Reflexive and Reflective Responses: Bidloo, Sadeler, Jacquemart and Hogarth

What are some of the fundamental ways that viewer’s respond to imagery?

Although there are always issues complicating any simple answer to questions such as how an audience is likely to respond to artworks, at the heart of any discussion on this topic there are two fundamental ways. The first is a viewer’s automatic response to a portrayed subject. This is often described as “reflexive” (i.e. a response that is like an involuntary knee-jerk if one’s knee is tapped with a hammer). The second is a viewer’s conscious and mediated response that is often described as "reflective." This response involves the viewer in negotiating (i.e. “thinking about”) meanings based on associations, projections and interrogation of the visual information observed in the artwork.

Regarding a reflexive response, this is a natural reaction like the wish to wave away the fly engraved in Gerard de Lairesse’s (1640/41–1711) anatomical study, Table 52: Abdomen, Posterior Wall (shown below). Based on my own response, this fly and its proximity to the surgically evacuated abdomen cavity, along with its angled alignment towards the cavity and the fly's resting place on material bordering the cavity, gives me an involuntary shiver of unease. I instinctively want to brush it away so that the exposed diaphragm is uncontaminated by the fly’s presence. 

Engraving by Abraham Blooteling (1640–1690) and Pieter Stevens van Gunst (1659–1724) after an illustration by Gerard de Lairesse (1640/41–1711) published in Govard Bidloo's (1649–1713) famous anatomical atlas, Anatomia humani corporis (Utrecht, van Poolsum, 1734 edition) (see video further below)

Table 52: Abdomen, Posterior Wall, 1690

copper engraving on cream laid paper with 2.5 cm chain-lines

(sheet) 50.4 x 34.6; (plate) 47.5 x 32.1 cm

Description of this print: “Large house fly shown on the specimen. Abdomen, posterior wall, in situ. Viscera removed to show diaphragm, crus of diaphragm around divided aorta and esophagus. Vertebrae and psoas muscle shown.

The splendid anatomical work of Bidloo is considered one of the most beautiful ones ever printed. It became famous because of the very elegant and elaborate engraved tables after drawings by Gerard de Lairesse, carried out by Abraham Blooteling and Pieter Stevens van Gunst.” (http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/abdomen-posterior-wall-house-fly-417303811 [viewed 10 January 2014])

Vassar's Millionth Volume [Anatomia humani corporis by Govard Bidloo] (4.06 mins)

This reflexive response to the fly is also accompanied by an equally reflexive reaction of recoil at the grisly and uncommon subject portrayed—a dissected cadaver. Moreover, I have vacillating instinctive responses of revulsion and fascination with the contrast I see between the portrayed mechanical sheen of the dissection pins and the soft flesh that they hold in place (see details above).

The notion that my response vacillates between one moment of wanting to avert my eyes away from the portrayed scene and, at the next, with wanting to examine it in a searching way, is even more apparent when I look at another engraving from Bidloo’s anatomical atlas, Table 86: Dissected Foot (shown below). Here, the apparatus for displaying the dissected muscles and tendons is even more riveting to my eye in the sense that there is a note of theatricality in the way that the various body tissues are drawn apart by posts, pegs, callipers and pins. For me, I feel a twinge of pain, in terms of a gut reaction, when I see the muscles disassembled in this way.

Engraving by Abraham Blooteling (1640–1690) and Pieter Stevens van Gunst (1659–1724) after an illustration by Gerard de Lairesse (1640/41–1711) published in Govard Bidloo's (1649–1713) famous anatomical atlas, Anatomia humani corporis (Utrecht, van Poolsum, 1734 edition)

Table 86: Dissected Foot, 1690

copper engraving on cream laid paper with 2.5 cm chain-lines and a watermark featuring a crowned coat of arms

(sheet) 51.4 x 33.2; (plate) 47.5 x 30.2 cm

Description of this print from the original text: “Exhibits all the Muscles which Appear in the Bottom of the Foot, after the Expansion of the Plantaris is remov'd.”

Condition: Sharp impression with several dots (stains) to the upper-right corner, a repaired tear (2 cm) to the lower-left side and surface dustiness appropriate to the age of the print, otherwise it is in good condition. I am selling this rare and extraordinarily fine engraving for a total cost of $488 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. This is a large print and will be shipped in a tube. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries.

