inextricably tangled with each other, and yet the mind detects an order within the apparent chaos. Using the 3D chroma depth glasses, the layers become visually separated, allowing me to better appreciate the image. One must indeed be in their right mind in order to read me. Well, obviously I don't have time for the rest of this, but I would like to just say that somebody asked me, well, so what? What's this all about? By going back to the root of our perception, we may take full advantage of the new technologies that are becoming available by trying to step around our expectations, our preconceptions, and not just follow those in logical conclusions. If we don't, we're just making an updated fancy TV or a new type of atom bomb. Thank you.
 From crashing through a story of Mike May, a quote, the brain imposes knowledge in order  to see.  But I think there might also be beauty in not imposing knowledge, in being open to everything,  and being open to every possible interpretation.  In ways, there's something liberating about my vision in the sense that so much of what  I see can be anything.  It's fascinating to think that an object or even a person can be anything.  It means that almost anything can be beautiful.  Mike May said this several years after restoration of his site in One Eye.  He lost his site as a small child and regained it in his forties.  He had no visual memory to help him recognize what he was looking at.  He couldn't even recognize his wife.  Claude Monet and the Futurists, among others, were also addressed the encumbrance of memory  in appreciating beauty.  From Art and Physics by Leonard Schlein, Monet once said he wished he had been born blind  and later gained sight.  That way he would be able to look at the world free of the knowledge of what the objects  were so that he could more appreciate color.  Robert Hughes comments, on the early 20th century Futurist artist Marinetti in Shock  of the New, Marinetti's enemy was the past.  He attacked history and memory with operatic zeal, and a wide range of objects and customs  fell under his disapproval, from Giovanni Bellini altarpieces to the erratic Italian  love of pasta.  This dichotomy between the ability to see and the dependence upon memory to determine  what we see is of primary concern to artists.  Our past expectations become a hindrance to our experiencing beauty in the present.  It is in the creation of a relationship of visual objects to memory that matters, that  makes art.  An experience concerning this relationship of shapes and other visual information not  remembered as names or things or otherwise identifiable objects becomes metaphoric of  what the artist sees.  A change is required in the way we look at things, a shift as it turns out to a different  part of our brain.  Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters  to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we were capable  of thinking.  This from Stephen Pinkers, How the Mind Works.  From necessity, we learn to deal with information quickly by reducing it what we observe to  manageable size.  This information must be processed by our brain to be identified and an appropriate response  generated.  All this in a fraction of a second.  We have been forced to see in terms of what we conceptualize and know from memory.  I see what is happening, compare it with previous experiences and feel emotion.  Is this feeling one of fear or joy?  Do I stand or run?  Do I respond or disregard?  This reductionist way of interpreting visual data is imprinted in our brain.  An example of this is the way we understand the human face and body.  We think profiles and straight on views, not three quarter ones or foreshortening.  You think of a hand like this, not like this.  This is exemplified in the art of ancient Egypt.  Look at this Egyptian stele in this slide.  Both the head, hips, legs and feet are all in profile while the shoulders, chest and  hands are in frontal view, all avoiding any foreshortening.  This is the way we think these body ports, not what we really see.  Our vision is influenced by social construct and technical convention as well.  We might think a king more important than his servant and an artist might paint him  larger.  Thus, artists must often unlearn what they know about familiar objects, people and social  norms and look at them in a fresh and altered way and see what is really there.  This involves not looking at a foot as a foot but instead seeing it as a shape of different  tones and colors proportional to the rest of the figure.  Lining up, sighting angles and measurements are often necessary.  Note that this process of not looking at the subject in familiar terms as foot, toes, toenails  and heel is necessary to encourage that part of our thinking which deals with concept and  the abstract to relinquish control allowing the creative part to do what it does best,  that is see the foot in order to draw it.  Gravity and light are well known to the artist.  If shadow doesn't ground an object, bind it properly or to place and time, then something  seems amiss.  Take away shadows and perspective and what have you got, a feeling of displacement or  unease.  We have learned that shadows give us a sense of time and placement.  They are part of our subconscious thinking as with perspective indicating depth.  This slide is an example of what happens when the artist plays on these expectations.  Giorgio D'Aquirico was a master at putting the viewer in an unreal place where vanishing  points made no sense and shadows indicated a time of day contrary to that of the light,  a place that could only exist inside our imagination.  Our perception of a constant shape and lightness across changes in viewing conditions tracks  the object inherent properties from Pinker.  The most dramatic example of this perceptual consistency concerns color.  We learn to recognize a lion in all lighting conditions.  In the sun coming through the trees, in the grass, and in the shadow of a rock.  In our mind, the lion retains the same color in all situations, though physically its color  may vary considerably.  This color constancy or local color as artists like to call it, follows what Simear Zaki  refers to as the golden rule of perception, namely comparison.  The brain looks at colors and shapes in relationship to their surrounds and is able to see the  same yellow no matter what the conditions.  The ratio of the amount of light of differing wavelengths never changes.  Information must be simplified and codified in order to be processed in the moment.  The rules we use to gather information for survival often break down when compared with  actually seeing what's really there.  The yellow in the shade may in fact be violet, but because of neighboring colors we still  see the same yellow.  Our brains necessarily simplify as too much data can clog the system and prevent identification  and timely action.  Throughout history, scholars have noted the duality of our thinking.  However, not until Sperry conceived of surgically dividing the two hemispheres of the brain,  known as a commiserotomy, and with the subsequent advent of brain imaging systems such as the  MRI and CAT scans to give a picture of the brain's activity, were different responses  of each cortex observed.  Characteristics of each side of the brain were identified.  Typical features of the left were found to be linear, timed, logical and rational thinking  that is doing and abstraction.  Typical features of the right hemisphere were found to be imagination, spatial cognition,  intuition, holistic thinking and all at once perception, being, metaphor.  As one might conclude from these hemispheric polarities, the scientists who relies on empirical  study requiring a logical, linear and conceptual methodology thinks mainly from the left side  while the artist who thinks takes a more creative, holistic and emotional approach sees from  the right.  Metaphor is the cornerstone of fine art.  There is a layering of different planes of comprehension.  Like worlds of thought that are linear and logical, relationships are implied and directly  expressed within a work.  Realizing parallels often flies in the face of much thinking as they must be experienced  and seen and not sequentially explained or thought.  For example, a saison painting of a bowl of fruit is not an appetizing depiction of a  set, but a set of relationships of shapes and planes of color.  These reflect artists' need for balance and equilibrium even though the table would surely  topple in the real world.  As Joseph Campbell points out, one does not want to eat a saison apple, but rather experience  the visual truth of it within the confines of the canvas.  It is in understanding the relationships between the objects depicted and those of the objects  of one's own experience, both visual and personal, that leads one to truly see the work of art  before him.  The still life is a painting of what he sees.  The painting becomes a metaphor for understanding everything else.  Again, as Campbell puts it, quote, nothing within the field, that is the border of the  painting, has referenced to anything outside the field.  Within that field, what is important is what is here and here.  The relationship of part to part, of part to whole, and of the whole to each of its  parts.  And when that relationship is fortunately achieved, you have claritas, radiance, fascination,  aesthetic arrests, aha, you are held, end quote.  As artists and scientists employ different methodologies in trying to understand who  we are and what we are striving to achieve, in the end we come to understand the same  thing in very different ways.  We create new languages to explain what we have discovered.  Scientists communicate truth through experimental reasoning, while artists communicate through  visual metaphor.  Perhaps it's the inability to translate these languages that causes such conflict between  the two and perhaps helps polarize society as well.  At last year's conference, I presented the idea of environmental stereoscopic art as  a way of becoming more aware or more conscious of the visual process and consequently gain  greater insight into consciousness itself.  I turned to chroma depth 3D glasses.  These rely on differing refractions of incoming light for each eye, thereby placing colors  at various distances from the viewer, due to the spontaneity afforded by these glasses  by not having to create two images.  The resulting change in consciousness from left to right brain thinking is palpable.  This work, the mechanics of understanding, comes close to the way I see the world.  These are at once sharp and distinct, yet as I look, the shapes change.  They're one way now, another way depending upon my focus.  I feel the presence of other forces in my head as I look.  But as I look, it makes sense to me, aesthetic sense, emotional sense.  One cannot see it in all, in only one glimpse.  And I apologize for cutting this short.  This work, Can You Read Me, may give a limited view of visual space created by layers of  writing.  The marks are inextricably tangled with each other, and yet the mind detects an order within  the apparent chaos.  Using the 3D chroma depth glasses, the layers become visually separated, allowing me to  better appreciate the image.  One must indeed be in their right mind in order to read me.  Well, obviously I don't have time for the rest of this, but I would like to just say  that somebody asked me, well, so what?  What's this all about?  By going back to the root of our perception, we may take full advantage of the new technologies  that are becoming available by trying to step around our expectations, our preconceptions,  and not just follow those in logical conclusions.  If we don't, we're just making an updated fancy TV or a new type of atom bomb.  Thank you.
SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__0_119.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__120_251.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__252_2639.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__2640_6587.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__6588_10055.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__10056_14399.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__14400_17483.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__17484_20051.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__20052_21707.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__21708_22751.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__22752_22883.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__22884_22967.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__22968_23051.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23052_23099.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23100_23231.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23232_23279.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23280_23351.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23352_23435.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23436_23759.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23760_23903.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__23904_24083.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__24084_24155.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__24156_25583.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__25584_26663.png SD_A_2015__Visual_perception_and_stereoscopic_imaging__an_artist_s_perspective__9391-10__26664_27169.png
From crashing through a story of Mike May, a quote, the brain imposes knowledge in order to see. But I think there might also be beauty in not imposing knowledge, in being open to everything, and being open to every possible interpretation. In ways, there's something liberating about my vision in the sense that so much of what I see can be anything. It's fascinating to think that an object or even a person can be anything. It means that almost anything can be beautiful. Mike May said this several years after restoration of his site in One Eye. He lost his site as a small child and regained it in his forties. He had no visual memory to help him recognize what he was looking at. He couldn't even recognize his wife. Claude Monet and the Futurists, among others, were also addressed the encumbrance of memory in appreciating beauty. From Art and Physics by Leonard Schlein, Monet once said he wished he had been born blind and later gained sight. That way he would be able to look at the world free of the knowledge of what the objects were so that he could more appreciate color. Robert Hughes comments, on the early 20th century Futurist artist Marinetti in Shock of the New, Marinetti's enemy was the past. He attacked history and memory with operatic zeal, and a wide range of objects and customs fell under his disapproval, from Giovanni Bellini altarpieces to the erratic Italian love of pasta. This dichotomy between the ability to see and the dependence upon memory to determine what we see is of primary concern to artists. Our past expectations become a hindrance to our experiencing beauty in the present. It is in the creation of a relationship of visual objects to memory that matters, that makes art. An experience concerning this relationship of shapes and other visual information not remembered as names or things or otherwise identifiable objects becomes metaphoric of what the artist sees. A change is required in the way we look at things, a shift as it turns out to a different part of our brain. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we were capable of thinking. This from Stephen Pinkers, How the Mind Works. From necessity, we learn to deal with information quickly by reducing it what we observe to manageable size. This information must be processed by our brain to be identified and an appropriate response generated. All this in a fraction of a second. We have been forced to see in terms of what we conceptualize and know from memory. I see what is happening, compare it with previous experiences and feel emotion. Is this feeling one of fear or joy? Do I stand or run? Do I respond or disregard? This reductionist way of interpreting visual data is imprinted in our brain. An example of this is the way we understand the human face and body. We think profiles and straight on views, not three quarter ones or foreshortening. You think of a hand like this, not like this. This is exemplified in the art of ancient Egypt. Look at this Egyptian stele in this slide. Both the head, hips, legs and feet are all in profile while the shoulders, chest and hands are in frontal view, all avoiding any foreshortening. This is the way we think these body ports, not what we really see. Our vision is influenced by social construct and technical convention as well. We might think a king more important than his servant and an artist might paint him larger. Thus, artists must often unlearn what they know about familiar objects, people and social norms and look at them in a fresh and altered way and see what is really there. This involves not looking at a foot as a foot but instead seeing it as a shape of different tones and colors proportional to the rest of the figure. Lining up, sighting angles and measurements are often necessary. Note that this process of not looking at the subject in familiar terms as foot, toes, toenails and heel is necessary to encourage that part of our thinking which deals with concept and the abstract to relinquish control allowing the creative part to do what it does best, that is see the foot in order to draw it. Gravity and light are well known to the artist. If shadow doesn't ground an object, bind it properly or to place and time, then something seems amiss. Take away shadows and perspective and what have you got, a feeling of displacement or unease. We have learned that shadows give us a sense of time and placement. They are part of our subconscious thinking as with perspective indicating depth. This slide is an example of what happens when the artist plays on these expectations. Giorgio D'Aquirico was a master at putting the viewer in an unreal place where vanishing points made no sense and shadows indicated a time of day contrary to that of the light, a place that could only exist inside our imagination. Our perception of a constant shape and lightness across changes in viewing conditions tracks the object inherent properties from Pinker. The most dramatic example of this perceptual consistency concerns color. We learn to recognize a lion in all lighting conditions. In the sun coming through the trees, in the grass, and in the shadow of a rock. In our mind, the lion retains the same color in all situations, though physically its color may vary considerably. This color constancy or local color as artists like to call it, follows what Simear Zaki refers to as the golden rule of perception, namely comparison. The brain looks at colors and shapes in relationship to their surrounds and is able to see the same yellow no matter what the conditions. The ratio of the amount of light of differing wavelengths never changes. Information must be simplified and