Are artists vision experts?

Today's reading is "Artists as Experts in Visual Cognition," by Aaron Kozbelt of the University of Chicago (Visual Cognition, 2001).

We need to incorporate many skills in order to make visual sense of the world. We must be able to discern objects even when we have incomplete visual information, pick out shapes from complex environments, and mentally rotate images to compare them with other images. All these phenomena have been measured by psychologists, and they have found that different individuals have varying degrees of skill at them.

What kind of people are best at these visual skills? Perhaps people who have had more practice with them, like artists. Kozbelt designed an experiment to answer this question. He sampled three populations of Carnegie-Mellon students: First-year art majors, fourth-year art majors, and first-year non-art majors. He then gave them several tests: vision tests that measured the tasks I describe above, and drawing tasks such as copying a photo, copying simple diagrams, or replicating a complicated drawing without lifting the pencil or making corrections.

Perhaps surprisingly, Kozbelt found that the first- and fourth-year art students were equally good at all the tasks, despite the expensive education the seniors had received. However, all the art students did better than non-artists in all the vision tasks, and they did better at all the drawing tasks except copying a photo (I'll avoid the easy one-liners about "modern art").

So apparently there is something to the idea of an "artist's eye": artists really are better at the visual tasks that all of us need to perform simply to get along in the world. Artists aren't simply more manually dextrous than the rest of us, they're actually more visually dextrous as well.

There are other examples of "experts" being better than novices at tasks related to their field. For example, Herbert Simon and William Chase found that Chess grandmasters can easily remember the positions of pieces on a chessboard after viewing it for just a few seconds. However, if the pieces are arranged randomly rather than in a position reflecting a real chess game, the experts are no better than novices. In these cases, experts have memorized a large set of possible cases, and can easily retrieve each one. However, Kozbelt argues that what artists are doing is different. Rather than a pattern, they have mastered a process.

More like this

The NCAA basketball tournament is down to the wire now, with only four teams left. How will the players respond? Will they be able to perform under the incredible pressure from the other teams, the coaches, and most of all, the fans filling in their tournament pool brackets? Today's headline might…
I kid you not: Halpern, D.F., & Wai, J. (2007). The world of competitive Scrabble: Novice and expert differences in visuospatial and verbal vbilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(2), 79-94. Competitive Scrabble players spend a mean of 4.5 hr a week memorizing words from the…
Which of these two pictures is more memorable? The shot on the left is interesting primarily because Nora's in it -- if it was just a picture of a muddy trail, it wouldn't be notable at all to most people. The shot on the right is a dramatic mountain scene that you might remember even though (or…
Take a look at this short video -- it's a list of animals. Try to remember as many animals as you can. If you're like me, you're pretty confident that you will remember the entire list, even after ten minutes or so. In my case, that's not so much because the list names animals that most of us are…