There is another type of reflexive response that goes beyond gut-reaction and this is exemplified in Johannes Sadeler’s (1550–c1600) engraving, The Calling of Abraham (shown below). In this image, illustrating a scene from Genesis, the voice of God is portrayed by the Latin words: Egredere de terra tua (from the Genesis 12:1 verse: "dixit autem Dominus ad Abram egredere de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui in terram quam monstrabo tibi" [“the Lord said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house to the land that I will show you]). The written text is not the reflexive element in the image; rather it is the need for the audience to turn their heads upside down to read the inscription and in the act of doing this—perhaps blasphemously—to assume the position and role of God making the pronouncement from the heavens above. This device of inverting the text in the image is intentional. Sadeler wants the viewer to interact with the image in a physical way that causes the viewer to be God by an automatic unconscious response.

Johannes Sadeler (1550–c1600)

The Calling of Abraham, c1590

Engraving on fine laid paper with 2.8 cm chain-lines

(sheet) 22 x 26.7; (plate) 21.5 x 26.3 cm

Inscribed: (lower middle of the image) "Cu priuilegio / Sac. Cæs. M."; (lower margin) with two-line dedication to Augustinus de Justis: "IN GRATIAM PERILLVSTRIS COMITIS AVGVSTINI DE IVSTIS, PINXIT IACOBVS DE PONTO BASSAN, / VERONAE" and "Scalpsit autem Joann. Sadeler Belg."

Marvellous lifetime impression of the only state

Described by the British Museum: “The Calling of Abraham. Landscape with a couple making cheese (?) in lower right, their animals beyond, a shepherd resting at the foot of a tree at left, Abraham as a shepherd in background and being addressed by the words 'Egredere de terra tua' emerging from a cloud; after Jacopo Bassano”

(http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3146681&partId=1&searchText=sadeler%2c+bassano&view=list&page=1 [viewed 12 January 2014])

Hollstein 53: Bartsch 7001.052

Isabelle de Ramaix offers the following information about this print: “The Jacopo Bassano painting which inspired this engraving is now lost, but at the end of the sixteenth century it was in the Giusti collection in Verona.” (de Ramaix, Isabelle 1999, The Illustrated Bartsch: Johan Sadeler l .001–.223, Vol 70, Part1 (Supplement), Abaris Books, Norwalk, p. 76)

Condition: A superb lifetime impression that is neither bleached nor restored. The sheet is hinged with conservator’s tape but is not glued down onto a support sheet. The print shows signs of handling (bumped corners and a light fold mark across the centre but otherwise it is in good condition. I am selling this marvellous engraving for a total cost of $310 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print has been sold

To explain the difference between such reflexive responses and those that are reflective, I will return to my issue with flies.

In Jules Jacquemart’s (1837–80), L’Écurueil et la Mouche? [The Squirrel and the Fly?] (shown below), the subject is again about death but when I look at the depicted fly, it does not arouse a reflexive response for me to brush it away. Instead, I ponder the fly’s relationship to the dead squirrel (i.e. I reflect upon the image) in terms of why Jacquemart choose to depict it. For instance, was Jacquemart simply illustrating a scene in a very objective way and the moment portrayed was when the fly landed on the ground beside the squirrel? Alternatively, did Jacquemart wish to allude to the history of vanitas and memento mori symbolism in art reminding us of the transience of life and that we too will die? Or from a more playful mindset, did Jacquemart have a wicked sense of humour in representing the fly as if it were a ball that the squirrel was toying with? In short, the fly does not trigger a reflective response but rather a reflective one in which my mind concocts reasons for what I observe in the print.

Jules Jacquemart (1837–80)

L’Écurueil et la Mouche? [The Squirrel and the Fly?], 1862

Etching on thick wove paper with wide margins

(sheet) 33 x 50.7 cm; (plate) 24.2 x 31.9 cm

Inscribed within the image (upper-right) “34” and in the margin (lower-left) “J. Jacquemart sculpt.”; (lower middle) L’ÉCURUEIL ET LA MOUCHE? / Paris Publié par A. CADART & CHEVALIER, Éditeurs, Rue Richelieu, 66.”; (lower-right) “Imp. Delâtre, St. Jacques, 303, Paris.”

