08-21-2015, 11:59 AM
Thanks for the replies,
I've been eager to see what other people think about visualization. The reason i say that I don't really believe we see things is because we rely so heavily on constructive drawing in order to recreate things from imagination. We can't just dive into full detail finished illustrations, but there are a few arguments against that like Kim Jung Gi. In fact a lot of more experienced illustrators and I feel especially comic artists can draw with less laborious under drawings. But still, I've always wondered why constructive drawing was necessary to reconstruct from imagination. Why can't we just imagine the picture and put the lines where our mental image dictates?
Here's my argument: when using reference a lot of people can replicate it pretty close, some of them rely purely on a 2d approach, analyzing values in specific regions and reproducing it on a blank paper. But then why is it so necessary then to learn the science of perspective, form, light, etc. to draw from imagination? Is it not possible to just conjure up pictures and reproduce that?
That's why I felt like I had a "concept" of what I wanted instead of an actual mental picture
For example, here are some visual problem solving tasks:
This one, I solve through inference, The dots are all similar sizes but one column is different from the others, it appears to be missing one. I can place the dot and draw it in, but I'm not closing my eyes and seeing the dot there and referencing my mental image.
Mental rotation: For these problems I'm using the base image, and then looking for reference points and angles. I problem solve through moving isolated segements, then wholes, its a very fuzzy process to describe.
Mirrioring is the most taxing mental operation for me.
Some Interesting Points
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental...ation.html
"Shepard's interpretation of it as evidence for irreducibly analog and intrinsically spatial processes in thinking, and for what he called a “second order isomorphism” between image and object (Shepard, 1975, 1978b, 1981, 1984), certainly did not go unquestioned. Some researchers challenged Shepard's contention that his results show that images are rotated as a whole, rather than their parts being compared in a piecemeal fashion (Hochberg & Gellman, 1977;"
"More radically, some have doubted whether the rotation task really involves imagery at all (Marks, 1999). After all, unlike in the experiments with imagery mnemonics, the subjects were never explicitly told to use imagery in performing the comparison task, and alternative explanations of the result "
"Other recent research has centered on whether there might be multiple neural systems for the rotation of mental imagery. Parsons (1987) found that when participants were presented with line drawings of hands rather than Shepard and Metzler-like 3D blocks showed embodiment effects in which participants were slower to rotate hand stimuli in directions that were incompatible with the way human wrist and arm joints move. This finding suggested that the rotation of mental imagery was underlain by multiple neural systems: that is, (at least) a motoric/tactile one as well as a visual one. In a similar vein Amorim, Isableu and Jarraya (2006) have found that adding a cylindric "head" to Shepard and Metzler line drawings of 3D objects can create facilitation and inhibition effects as compared to standard Metzler-like stimuli, further suggesting that these neural systems rely on embodied cognition."
To add the inbetween these poses, I am relying on my personal experience of walking. I find referencing myself and acting it out to be a far more powerful aid than trying to just "see" it
For all of these tasks I feel like I am using more logic and context to deduce a conclusion rather than referencing mental imagery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article Amit posted was an interesting read because the subject was still able to solve visual tasks without mental imaging.
This in combination with the Shepard & Metzlar article mentioning:
"This finding suggested that the rotation of mental imagery was underlain by multiple neural system"
leads me to believe visual problem solving can be done many different ways. I guess this further reinforces that everyone has unique ways they create art and therefore shortcuts in art are very difficult to find. and why mileage is reinforced so much, so you can figure out what works best for you.
Quick Edit: Actually when animating I feel like I rely most on motoric/tactile senses mentioned in the article. I like to mentally act out a scenario and then draw it, this is the reason why animation is so interesting for me. Because I feel more like the actor rather than a spectator.
I've been eager to see what other people think about visualization. The reason i say that I don't really believe we see things is because we rely so heavily on constructive drawing in order to recreate things from imagination. We can't just dive into full detail finished illustrations, but there are a few arguments against that like Kim Jung Gi. In fact a lot of more experienced illustrators and I feel especially comic artists can draw with less laborious under drawings. But still, I've always wondered why constructive drawing was necessary to reconstruct from imagination. Why can't we just imagine the picture and put the lines where our mental image dictates?
Here's my argument: when using reference a lot of people can replicate it pretty close, some of them rely purely on a 2d approach, analyzing values in specific regions and reproducing it on a blank paper. But then why is it so necessary then to learn the science of perspective, form, light, etc. to draw from imagination? Is it not possible to just conjure up pictures and reproduce that?
That's why I felt like I had a "concept" of what I wanted instead of an actual mental picture
For example, here are some visual problem solving tasks:
This one, I solve through inference, The dots are all similar sizes but one column is different from the others, it appears to be missing one. I can place the dot and draw it in, but I'm not closing my eyes and seeing the dot there and referencing my mental image.
Mental rotation: For these problems I'm using the base image, and then looking for reference points and angles. I problem solve through moving isolated segements, then wholes, its a very fuzzy process to describe.
Mirrioring is the most taxing mental operation for me.
Some Interesting Points
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental...ation.html
"Shepard's interpretation of it as evidence for irreducibly analog and intrinsically spatial processes in thinking, and for what he called a “second order isomorphism” between image and object (Shepard, 1975, 1978b, 1981, 1984), certainly did not go unquestioned. Some researchers challenged Shepard's contention that his results show that images are rotated as a whole, rather than their parts being compared in a piecemeal fashion (Hochberg & Gellman, 1977;"
"More radically, some have doubted whether the rotation task really involves imagery at all (Marks, 1999). After all, unlike in the experiments with imagery mnemonics, the subjects were never explicitly told to use imagery in performing the comparison task, and alternative explanations of the result "
"Other recent research has centered on whether there might be multiple neural systems for the rotation of mental imagery. Parsons (1987) found that when participants were presented with line drawings of hands rather than Shepard and Metzler-like 3D blocks showed embodiment effects in which participants were slower to rotate hand stimuli in directions that were incompatible with the way human wrist and arm joints move. This finding suggested that the rotation of mental imagery was underlain by multiple neural systems: that is, (at least) a motoric/tactile one as well as a visual one. In a similar vein Amorim, Isableu and Jarraya (2006) have found that adding a cylindric "head" to Shepard and Metzler line drawings of 3D objects can create facilitation and inhibition effects as compared to standard Metzler-like stimuli, further suggesting that these neural systems rely on embodied cognition."
To add the inbetween these poses, I am relying on my personal experience of walking. I find referencing myself and acting it out to be a far more powerful aid than trying to just "see" it
For all of these tasks I feel like I am using more logic and context to deduce a conclusion rather than referencing mental imagery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article Amit posted was an interesting read because the subject was still able to solve visual tasks without mental imaging.
This in combination with the Shepard & Metzlar article mentioning:
"This finding suggested that the rotation of mental imagery was underlain by multiple neural system"
leads me to believe visual problem solving can be done many different ways. I guess this further reinforces that everyone has unique ways they create art and therefore shortcuts in art are very difficult to find. and why mileage is reinforced so much, so you can figure out what works best for you.
Quick Edit: Actually when animating I feel like I rely most on motoric/tactile senses mentioned in the article. I like to mentally act out a scenario and then draw it, this is the reason why animation is so interesting for me. Because I feel more like the actor rather than a spectator.