Yes. In fact there is a tradition in art theory of making a distinction between close vision (involving movement of the eye across a surface) and distant vision

Yes. In fact there is a tradition in art theory of making a distinction between close vision (involving movement of the eye across a surface) and distant vision (in which the whole scene can be taken in at once). It's actually a fascinating bit of intellectual history, though I am not sure whether it counts as objective scientific knowledge. It started with the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand and was developed by Alois Riegl into the notions of "haptic" and "optical" vision. Wolfflin then expanded that distinction into five polarities (linear vs painterly, plane vs recession, closed vs open, multiplicity vs unity, clarity vs complexity). In mathematical terms haptic seeing is concerned purely with manifold surfaces whereas the optical can also represent non-manifold geometry. Even more significance was later hung on that structure by the philosophers Walter Benjamin and Deleuze and Guattari. In particular the haptic is associated with surface, with smooth spaces of the mechanical, of trajectories and motion, while the optical is associated with volume, with striated spaces of the organic, of hierarchy and stasis. "parametric" vs. "implicit" if you like. It's a bit of a philosophical rabbit hole!