The print dealers, C & J Goodfriend, add to my questions about the significance of this subject with the proposals: “Or was he [Jacquemart] simply interested in delineating the textures and colors of the fur and a dead squirrel gave a far better opportunity than a live one? But then, why the fly? The ultimate question is: what is the significance of the question mark at the end of the title? Or is that a contribution of the typesetter – who didn’t know how to spell L’Écureuil? An interesting oddity and, as expected, supremely well etched.” (http://www.drawingsandprints.com/CurrentExhibition/detail.cfm?ExhibitionID=11&Exhibition=42 [viewed 13 January 2014])

Béraldi 330; Bailly-Herzberg (1863) 34; Gonse 330

Condition: Rich impression in very good condition but there is a light brown spot (more visible on verso) and a fleck/spot in the lower-left margin. I am selling this print for a total cost of $330 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print has been sold

To bring this discussion to a close, I have chosen to illustrate the many levels of reflective response that may be triggered with the example of William Hogarth’s (1697–1764), Time Smoking a Picture (shown below). Portrayed in this image is the worldly advice written in Greek on the upper edge of a framed painting: "Time is not a great artist but weakens all he touches.” To ignite a viewer’s reflective response in attempting to rationalise what this inscription could mean, Hogarth depicts the classical figure of Father Time seated on broken sculpture. For most viewers using their powers of reflective thinking, the placement of Father Time on the smashed sculpture suggests that art is destined to be ruined through misadventure over the passage of time. This reading of the impact of time on art is also sustained by Father Time’s scythe shown cutting into the framed painting. There is also the question that needs answering: why Father Time is blowing pipe smoke onto the painting? This may be harder to rationalise—unless a viewer understands that there was a leaning by collectors in the art market during Hogarth's era to value yellowed paintings (i.e. paintings that are antiques or where the varnish had the golden appearance of age).  Hogarth symbolises the notion of time and the patina of grime that it can give artworks by showing Father Time literally darkening the framed painting inscribed with the curious text with smoke. In essence, Time Smoking a Picture is an allegorical warning to art collectors not to be duped into valuing artworks by the effects of time alone; a point that the Art Galley of NSW in its description of this print sums up succinctly: “time is not a beautifier but a destroyer.” (http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/8658/  [viewed 13 January 2013])

William Hogarth (1697–1764)

Time Smoking a Picture, 1761

Etching and aquatint on wove paper with wide margins (as published)

Heath edition, 1822, published by Baldwin, Cradock and Joy. This edition was the last printing from the original plates (later editions are smaller in size and are either reproductions or the plate has been recut). 

(sheet) 65.5 x 50.3; (plate) 23.6 x 18.5 cm

Description by the Art Gallery of NSW: “This is Hogarth's most consciously learned image, using quotations from classical texts to support his challenge to the gentlemanly taste for old and darkened Italian paintings. From the 1730s onwards he railed consistently against the taste for dubious old master paintings authenticated by dealers and 'dark masters'. Time's scythe pierces the canvas, making the point that time is not a beautifier but a destroyer.”

See also the drawing for this print: http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/7624/ (viewed 13 January 2013)

Condition: Rich impression from the original plate. The wide margins are free of foxing but there is age-darkening to the edges of the sheet, light dustiness and soiling (mainly verso) and there are signs of handling in terms of bumped corners. I am selling this print for a total cost of $286 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print is no longer available

An Evolution in Representation (Part Four): Bega, Burgkmair, Marini and Morikage

What are some of the historical approaches used by artists to represent what they see?

Over the course of previous three posts the focus has been on different approaches that artists employ when attempting to portray reality. What has been left to this fourth and final discussion in the current series is arguably the most interesting approach of all: the use of visual cues for visual communication where no part of an image is more important than the whole. In short, the following discussion will address how Gestalt psychology has been adapted by artists—often unknowingly—and applied in the representation of reality. More specifically, I aim to explain how artists have employed two laws of Gestalt theory to help viewers to interpret visual information:

• The “law of figure and ground”—a set of rules governing how the viewer distinguishes the figure (i.e. “the pattern that is most clearly perceived at a given time”) from the ground (i.e. the background or “the rest of the perceptual field”)—see http://www.preservearticles.com/201102023813/law-of-figure-ground-relationship-of-perceptual-organization.html (viewed 27 September 2013); and,
• The “law of closure”— a rule that the viewer has the propensity to find linear connections that define a subject's shape and form (i.e. to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing.")—see http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm (viewed 27 September 2013).

