Do artists use linear perspective to depict visual space?

The question of how to accurately depict visual space has fascinated artists, architects, scientists, and philosophers for hundreds of years. Many have argued that linear perspective, which is based on well-understood laws of optics and geometry, is the correct way to record visual space. Others have argued that linear perspective projections fail to account for important features of visual experience, and have proposed various curvilinear, subjective, and hyperbolic forms of perspective instead. In this study we compare three sets of artistic depictions of real-world scenes with linear perspective versions (photographs) of the same scenes. They include a series of paintings made by one of the authors, a selection of landscape paintings by Paul Cézanne, and a set of drawings made as part of a controlled experiment by people with art training. When comparing the artworks with the photographs depicting the same visual space, we found consistent differences. In the artworks the part of the scene corresponding to the central visual field was enlarged compared with the photograph, and the part corresponding to the peripheral field was compressed. We consider a number of factors that could explain these results.

Is this a "Fettecke" or just a "greasy corner"? About the capability of laypersons to differentiate between art and non-art via object's originality.

Which components are needed to identify an object as an artwork, particularly if it is contemporary art? A variety of factors determining aesthetic judgements have been identified, among them stimulus-related properties such as symmetry, complexity and style, but also person-centred as well as context-dependent variables. We were particularly interested in finding out whether laypersons are at all able to distinguish between pieces of fine art endorsed by museums and works not displayed by galleries and museums. We were also interested in analysing the variables responsible for distinguishing between different levels of artistic quality. We ask untrained (Exp.1) as well as art-trained (Exp.2) people to rate a pool of images comprising contemporary art plus unaccredited objects with regard to preference, originality, ambiguity, understanding and artistic quality. Originality and ambiguity proved to be the best predictor for artistic quality. As the concept of originality is tightly linked with innovativeness, a property known to be appreciated only by further, and deep, elaboration (Carbon, 2011i-Perception, 2, 708-719), it makes sense that modern artworks might be cognitively qualified as being of high artistic quality but are meanwhile affectively devaluated or even rejected by typical laypersons-at least at first glance.