Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Gericault’s Fake-Gallop Horse Judged Speedy but Unrealistic

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Art & Perception

In two experiments, we tested pictures of horse gaits—alt (standing), walk, trot, gallop, and a fake gallop, a pose shown in a well-known Gericault painting. The pose was portrayed frequently in the nineteenth century, its features hotly debated. Fake gallop has legs extended fore and rear, close to parallel to the ground. Experiment 1 sampled real artworks depicting horses and Experiment 2 used silhouettes of horses. In both, reports of amount of movement increased from alt to fake gallop. In Experiment 1 similar results were obtained from novices and equestrians (‘experts’ familiar with horses). The extreme leg extension in fake gallop may suggest high speed, as Arnheim suggested. However, true gallop includes legs curled close together under the body—a ‘running pony’ pose—so both extremes of extension may suggest high speed. In Experiment 2, novices judged fake gallop unrealistic despite giving high movement scores. We suggest its depiction may be metaphoric, meaning a deliberately false item has relevant features of a referent. For the artworks, the amount of movement reported correlated positively but quite modestly with aesthetic appreciation, but for the silhouettes, the correlation was reversed. We suggest expression can be positive for many horse poses.

Affiliations: 1: University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy ; 2: University of Toronto, Scarborough, Canada

10.1163/22134913-20181094
/content/journals/10.1163/22134913-20181094
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134913-20181094
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. American Indian Wars (n.d.). Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars.
2. Arnheim R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception , University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
3. Attneave F. (1971). "Multistability in perception", Sci. Am. 225(6), 6271.
4. Burr D. C., and Ross J. (2002). "Direct evidence that “speedlines” influence motion mechanisms", J. Neurosci. 22, 86618664.
5. Cattaneo Z.,, Schiavi S.,, Silvanto J., and Nadal M. (2017). "A TMS study on the contribution of visual area V5 to the perception of implied motion in art and its appreciation", Cogn. Neurosci. 8, 5968.
6. Chao H. Y., and Kennedy J. M. (2015). "Metaphoric car drawings by a 12-year-old congenitally blind girl", Perception 44, 13491355.
7. Cutting J. E. (2002). "Representing motion in a static image: Constraints and parallel in art, science and popular culture", Perception 10, 11651193.
8. Di Dio C.,, Ardizzi M.,, Massaro D.,, Di Cesare G.,, Gilli G.,, Marchetti A., and Gallese V. (2016). "Human, nature, dynamism: The effects of content and movement perception on brain activations during the aesthetic judgment of representational paintings", Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9, 705. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00705.
9. Dobrez L. (2013). "The perception of depicted motion", Arts 2, 383446.
10. Goldstein B. E. (2007). Sensation and Perception , Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA, USA.
11. Gombrich E. H. (1964). "Moment and movement in art", J. Warburg Courtauld Inst. 27, 293306.
12. Gombrich E. H. (1995). The Story of Art , 16th ed., Phaidon Press, London, UK.
13. Hammad S., and Kennedy J. M., (2017). "The picture surface illusion: 3D biases 2D", in: The Oxford Compendium of Visual Illusions , Shapiro A., and Todorovic D. (Eds), pp. 209213, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
14. Hubbard T. L. (2005). "Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: A review of the findings", Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 12, 822851. doi: 10.3758/bf03196775.
15. Hubbard T. L., and Ruppel S. E. (2017). "The (dynamic) mind in the cave: Representational space of cave paintings and petroglyphs", Emp. Stud. Arts 35, 6792.
16. Juricevic I. (2017). "Analysis of pictorial metaphors in comic-book art: Test of the LA-MOAD theory", J. Graphic Novels Comics , 121. doi: 10.1080/21504857.2017.1413667.
17. Kennedy J. M. (1982). "Metaphor in pictures", Perception 11, 589605.
18. Kim C. Y., and Blake R. (2007). "Brain activity accompanying perception of implied motion in abstract paintings", Spat. Vis. 20, 545560.
19. Korol T. (2017). Photo, Globe and Mail , July 17, 2017, Section S, p. 1.
20. Kourtzi Z., and Kanwisher N. (2000). "Activation in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion", J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 4855.
21. Mastandrea S., and Kennedy J. M. (2016). "Pot/lid illusion", i-Perception 7. doi: 10.1177/2041669516665622.
22. Mastandrea S., and Maricchiolo F. (2014). "Implicit and explicit aesthetic evaluation of design objects". Art Percept. 2, 141162.
23. Mastandrea S., and Umiltà M. A. (2016). "Futurist art: Motion and aesthetics as a function of title", Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 201. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00201.
24. Mastandrea S.,, Kennedy J. M., and Wnuczko M. (2014). "Picture surface illusions: Minor effects on a major axis", Perception , 43, 2330.
25. Muybridge E. J. (1878). "The science of the horse’s motion", Sci. Am. 39, 241.
26. Osaka N.,, Matsuyoshia D., and Ikeda T. (2010). "Implied motion because of instability in Hokusai Manga activates the human motion-sensitive extrastriate visual cortex: An fMRI study of the impact of visual art", Neuro Report 21, 264267.
27. Pavan A.,, Cuturi F. L.,, Maniglia M.,, Casco C.,, Campana G., and Maniglia M. (2011). "Implied motion from static photographs influences the perceived position of stationary objects", Vis. Res. 51, 187194.
28. Rhodes G.,, Brennan S., and Carey S. (1987). "Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces", Cogn. Psychol. 19, 473497.
29. Summers W. (1871a). Tattenham Corner , published April 21st by J. M. McQueen, London, UK, and Paris, France.
30. Summers W. (1871b) The Winning Post , published April 21st by J. M. McQueen, London, UK, and Paris, France.
31. Vaughan W. (1999). British Painting: the Golden Age , Thames & Hudson, London, UK.
32. Williams A. L., and Wright M. J. (2010). "Static representations of speed and their neural correlates in human area MT/V5", Neuro Report 20, 14661470.
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134913-20181094
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134913-20181094
2018-10-17
2018-11-16

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Art & Perception — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation