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].

2HisfullnameisTommasoCassaiMasaccio,andhewasbornin1402.

[Caption: Masaccio: The Holy Trinity, with the Virgin and Saint John and donors. 1427] 3

‘The early theories of perspecting in writing, was made by artist, and author Alberti 4, in his

book ‘On Painting’, which he wrote in 1453. He was the first person to explain the rules on

paper, and unltimately had a big influence on painters of the time, who were finally taught to

create accurate drawings.

The fundamental difference between discoveries and inventions is that discoveries involve

something that already pre-exists, whereas an invention uses objects or theories that pre-exist

and makes it into something brand new that doesn’t exist yet.

The implications of saying perspective was invented, suggests that we, as a human race,

created perspective, and that it was something brand new, created with someone’s own ideas

and development. Inventions are usually man-made items that we experiment with, and using

trial and error, as inventions can always be improved and made better. It is often a creative

process, and inventive thinking often combines multiple elements. It can be as a result of

play, re-envisioning or improving something, or exploration. Renaissance artists knew their

‘invention’ was based on earlier findings and efforts, and not just their own work, it was

collaborative and unique. It created new means of representing visual power, using already

provided materials. However, you could argue that it is completely a human construct,

created for our own benefit and to show off an artist’s particular talent in this world.

German Mathematician Leopold Kronecker argued a similar logic with mathematics, saying,

“God created the natural numbers. Everything else is a work of man.” His quote supports the

3Masaccio’s‘Trinityisknowntobethefirstperspectiveimage.Heusesone-pointperspectivetogivetheimagedepth,thevanishingpointbeingatthebaseofthecross.Contrastedagainst‘TheCrucifixion’,theviewercanseethedifferenceusingperspectivemakes.Thebuildingisopenedtous,creatingalarge,visiblespacebehindhim,insteadofaflatone-dimensionalblockofcolour.4HisfullnameisLeonBattistaAlberti,andwasbornin1404.

theory of invention, and describes how, although the basic concept of numbers is created by a

higher power and will always exist, complex theories of mathematics, such as algebra, are

invented by humans. We can transform this in the perspective argument, by commenting on

the belief that although the concept of vision is entirely natural, the theory of perspective is a

work of man to enhance that.

Indicating that perspective was discovered suggests that perspective is reified, and would

always exist, even without any human intervention. Discoveries are based on observation,

giving recognition and meaning to things that have previously existed but never been found

before. Many artists in the fourteenth century actually believed perspective was a rediscovery

of techniques known to Greeks and Romans. There is no doubt that the fundamental base of

perspective, the theory behind the understanding of how we see, was a discovery. We could

argue that perspective is innate and will always exist, even if we had never been able to

acknowledge it, or if we suddenly became extinct on Earth. The structure of perspective is

intrinsic to nature, and it is up to us whether we use it.

My opinion changes constantly as to what I believe the universal truth is. Ultimately, I don’t

think there is a correct answer, and I believe perspective is a mixture of discoveries and

inventions. Perspective is an invented logic to create order, however it was only bought about

by the discovery of how vision worked, the theory behind how we see, and without that

knowledge, perspective wouldn’t exist. We discover new things and invent ways to make

them better.

So, if it really is that ambiguous, why are we asking this question? The rules of drawing in

perspective will always produce a solid, reliable and tangible result, and to some, that’s all

that matters. However, asking these questions and analysing them is what enables us to

develop as a species. It took lifetimes for the number zero to be accepted as a number and

involved in mathematics. It sparked debate and furious analysis. Nowadays, we cannot

imagine life without the number zero.

References

Abbott, D. (2013) Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? [Online] Available

at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-abbott/is-mathematics-invented-

o_b_3895622.html [Accessed: 26th Oct. 2017].

Artible (2018). Tomasso Cassai Masaccio Biography. [Online] Available at:

https://www.artble.com/artists/tommaso_cassai_masaccio/more_information/biography

[Accessed: 19. Jan 2018]

Barnaby, R (2005). [Online] Available at: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/09-

ralph.php. [Accessed 18th Jan. 2018]

Brier, J. (2011). The Cheese Stands Alone: The Problem with Funny Art. [Online] Available

at: http://www.artpractical.com/feature/the_cheese_stands_alone [Accessed: 26th Oct.

2017].

Dekofsky, J. (2014). Is Math Discovered or Invented? [Online] Available

at: https://ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-discovered-or-invented-jeff-dekofsky [Accessed: 26th

Oct. 2017].

Kelly-Gadol, J (2017) Leon Battista Alberti [Online] Available at:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leon-Battista-Alberti [Accessed: 19. Jan 2018]

Masaccio (1424) Holy Trinity, with the Virgin and Saint John and donors (Online) Available

at: http://www.italianrenaissance.org/masaccios-holy-trinity/ [Accessed: 19. Jan 2018]

Master of the Berswordt Altar (1400) The Crucifiction [Online] Available at:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/43.161/ [Accessed: 19. Jan 2018]

Mirzoeff, N. (1998) The Visual Culture Reader. London:Routledge. (Pages 333 -362)

Mirzoeff, N (1999) Introduction to Visual Culture London:Routledge. (Pages 21-40)

Op-Art (2017). Op Art History Part I: A History of Perspective in Art. [Online]. Available at:

8 http://www.op-art.co.uk/history/perspective/ [Accessed: 19. Jan 2018]

Ralph, B. (2005). Eye of The Beholden [Online] Available at: http://journal.media-

culture.org.au/0510/09-ralph.php [Accessed 26th Oct. 2017].

Ruskin, J. (1971) The Elements of Drawing in Three Letters to Beginners. New York: Dover

Publications inc.

Tansey, M. (1981). The Innocent Eye Test [Online] Available

at: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/484972 [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017]