codified in order to be processed in the moment. The rules we use to gather information for survival often break down when compared with actually seeing what's really there. The yellow in the shade may in fact be violet, but because of neighboring colors we still see the same yellow. Our brains necessarily simplify as too much data can clog the system and prevent identification and timely action. Throughout history, scholars have noted the duality of our thinking. However, not until Sperry conceived of surgically dividing the two hemispheres of the brain, known as a commiserotomy, and with the subsequent advent of brain imaging systems such as the MRI and CAT scans to give a picture of the brain's activity, were different responses of each cortex observed. Characteristics of each side of the brain were identified. Typical features of the left were found to be linear, timed, logical and rational thinking that is doing and abstraction. Typical features of the right hemisphere were found to be imagination, spatial cognition, intuition, holistic thinking and all at once perception, being, metaphor. As one might conclude from these hemispheric polarities, the scientists who relies on empirical study requiring a logical, linear and conceptual methodology thinks mainly from the left side while the artist who thinks takes a more creative, holistic and emotional approach sees from the right. Metaphor is the cornerstone of fine art. There is a layering of different planes of comprehension. Like worlds of thought that are linear and logical, relationships are implied and directly expressed within a work. Realizing parallels often flies in the face of much thinking as they must be experienced and seen and not sequentially explained or thought. For example, a saison painting of a bowl of fruit is not an appetizing depiction of a set, but a set of relationships of shapes and planes of color. These reflect artists' need for balance and equilibrium even though the table would surely topple in the real world. As Joseph Campbell points out, one does not want to eat a saison apple, but rather experience the visual truth of it within the confines of the canvas. It is in understanding the relationships between the objects depicted and those of the objects of one's own experience, both visual and personal, that leads one to truly see the work of art before him. The still life is a painting of what he sees. The painting becomes a metaphor for understanding everything else. Again, as Campbell puts it, quote, nothing within the field, that is the border of the painting, has referenced to anything outside the field. Within that field, what is important is what is here and here. The relationship of part to part, of part to whole, and of the whole to each of its parts. And when that relationship is fortunately achieved, you have claritas, radiance, fascination, aesthetic arrests, aha, you are held, end quote. As artists and scientists employ different methodologies in trying to understand who we are and what we are striving to achieve, in the end we come to understand the same thing in very different ways. We create new languages to explain what we have discovered. Scientists communicate truth through experimental reasoning, while artists communicate through visual metaphor. Perhaps it's the inability to translate these languages that causes such conflict between the two and perhaps helps polarize society as well. At last year's conference, I presented the idea of environmental stereoscopic art as a way of becoming more aware or more conscious of the visual process and consequently gain greater insight into consciousness itself. I turned to chroma depth 3D glasses. These rely on differing refractions of incoming light for each eye, thereby placing colors at various distances from the viewer, due to the spontaneity afforded by these glasses by not having to create two images. The resulting change in consciousness from left to right brain thinking is palpable. This work, the mechanics of understanding, comes close to the way I see the world. These are at once sharp and distinct, yet as I look, the shapes change. They're one way now, another way depending upon my focus. I feel the presence of other forces in my head as I look. But as I look, it makes sense to me, aesthetic sense, emotional sense. One cannot see it in all, in only one glimpse. And I apologize for cutting this short. This work, Can You Read Me, may give a limited view of visual space created by layers of writing. The marks are inextricably tangled with each other, and yet the mind detects an order within the apparent chaos. Using the 3D chroma depth glasses, the layers become visually separated, allowing me to better appreciate the image. One must indeed be in their right mind in order to read me. Well, obviously I don't have time for the rest of this, but I would like to just say that somebody asked me, well, so what? What's this all about? By going back to the root of our perception, we may take full advantage of the new technologies that are becoming available by trying to step around our expectations, our preconceptions, and not just follow those in logical conclusions. If we don't, we're just making an updated fancy TV or a new type of atom bomb. Thank you.
liberating about my vision in the sense that so regained it in his forties. He had no visual he would be able to look at the world free of the knowledge of what the objects were so that he to our experiencing beauty in the present. It is in the creation of a relationship of visual shapes and other visual information not the artist sees. A change is required in the way we look at things, a shift as it turns out to a fraction of a second. We have been forced to see in terms of what we conceptualize and know from memory. I see what is happening, compare it with foreshortening. This is the way we think these people and social norms and look at them in a different tones and colors proportional to the this process of not looking at the subject in thinking which deals with concept and the creative part to do what it does best, that is see the foot in order to draw it. Gravity and thinking as with perspective indicating depth. D'Aquirico was a master at putting the viewer in shapes in relationship to their surrounds and is when compared with actually seeing what's really there. The yellow in the shade may in fact be duality of our thinking. However, not until scans to give a picture of the brain's activity, on empirical study requiring a logical, linear left side while the artist who thinks takes a that are linear and logical, relationships are much thinking as they must be experienced and is in understanding the relationships between the one's own experience, both visual and personal, that relationship is fortunately achieved, you stereoscopic art as a way of becoming more aware or more conscious of the visual process and consequently gain greater insight into not having to create two images. The resulting change in consciousness from left to right brain thinking is palpable. This work, the mechanics of it in all, in only one glimpse. And I apologize Using the 3D chroma depth glasses, the layers don't have time for the rest of this, but I would becoming available by trying to step around our expectations, our preconceptions, and not just