Observations
Normal Vision versus Bracketed Vision - Winter 2026
In his book the Ideology and the Image Bill Nichols describes the way we see the world. To be comprehended, the physical world must first be mediated and translated. Light waves, like sound waves, mediate between a distal object and a proximal stimulus. (The focus here will be visual perception although aural perception shares many of the same general characteristics.) The brain provides the translation service, organizing sensory impressions into patterns and then conferring meaning upon various kinds of patterns in order to construct a familiar, recognizable world. In time this world becomes so instantly recognizable that it seems as though it must have been always already meaningful. A useful habit formed by our brains must not be mistaken for an essential attribute of reality. Just as we must learn to read an image, we must learn to read the physical world. Once we have developed this skill (which we do very early in life), it is very easy to mistake it for an automatic or unlearned process, just as we may mistake our particular way of reading, or seeing, for a natural, ahistorical, and noncultural given.
What enters the eye then, and provides material for translation, is not the physical world itself but an array of sensory impressions to which the retina is sensitive. These sensory impressions are variations in light (brightness or intensity, hue, saturation) that correspond to, or establish a correlation with, the physical arrangement of three-dimensional space. Their display upon the retina is in some ways similar to the display of light from a projector or cathode ray tube upon a screen. These impressions are the stuff from which meaning is meaningful in and of themselves.
An awareness of this distinction can be achieved with a simple experiment. Gaze blankly at the space in front of you. Avoid “fixing” the space into objects and spaces between objects; instead, try to see it as a continuum of impressions. Do not focus on objects. Let region of similar color and value bleed together. If the necessary degree of purposeless gazing is achieved the space will lose its familiar properties. Instead of receding in depth, it will seem to float dimensionless from the bottom to the top of the field vision. A rectangular book, instead of lying flat on a table, will be a trapezoidal patch of a certain color and texture rising vertically in this flattened field. Some of the differences between “bracketed perception” and normal perception can be summarized as follows:
Normal Perception
cultural construct
-
unbounded visual space
-
clarity of focus
-
parallel lines extend without converging: the sides of a rectangular surface extending away from the viewer remain parallel
-
if the head is moved, shapes remain constant
-
visual space is never wholly depthless
-
a world of familiar objects of signs, signals and symbols
-
meaning
Bracketed Perception
space-time continuum
-
a bounded visual space, oval in shape approximately 180º laterally, 150º vertically
-
clarity of focus at only one point throughout with a gradient of increasing vagueness toward the margin (clarity of focus corresponds to the space where light falls upon the fovea)
-
parallel lines appear to converge; The lateral sides of a rectangle surface extending away from the viewer appear to converge
-
if the head is moved, the shapes of objects appear to be deformed
-
the visual space appears to lack depth
-
a world of patterns and sensation, of surfaces, edges and gradients
-
information
Normal perception becomes so dominant over the course of time that many people have great difficulty achieving bracketed perception. And yet qualities of normal perception are not inherent; they are provided by the brain’s translation service. This process of organizing sensory impressions into patterns and conferring meaning upon these patterns to which we attend has been studied by psychologists for a considerable time.
The above figure can help illustrate the world seen using bracketed vision. In all likelihood you will not see the object in the visual field. If you look closely you will see a Dalmatian dog sniffing the ground in the middle left of the image.
Bracketed vision is what we see without cultural translation. It is the raw sensory impressions that is received by our biological apparatus. The value of bracketed vision to artist and designers is that using it can assist in understanding form, its internal organization and its relationship to what in normal vision would be called the context. Bracketed vision helps us get past the name of objects so that the creator can see the form and not the concept carried by the object and its name.
Signified and the Signifier - Winter 2026
Under typical circumstances of walking through life, and not looking with the eye of an artist – what we might refer to as under the influence of the strong force -- form tends not to be seen because the meaning is so apparent and immediate. When this state of the strong force is achieved we look, we read, and we all agree there is but a simple interpretation of the scene, painting, photo, or sculpture. The form of the object is not brought to the fore because our eye is drawn to the obviousness of its content. This occurs because the signified, or concept, has precedence over the signifier. We look only as long as it takes to discern the object and name it in our mind. It is more important to us and our participation in culture to name and understand the concept of our vision than to see the form. I like to conduct a thought experiment with my beginning students on the first day of class. I ask them to look at something typical and unordinary, like a used coffee cup, or a vase, or my face. Then after a moment, I remove the prompt and ask them to draw a likeness. They more often than not fail precisely because they are not observing, but merely looking long enough to say to themselves, “that is a vase that is white with a red rose on it.” They allow the signified to dominate their vision and do not dwell on the signifier. Painting and drawing is so hard to study and understand precisely because everything about it seems so obvious and correct. The form seems so ... obvious and natural. How could it be any other way? We don't see form as much as we see their concepts. In other words, We don't apprehend (see) form as much as we comprehend (understand) it. We look at form only for as long as it takes to find the signified that we can associate with it. What is most important in our participation in everyday culture is that we see the meaning. Form is there only until the meaning can be assigned and then we cease to dwell on the form.
When art instructors tell their students to see shapes and values what they are directing their students to do is to delay the leap to the signified and settle on a meaning, its concept – it is a vase with a flower painted on it – and have their vision dwell only on the signifier, the formal components of the vision. Our desire as students of painting and drawing is to foreground form. Don’t name the objects, in fact, don’t see objects. Just see regions and shapes of common value and hue and capture them on the surface.
Comparing Abstract and Realism in Painting - Fall 2023
In my career I have heard three or four truly outstanding lectures. One of those was a lecture I heard in the mid-80's by Wayne Theibaud at the Tyler School of Art. In the lecture Theibaud argued that the dichotomy between realism and abstraction is truly a false dichotomy for the serious painter and proceeded to show paintings by Sargent where he showed the overall painting followed by detailed close-ups from the same painting. Theibaud's purpose was to show that there is considerable abstraction in great realistic paintings as one works to create the illusion of a three-dimensional world in two dimensions. To get space to recede and keep the eye's focus on the primary elements of the painting's composition it is important for the painter to 'abstract' the background so that it sits properly in space and does not distract from the main focus of the painting. Below is an example of what I believe Theibaud was describing. The detail is the loose strokes that constitute the women's scarf who is in the foreground. In this example the collection of oranges is drawing our attention partly because the scarf drifts beckward in space because of the abstraction.
The second example is from Sargent, the "Chess Game." in this example both the women's scarf lying in back of her body is lose and abstract as is the far distant water at the top of the painting. In both instances the abstraction creates the sense of depth and holds our focus on the center of the painting.
Signified and the Signifier - Winter 2026
Under typical circumstances of walking through life, and not looking with the eye of an artist – what we might refer to as under the influence of the strong force -- form tends not to be seen because the meaning is so apparent and immediate. When this state of the strong force is achieved we look, we read, and we all agree there is but a simple interpretation of the scene, painting, photo, or sculpture. The form of the object is not brought to the fore because our eye is drawn to the obviousness of its content. This occurs because the signified, or concept, has precedence over the signifier. We look only as long as it takes to discern the object and name it in our mind. It is more important to us and our participation in culture to name and understand the concept of our vision than to see the form. I like to conduct a thought experiment with my beginning students on the first day of class. I ask them to look at something typical and unordinary, like a used coffee cup, or a vase, or my face. Then after a moment, I remove the prompt and ask them to draw a likeness. They more often than not fail precisely because they are not observing, but merely looking long enough to say to themselves, “that is a vase that is white with a red rose on it.” They allow the signified to dominate their vision and do not dwell on the signifier. Painting and drawing is so hard to study and understand precisely because everything about it seems so obvious and correct. The form seems so ... obvious and natural. How could it be any other way? We don't see form as much as we see their concepts. In other words, We don't apprehend (see) form as much as we comprehend (understand) it. We look at form only for as long as it takes to find the signified that we can associate with it. What is most important in our participation in everyday culture is that we see the meaning. Form is there only until the meaning can be assigned and then we cease to dwell on the form.
When art instructors tell their students to see shapes and values what they are directing their students to do is to delay the leap to the signified and settle on a meaning, its concept – it is a vase with a flower painted on it – and have their vision dwell only on the signifier, the formal components of the vision. Our desire as students of painting and drawing is to foreground form. Don’t name the objects, in fact, don’t see objects. Just see regions and shapes of common value and hue and capture them on the surface.
