4 ms·
Even without naming a thing, once we categorize it we perceive it differently. This can be shown, for example, in chicken sexers. Chicken cloaca all look the s
by SamBam 2y ago
Even without naming a thing, once we categorize it we perceive it differently.
This can be shown, for example, in chicken sexers. Chicken cloaca all look the same to most of us. But once you've learned for to distinguish the two sexes, they actually look different to you.
But any beginner art student knows the drawback of this. When you see a face, your brain sees it as a set of "face symbols." You then draw a set of "face symbols," and your drawing looks like a bad cartoon of a face.
Becoming an artist requires turning off the part of the brain that turns a face into face symbols, and being able to see the things for the thing it really is.
- wdh505 2y agoDrawing is touching something with your eyes.
- salawat 2y agoJust as being a poet is to learn to cause another to touch something with their ears, even if it was through their eyes initially. And you nailed it.
- HKH2 2y agoGetting close to Plato... "Then the imitator, I said, is a long way off the truth, and can do all things because he lightly touches on a small part of them, and that part an image. For example: A painter will paint a cobbler, carpenter, or any other artist, though he knows nothing of their arts; and, if he is a good artist, he may deceive children or simple persons, when he shows them his picture of a carpenter from a distance, and they will fancy that they are looking at a real carpenter." "The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only."
- uberman 2y agoThis is an excellent observation. In fact, when learning to draw from reference photos, I would invert them and likewise draw inverted. This allows one to see the trees not just the forest.
- cwillu 2y agoAlso playing music: it's very common to “play the song” you're hearing, but not realize just how much of the melody, the rhythm, the chording you're eliding.