Regarding the “law of figure and ground,” Edgar Rubin (1886–1952), who is probably most famous for his face-and-vase illusion 
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure%E2%80%93ground_(perception) [viewed 11 October 2013]), proposes that there are four attributes in an image which help a viewer to distinguish the figure (i.e. the essential subject) from the ground (i.e. the background) 
(see http://www.preservearticles.com/201102023813/law-of-figure-ground-relationship-of-perceptual-organization.html [viewed 27 September 2013]). With a note of apology for my interpretative rewording of Rubin’s ideas, these may be outlined as:

1. the figure’s shape has a clear edge, whereas the shapes in the background are less defined;

2. the figure is laid on the top of a visual field of background features;

3. the figure is closer to the viewer than the background;

4. the figure’s shape has associations with tangible forms.
To explain the significance and importance of these attributes in practice, I wish to compare Cornelis Bega’s (1631/1632–64) etching, The Singer (shown below) with Hans Burgkmair’s (1473–1531) woodcut, The Battle of Ravenna (shown further below).

Cornelis Pietersz Bega (1631/1632–64) 

The Singer [Le Chanteur]

Published circa 1816 by McCreery from the original plate

State ll (of ll)

Etching on fine wove paper

(Sheet) 11.7 x 7.8 cm; (Plate) 11.2 x 7.4 cm

Bartsch 7.27;  Hollstein 27

(See British Museum at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3051678&partId=1&people=132836&peoA=132836-2-60&page=1)

Condition: crisp impression with fine margins. The paper is virtually flawless apart from faint discolouration at the corners where the print was once attached to a support sheet.

I am selling this print for a total cost of [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any questions or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print has been sold

View of whole sheet

Detail of Bega’s The Singer

Hans Burgkmair the elder (1473–1531)

The Battle of Ravenna, 1514–16.

illustration in Der Weisskunig

Monogram of Burgkmair “HB” on lower-left cannon

Woodcut on laid paper

22.4 x 19.8 cm

Bartsch Vll.224.80; Hollstein 522; Dodgson ll.95.89.

(See British Museum http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1440535&partId=1&searchText=Hans+Burgkmair&page=3)

Condition: superb and rare early impression with fine margins. There is a small foxing mark in the sky and a thin area visible only on the back.

I am selling this print for a total cost of [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any questions or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print has been sold

Verso view of The Battle of Ravenna

Detail of Burgkmair’s The Battle of Ravenna

Detail of Burgkmair’s The Battle of Ravenna

In terms of Rubin’s first “rule”—viz. “the figure’s shape has a clear edge, whereas the shapes in the background are less defined”—Bega’s print is an ideal example. Bega not only separates the three primary figures he portrays from the background with an outline, but he also applies subtle differences in the treatment of each figure’s outline to suggest where the three figures stand in space. By this I mean that Bega represents the illusion of spatial depth by making the small boy in the foreground appear to be in front of the other figures through the use of a sharp outline, whereas the most distant figure (i.e. the man holding a sheet of paper while singing) is portrayed with a comparatively freely drawn outline (see details below).

Representation of spatial depth by changes in the treatment of outlines

By contrast to the subtle changing treatment of edges employed by Bega to create spatial depth, Burgkmair’s woodcut displays a singular approach where the representation of figure and ground is not differentiated: the outline edge of subjects portrayed in the foreground have the same sharp quality of line as the outline edge of subjects portrayed in the distance (see detail below). As a consequence, there is a shortfall in applying Rubin’s first rule.

Consistency of approach that does not allow for Rubin’s first rule

Regarding Rubin’s second and third rules—viz. “the figure is laid on the top of a visual field of background features” and “the figure is closer to the viewer than the background”—both prints by Bega and Burgkmair demonstrate how the principle may be applied successfully. For example, both artists employ the principle of overlapping to establish the logic of which figure is in front of which and the relative distance between the various figures. Nevertheless, Burgkmair’s print has problematic areas, such as shown in the detail below featuring a cannon and a figure above it, where the principle of overlapping is not applied. In these areas the lack of overlapping results in spatial ambiguity where a viewer may be uncertain about the logic of relative distances between the cannon and the figure, and the figure and the rest of the battle scene.