Comparing Digital 'Painting' with Traditional Wet Medium - Fall 2022
As can be anticipated, digital painting has characteristics distinct from traditional painting with wet medium. I have found that digital painting has peculiar attributes -- both too fast and too slow, as well as simultaneously too near and too distant. These attributes of digital painting present some striking challenges to the painter that need to be embraced and accounted for when working.
Digital painting is fast in the sense that the painting setup is quick. To start, you just open your backpack, fish out your iPad and stylus and begin to work. If you paint plein air, there is very little equipment to carry -- no easel, palette, brushes, paint tubes, stretched canvases, or racks to transport wet canvases. When working digitally should you see an inspirational scene while you are out for a walk you can quickly set-up to capture it. This is a real asset when traveling! But easy set-up has its own problem. For me the ritual of packing up equipment to paint means one needs to commit to painting, plan the trip and set aside the time to devote to painting. Wet media painting is not a grab and go endeavor. The discipline of preparation is accompanied by commitment and this discipline translates down to the process of mark making.
The lack of commitment in painting preparation has ramifications in the painting process itself. There is little finality to the mark making. Each mark can easily be adjusted or reversed in the digital world. When engaged in traditional painting, the successive alteration of an area of canvas leads to muddy colors and disappointing results. To avoid this problem, deliberate mark making is a virtue that is difficult to achieve when adjustments are easy. The fungible quality of digital marks means the image can be noodled endlessly with no apparent consequence in the degradation of the image. If you watch videos of digital artists at work you will observe the constant formal adjustments and color changes even in accomplished digital painters.
Painting with a traditional wet medium means you easily see the whole as a complete object. It is immediate! Digital painting on the other hand is a rather drawn-out affair. You paint, upload to a computer, process the image with software and then, finally, print the image. After printing, one usually discovers areas of the image that require more image processing to get brightness, color saturation and contrast to the desired state. I have found this need for processing is almost a necessity because printers rarely replicate what is seen on the screen. Adding to the time delay of completing a digital painting is the transformation that occurs in the image as it moves from an image that has light emanating from it to one where the light is reflected off the printed surface. This transformation inevitably results in more processing of the image in the computer to get the printed image to portray the desired likeness.
When painting with wet media one can always see the whole at size. Each mark is easily and almost instantaneously placed into its context of the whole. This is not the case with digital painting. When painting on screen it is easy to zoom in and get very focused on a portion of the painting. This detailed work is not easily contextualized. Zooming out to see the whole means the operation must be repeated to get in close again and continue to alter that piece of the canvas. It is not as easy as shifting your focus as you do with traditional painting…it requires hand gestures and time to focus in and then out to see the impact on the whole!
A complicating matter for a digital painter is we rarely work at the final size. My efforts are limited to the size of my screen while the printed output is almost always considerably larger. This presents a significant challenge when looking at your latest digital mark and forecasting the difference between what is seen on the screen with that of the final print. When working at size as in traditional wet medium, it is relatively easy to discern that additional detail is required or the colors require adjustment. With digital painting, to understand that local color requires adjustment takes considerable time as you work between screen and print.
Yet in another sense digital painting is too close and slow. The critical distance that one can achieve by simply stepping back from the easel is not as easily accomplished with digital work and I find that critical distance is not achieved until it is printed. The physicality of the print offers the first opportunity to easily view the object at a distance and obtain the critical distance from the object that can be achieved by stepping back from the canvas on the easel. I have found it takes considerable training to gain any critical distance while viewing the screen. The link between physical distance and critical overview is delayed in digital painting until the print can be seen and the image is finally observed as an object that reflects light. This reliance on the printed output to see the completed image makes digital painting more related of photography than any traditional painting medium.
These peculiar aspects of digital painting do not mean it is not a useful medium. It is just different from traditional painting with wet medium and requires its own distinct working method. Fortunately, like all painting, digital painting sits upon a platform of seeing like a visual artist. A cultivated eye combined with some perseverance can lead to rewarding experiences and, if one is fortunate, beautiful work.