What Michael says about memory and perception is absolutely true. But it's true of ALL perception. We look at something focal point by focal point and remember them as we mentally construct a whole. If you want to know how small your focal poinht really is, extend your art with raised thumb. Cover something in the distance with the thumb. Whatever is bloked out is the area of your focus. Double it for both eyes. It's still a rather small area. Those more or less circular focal areas are what you mentally stitch together, holding each in memory and then you 'invent" a whole scene, more or less. Even in the process of doing that you look back and forth, overlapping previous focal areas with new ones, amalgamating the perception in time, just as Michael says. Again, what he said about looking at the life model is true of ALL looking, even looking at a photograph. The photo itself, produced by the lens, records one focal view -- different from that of our eyes -- all at once. But we still perceive it piecemeal, in memory. (If you want more on this, see Robert Solso's book re visual art and perception). WC
Michael said: > > I read a very interesting show review in Arts magazine, way > back in > the 80s, about a figural artist. The writer made the point > that > drawing from the model consists of many many acts of > memory, of > looking at the model, turning to look at the paper or > canvas, and then > drawing from memory what the artist saw. The drawing was > comprised of > a multitude of these small acts of remembering, and the > resulting > drawing or painting showed the development of the image > over time (in > contrast, btw, to a photograph, which is instantaneous and > total). > This accumulation of discrete acts formed a more vivid and > "living" > image than a mechanical transcription. > > Drawing from a photograph does away with effect of building > the image > over time, not to mention the loss of the third dimension. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