Lack of overlapping that does not allow for Rubin’s second and third rule

Rubin’s fourth and final rule—viz. “the figure’s shape has associations with tangible forms”—is a sensible and straight forward rule that does not need too much clarification. After all, most perceptions are framed by past experiences—mindful that there are arguments as to whether our brains are pre-programmed, or evolved by experience, or perhaps a mixture of both. For instance, most viewers would perceive figures in both prints because they “know” what people look like. Moreover they can “read” meaning into how people move and the plethora of observed subtleties, such as body-language, acquired from personal experience. In the case of Bega's print, the plant depicted in front of the songster's legs (see detail below) is likely to be perceived as a plant with all the attributes of a plant simply by association of what plants look like and by the artistic convention of using loose line-work to represent the silhouette shape of plants.

Foregrounding a subject by association

Unlike the first law of Gestalt theory, the second law—the “law of closure”—relies more heavily upon the artist’s intuitive sense of what might be the minimum visual information required to convey meaning. For instance, if an artist wishes to represent a rectangle (see Figure A below), there may not be the need to show all sides of the rectangle. The artist could, for example, choose to only show the corners (see Figure B below) and let audience’s mind fill in the blank lines of the sides without literally inscribing them in the drawing. Alternatively, the artist could choose to show only the centres of the rectangle’s sides (see Figure C below) and leave the audience to imagine the blank corners as a reconstruction (i.e. in “the mind’s eye”). In short, the last two examples are illustrations of how an artist can supply a minimum of amount of visual information and rely on the “law of closure” to assist an audience to “fill in” the complete picture.

Shown below is a fine example of this law in an ink painting of a monkey in a tree by a Japanese artist with whom I am not familiar. This sensitive portrayal of a monkey relies entirely on the viewer being able to perceive connections between freely laid brushstrokes. For instance, in the detail shown further below, the artist has not drawn an outline of the monkey as a clearly defined shape hugging a tree limb. Instead the monkey’s form and how tightly it clutches the branch is suggested by the viewer’s eye seeing a visual bridge-like connection between two critical accents: the pointed brushstroke describing the tree branch above the monkey’s head and another pointed stroke at the monkey’s tail. Amongst many other visual prompts (e.g. the variation of pressure used to represent the monkey’s chin resting on the tree limb), these two marks are like bookends that carry a line of connections between them.

[Unknown artist]

Monkey [in a plum-tree garden], executed in the ‘Year of the Rooster’: 1848(?)

Ink painting on paper

(scroll) 113 x 69 cm; (painting) 31.5 x 63 cm

Mounted as a scroll with wooden scroll ends

Signed with signature and seal

Based on a friend’s translation of the old Chinese script, my understanding is that the painting may be intended as good wish on a birthday for an enlightened and peaceful long life.

I have added my friend’s notes that were made during our discussion and would be happy to hear for other readers who can add more information (see notes below).

Condition: wrinkles, surface dustiness, light stains.

I am selling this hand-painted scroll for a total cost of $246 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any questions or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This item is no longer unavailable

Translation notes

Creating the effect of closure through such a line of connections can be a lead to a formulaic approach to applying the second law, but there are meaningful ways to decide what should be shown and what should be omitted.

One approach to using this law is to think in terms of creating psychological democracy in an image. By this I mean, an artist should lessen (i.e. “play down”) the importance of what might be seen as psychologically arresting visual information and increase (i.e. “play up”) the importance of what may be seen as psychologically undemanding visual information. Most artists do this intuitively so that what they portray seems psychologically balanced. For instance, in my life-drawing classes where the focus is on nude models, I am often struck by the interest of many students in the psychologically undemanding areas of the figure—the neck, the waist, armpits and knees—rather than in the psychologically arresting areas—the face, hands, feet and genitals. The outcome of such a focus on incidental details, rather than portraying all the model’s features, gives the viewer’s mind scope to “fill in” the missing or thinly drawn areas so that the subject can be perceived as a coherent form.

An example of an artist displaying a psychologically balanced vision may be seen in Marino Marini’s (1901–80) etching Two Pomonas (shown below). In this image Marini renders a pair of figures with two different treatments. The less psychologically interesting features—the figures’ head-shapes, backs, elbows and knees—he renders with a single fine line, whereas more sexually and psychologically interesting features—breasts, genitals, hands, feet and faces—are blurred with cross-hatching. By intention, Marini gives the viewer sufficient visual information to see both figures despite not portraying in graphic detail the figures in their entirety. Beyond giving the viewer minimal information to complete the image mentally, this balance of the two treatments offers more. It allows the viewer to move beyond the pictorial reality of looking at two figures and to contemplate the image as a well-integrated composition. In short, this approach is about portraying an image as a cohesive whole rather than an image of parts.

