Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ] 

Cogs
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 852

29 Feb 2012, 5:38 pm

I have been reading about Gestalt principles of visual perception and do not think that they reflect the way that I see things. I am wondering if anyone else is similar.

Figure ground: Information I read repeatedly states things like "you cannot observe both the figure and ground at the same time, as ground will become figure when shifting the focus", from what I gather most people can see images such as the Figure-ground-vase in two ways, one way they will see the faces, the other way will see the vase. However I have not yet come accross an explanation that explains seeing the picture in only one way with both faces and vase simultaneously seen, which is how I see it.

Other figure ground examples

Continuity: What I read indicates that people generally have a specific way in which they visually follow lines. So seeing dots in the shape of an 'x' would result in people following the dots as two lines. I however seem to have no order in which I follow such dots, at the intersection with other lines of dots I randomly follow any line. Continuity example Another continuity example

Closure: I also dont percieve things in the way expected with regards to closure. I see things as is constantly explained that we dont perceive things. For example on this page I see the first image as three circles missing pieces and then worked out that the bits it was missing formed a triangle, but I dont see a triangle there as a result.

There are other gestalt principles I dont think really work for me.

I am wondering if others percieve things in the way that people are theoretically supposed to or whether they have different ways of seeing things. Im particularly interesed in feedback regarding figure ground perception.

Simple Gestalt principles explanation

Detailed gestalt principles explanation



Merculangelo
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 282
Location: Oklahoma City

29 Feb 2012, 7:29 pm

From your first link:

Quote:
A breakdown of figure and ground occurs with camouflage


I tend to often look at all the world more like this. Something interesting: I read a theory once, actually it may have been in an Oliver Sacks book, that many of our most famous artists have a deficit in one eye, making them see in a more 2 -dimensional way. This ends up being an advantage when drawing or painting, because you capture information that other people leave out because they are focusing on elements in a specific range that have some conceptual content.
I have astigmatism in one eye and am very near sighted and wear glasses because my eyes don't like contacts. This flattens my visual perception a lot and reduces distinctions between distances, so I see more in this "camouflage" world way.

Then, for your other links, I have one pressing thought.

It seems to me that all of these things depend very heavily on language-based concepts and cultural customs.
The articles write as if a person is actually thinking words in their head in response to something they see.
Quote:
Even at first glance, we perceive a circle and a square.


For people who have a hard time letting go of the details, to register something immediately as a "square" even though it has a gap in the lines, would be false. This is as it is for me. And over my life I've sort of by default come to think without words, because there is a definition for a square, and it requires closure. A square with a gap is not a square. Then what is it? A "square with a gap"? But that is itself a contradictory statement and thus meaningless. And that can go on and on for more complex situations so that ultimately, to learn to register something and process it without naming it makes life more livable.

But it may be exactly that devotion to detail and truth that makes the bird in first link's camouflage picture immediately visible to me, not "with great difficulty".

I would imagine that in the wild, the human that immediately disregards something that generally looks like a log as a "log" and having only "log" properties would end up dead a lot sooner than myself, who doesn't sort it into a "benign" bin before strikes because its actually an aligator or an anaconda.



Hexagon
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Bristol, UK

29 Feb 2012, 7:31 pm

I don't have time to read the detailed one, but I read the simple one, and it certainly doesn't seem to fit in with the way I percieve things. I didn't 'close' the shapes, or group things together. I am good at seeing patterns, but not in the way it suggests.



Merculangelo
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 282
Location: Oklahoma City

29 Feb 2012, 7:43 pm

there are tons of patterns in even those simple images. its more like that there is one completely absolutely stupidly obvious one and most people just stop there. I immediately start finding as many different patterns as I can.

maybe, if you are comfortable and confident in your survival, why search for more patterns? maybe thats it for most people. they're generally confident that they are not in danger.



Cogs
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 852

02 Mar 2012, 1:11 am

I wonder if this is common among AS?