The innocent eye, or seeing ‘what the eye sees’ is a meaningful expression many artists use to capture their experience in observational drawing and painting. However, a literal interpretation of the innocent eye does not comport with a science of vison focused on object perception. Nor is a two-step model involving a ‘bottom-up strategy’ a plausible account of the notion. Consistent with an emerging body of neuroscientific and psychophysical evidence for the pivotal role of attention in conscious vision, artists’ innocent eye is best construed as an extended proximal mode of vision involving focused attention on pictorial relationships in an identified object or scene. The innocent eye is open to creative expansion, made possible by a competency developed most likely in the early through middle childhood that underpins the visuocognitive skills for flexible deployment of attention, flexible representation, mental imagery and visual memory. The potential challenge from the rare cases of savant-talented artists, who seem to be able to access retinal images directly, is discussed and considered inconclusive. The proposed theoretical framework raises new questions for empirical investigations on the nature and development of the artists’ perceptual expertise, and has implications for science-based pedagogical approaches to drawing, painting, and creativity.
AthertonM. (2002). The origins of the sensation/perception distinction in: Perception and the Physical World: Psychological and Philosophical Issues in PerceptionHeyerD. and MausfeldR. (Eds) pp. 3–19John Wiley & SonsNew York, NY, USA.
ChamberlainR.McManusI. C.RileyH.RankinQ. and BrunswickN. (2013). Local processing enhancements associated with superior observational drawing are due to enhanced perceptual functioning, not weak central coherenceQ. J. Exp. Psychol.661448–1466.
CostallA. (1995). The myth of the sensory core: The traditional versus the ecological approach to children’s drawings. in Drawing and Looking: Theoretical Approaches to Pictorial Representation in ChildrenLange-KüttnerC. and ThomasG. V. (Eds) (pp. 16–26) Harvester WheatsheafHemel Hempstead, UK.
Del GiudiceE.GrossiD.AngeliniR.CrisantiaA. F.LatteaF.FragassiaN. A. and TrojanoL. (2000). Spatial cognition in children. I. Development of drawing-related (visuospatial and constructional) abilities in preschool and early school yearsBrain Dev
DurginF. H.RuffA. J. and RussellR. C. (2012). Constant enough: On the kinds of perceptual constancy worth having in: Visual Experience: Sensation Cognition and ConstancyHatfieldG. and AllredS. (Eds) pp. 87–102Oxford University PressOxford, UK.
GeerT. (2012). What we illustrate when we draw: Normative visual processing in beginning drawings, and the capacity to observe detail in: Thinking through Drawing: Practice into Knowledge Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium on Drawing Cognition and EducationKantrowitzA.BrewA. and FavaM. (Eds) pp. 45–50Teachers College, Columbia UniversityNew York, NY, USA.
HegartyM. (2010). Components of spatial intelligence in: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory Vol. 52 RossB. H. (Ed.) pp. 265–297Elsevier Academic PressSan Diego, CA, USA.
HelmholtzH. W. (1971). The facts of perception in: Selected Writings of Hermann HelmholtzKahlR. (Ed.) Wesleyan University PressMiddletown, CN, USA (originally published 1887) Available online at: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/helmholt.htm.
HochbergJ. (2007). The psychophysics of pictorial perception in: The mind’s eye: Julian Hochberg on the Perception of Pictures Films and the WorldPetersonM. A.GillamB. and SedgwickH. A. (Eds) pp. 30–59Oxford University PressNew York, NY, USA.
KosslynS. M.HoltzmanJ. D.FarahM. J. and GazzanigaM. S. (1985). A computational analysis of mental image generation: Evidence from functional dissociations in split-brain patientsJ. Exp. Psychol. Gen.114311–341.
Lange-KüttnerC. and ReithE. (1995). The transformation of figurative thought: Implications of Piaget and Inhelder’s developmental theory for children’s drawings. in: Drawing and Looking: Theoretical Approaches to Pictorial Representation in ChildrenLange-KüttnerC. and ThomasG. V. (Eds) pp. 75–92Harvester WheatsheafHertfordshire, UK.
LongobardiC.QuagliaR. and IottiN. O. (2015). Reconsidering the scribbling stage of drawing: A new perspective on toddlers’ representational processesFront. Psychol.6:1227. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01227.
MausfeldR. (2003). Conjoint representation and the mental capacity for multiple simultaneous perspectives in: Looking into Picture: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pictorial SpaceHechtH.SchwartzR. and AthertonM. (Eds) pp. 17–60MIT PressCambridge, MA, USA.
OstrofskyJ.KozbeltA. and CohenD. J. (2015). Observational drawing biases are predicted by biases in perception: Empirical support of the misperception hypothesis of drawing accuracy with respect to two angle illusions
Q. J. Exp. Psychol.681007–1025.
SchurzM.AichhornM.MartinA. and PernerJ. (2013). Common brain areas engaged in false belief reasoning and visual perspective taking: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Front. Hum. Neurosci.7712. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00712.
TchalenkoJ.Dempere-MarcoL.HuX. P. and YangG. Z. (2003). Eye movement and voluntary control in portrait drawing. in The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement ResearchHyonaJ.RadachR. and DeubelH. (Eds) pp. 705–727North HollandAmsterdam, Netherlands.
YirmiyaN.Solomonica-LeviD.ShulmanC. and PilowskyT. (1996). Theory of mind abilities in individuals with autism, down syndrome, and mental retardation of unknown etiology: The role of age and intelligenceJ. Child Psychol.371003–1014.