Marino Marini (1901–1980)

Zwei Pomonas [Two Pomomas], 1956

From the album Tout près de Marino, plate X

Pencil signed (lower right) and inscribed with edition number 5/65 (lower left)

etching on thick wove paper

(sheet) 56 x 88 cm; (plate) 26.1 x 18.8 cm

(see Klepac, Lou 1980, Marino Marini: Etching and Lithographs, The Art Gallery of western Australia, Perth, Plate 3, p. 34)

Condition: superb impression with wide margins. There light toning from the print having been mounted in the past and the back of the print has light foxing.

I am selling this print for a total cost of [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. This is a large print and will be shipped in a tube. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any questions or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print is unavailable

As an experiment (shown below), I have digitally modified Marini’s print with details of figures extracted from several of Hendrick Goltzius’ prints and drawings. My aim is to illustrate how the introduction of these intimate details—a face, breasts, buttocks and feet—can disrupt and visually fragment an image into parts, because such details are psychologically laden with personal meanings that, arguably, inhibit an instantaneous reading. Of course, not all viewers will agree and there is an argument that the proximity of the features may even assist with a viewer's perception of form. From my reading of this digital image, however, I find my eye and brain distracted by the intimate details. In truth, my experience is less about the artwork as a cohesive image and more about finding meaning for the added details.

Digital experiment in visual fragmentation involving elements of Hendrick Goltzius’ prints merged with Marino Marini’s Two Pomonas

An alternative way of employing the law of closure is shown in Kusumi Morikage’s (1620–80) ink painting of an egret (shown below) where the shape and form of the bird is expressed by the background. Here the tone of the background (i.e. the negative space) behind the bird is represented by an insightful use of line that portrays the bird’s physical form (i.e. positive space). For instance, to portray the Egret’s crown feathers Morikage has used a single fluid line with a hook at its top to present the silhouette shape of these feathers, their dazzling whiteness and, interestingly, their latent springiness (see details further below).

Kusumi Morikage (c. 1620–90) (Tokugawa period)

Egret [Sagi]

Ink painting on paper

162.6 x 33.5 cm 

Mounted as a scroll with wooden scroll ends

Signed with signature and seal: “Morikage”

The attribution of early Japanese paintings is difficult unless one is an expert in this area (which I am not). Consequently, I am presenting this painting as either an original painting by Morikage or by one of his followers.

(See references to Morikage: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325540/Kusumi-Morikage; http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/246.1984.a-b/;

http://web-japan.org/museum/byobu/byobu06/byobu06.html)

Condition: wrinkles, surface dustiness, light stains and scuffed areas.

I am selling this hand-painted scroll for a total cost of $746 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any questions or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This item is no longer available

Underpinning this law is the inexplicable phenomenon described by Gestalt researchers such as Tong-Yee Lee (see 

http://proj.ncku.edu.tw/research/articles/e/20101210/2.html [viewed 7 January 2014]) as “emergence” when a recognisable image is perceived from a collection of what may otherwise be viewed as disparate pictorial fragments. Perhaps the most famous illustration of this phenomenon is R C James’ image of a Dalmatian dog sniffing the ground (see

http://thecuriouspanther.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gestalt1.jpg in

http://thecuriouspanther.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/gestaltism-a-theory-of-mindand-brain/ [viewed 7 January 2014]) and I have attempted to explore this type of reductive image in my digital experiments with a local stray cat in my garden (see below). Although an exact explanation as to why we are able to synthesise such information has not been advanced (beyond the theory that there are many causes/laws all working together) the effect remains that the brain is able to piece together an image as a whole from fragments if there are visual and psychological triggers for it to perceive forms.

Exploring a three-stage digital reductive process

Before ending this discussion I wish to propose that one of the best examples of our brain's flexibility to negotiate meaning from a mire of fragments is showcased in the art of autostereograms popularised in the Magic Eye books (see an example of an autostereogram at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram [viewed 7 January 2013]).