An explanation for normal and anomalous drawing ability and some implications for research on perception and imagery
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Visual Arts Research 28 (1):38-52 (2002)
The aim of this paper is to draw the attention of those conducting research on imagery to the different kinds of visual information deployed by expert drawers compared to non-expert drawers. To demonstrate this difference I draw upon the cognitive science literature on vision and imagery to distinguish between three different ways that visual phenomena can be represented in memory: structural descriptions, denotative descriptions, and configural descriptions. Research suggests that perception and imagery deploy the same mental processes and that the drawing of one's imagery would require the simultaneous deployment of these very processes. I reason that drawing a picture of one's imagery is not possible. I hypothesize that when required to draw a picture from memory, both expert and non-expert drawers access their denotative description of the object (stored in memory) rather than their imagery (structural description stored in memory). I then suggest how my hypothesis could be tested and if accurate, how this finding would impact upon the design and interpretation of experiments on imagery when drawing is involved. I also suggest why the constraints that perception places upon the simultaneous deployment of imagery appear not to cause the same constraints in autistic savant drawers and visual agnosia patients
|Keywords||imagery perception memory autism drawing|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Markus Raab & Marc Boschker (2002). Time Matters! Implications From Mentally Imaged Motor Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):208-209.
Alastair D. Smith & Iain D. Gilchrist (2004). Evidence for the Online Operation of Imagery: Visual Imagery Modulates Motor Production in Drawing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):416-417.
Robert Briscoe (2011). Mental Imagery and the Varieties of Amodal Perception. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):153-173.
Qasim Zaidi & A. Fuzz Griffiths (2002). Generic Assumptions Shared by Visual Perception and Imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):215-216.
Nigel J. T. Thomas (2009). Visual Imagery and Consciousness. In William P. Banks (ed.), Encyclopedia of Consciousness.
Mark A. Brown (1992). Normal Bimodal Logics of Ability and Action. Studia Logica 51 (3-4):519 - 532.
Mark Rollins (2001). The Strategic Eye: Kosslyn's Theory of Imagery and Perception. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 11 (2):267-286.
Carmelo Calì (2005). Husserl and the Phenomenological Description of Imagery: Some Issues for the Cognitive Sciences? ARHE 2 (4):25-37.
Fred W. Mast (2005). Mental Images: Always Present, Never There. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):769-770.
Stephen M. Kosslyn, William L. Thompson & Giorgio Ganis (2002). Mental Imagery Doesn't Work Like That. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):198-200.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads20 ( #124,262 of 1,696,808 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #96,298 of 1,696,808 )
How can I increase my downloads?