The key is that the near and far points of the picture remained the same no matter the angle the picture was viewed from. When observing real surfaces in the natural environment the visual information that specifies near and far points varies when we change viewing direction.
When we observe a picture on the wall, on the other hand, the visual information that defines near and far points is unaffected by viewing direction.
Still, we interpret this perceptually as if it were a real object. According to a team from Bielefeld University in Germany, no one has ever done a rigorous test to see if the Mona Lisa effect even applied to the Mona Lisa. There was no plan or intention of creating this effect.
Each researcher repeated these tasks three times for each of the six experimental conditions. But the far points and near points, and the overall relief of the depicted object, remained proportionally the same. The key is that the near points and far points of the picture remained the same no matter the angle the picture was viewed from, Todd said. Still, we interpret this perceptually as if it were a real object.
That is why the eyes appear to follow you as you change your viewing direction. Todd said people may be surprised by this phenomenon because of the unique perceptual aspects of viewing a picture.
We perceive the object depicted in a painting as a surface in 3-dimensional space, but we also perceive that the painting itself is a 2-dimensional surface that is hanging on the wall.
Instead, our brains rely on other cues to depth, such as shading the use of shadows to imply depth and movement all this is also covered in the book. The explanation lies in how we interpret three-dimensional objects portrayed on a flat surface. Real three-dimensional objects look different depending on the angle because of the changing way light falls across them. But on the flat canvas, shading and light are fixed and the image looks the same from every angle.
If the face is looking straight out from one angle, it will appear to be looking straight out at whatever angle it is viewed at. The contradictory information is either overridden or disregarded. If you want look at the original paper you see that the how-to-make-eyes-follow-you-around-the-room result is actually more of side-issue of the main thrust of the paper — which is a discussion of the visual mechanisms behind and correct interpretation of effect.
Pointing out of the Picture. Perception, 33 , Here for subscribers. A humorous Mind Hack: how to make naked bottoms in pictures follow you around the room. In contrast to the eyes following you trick, if the artist tweaks the painting a bit such that the eyes are looking off somewhere else instead of directly out at a potential observer, no matter where you stand, the eyes will never seem to be looking at you. Axelsson worked for the Swedish tabloid Gotebors-Tidningen and came up with the idea of featuring the primate paintings in an exhibition in order to put the critics to the test- could they distinguish between the work of true, highly skilled avant-garde modern artists when compared to the work of a random chimpanzee?
It turns out the answer is mostly no. Enjoy this article? I call it a public delusion. Any attempts to explain it are also delusional.
0コメント