Posted on 04/11/2007 4:38:47 AM PDT by Pharmboy
STANFORD, Calif. - Michael Marmor, MD, wanted to know what it was like to see through the eyes of an artist. Literally.
After writing two books on the topic of artists and eye disease, the Stanford University School of Medicine ophthalmologist decided to go one step further and create images that would show how artists with eye disease actually saw their world and their canvases. Combining computer simulation with his own medical knowledge, Marmor has recreated images of some of the masterpieces of the French impressionistic painters Claude Monet and Edgar Degas who continued to work while they struggled with cataracts and retinal disease.
The results are striking.
In Marmor's simulated versions of how the painters would most likely have seen their work, Degas' later paintings of nude bathers become so blurry it's difficult to see any of the artist's brush strokes. Monet's later paintings of the lily pond and the Japanese bridge at Giverny, when adjusted to reflect the typical symptoms of cataracts, appear dark and muddied. The artist's signature vibrant colors are muted, replaced by browns and yellows.
"These simulations may lead one to question whether the artists intended these late works to look exactly as they do," said Marmor who has long had interest in both the mechanics of vision and the vision of artists. "The fact is that these artists weren't painting in this manner totally for artistic reasons."
Degas and Monet were both founders of the Impressionist era, and their artistic styles were well formed before their eye disease affected their vision. But their paintings grew significantly more abstract in later life as, coincidentally, their eye problems increased.
"Contemporaries of both have noted that their late works were strangely coarse or garish and seemed out of character to the finer works that these artists had produced over the years," Marmor wrote in a paper titled "Ophthalmology and Art: Simulation of Monet's Cataracts and Degas' Retinal Disease" that was published in the December issue of the Archives of Ophthalmology.
It's well-known that such artists as Monet, Degas, Rembrandt, Mary Cassatt and Georgia O'Keefe all reached their heights of artistic vision while facing a decline in their ocular vision. Marmor chose to focus on Degas and Monet for these simulations because both artists suffered from eye disease that was well-documented in historical records, journals and medical histories. Degas had retinal eye disease that frustrated him for the last 50 years of his long career. Monet complained of cataracts interfering with his ability to see colors for 10 years before he finally underwent surgery to have them removed.
"We understand better from these simulations what Degas and Monet struggled with as vision failed," Marmor said.
Over the past 32 years, the Harvard-educated physician has published 200-plus scientific articles on the science of eye disease while at the same time writing about famous artists and how eye disease may have affected their artwork. He authored one book, Degas Through His Own Eyes, and co-authored another, The Eye of the Artist, with James G. Ravin.
"As an ophthalmologist, I'm fascinated with the visual components of art," said Marmor, whose Stanford home is decorated with pieces of modern art that emphasize optical illusions. His family donated works of art to the Cantor Arts Center at Stanford. "I've also spent years talking to patients about the symptoms of their eye diseases. This was a natural outgrowth of my science and art interests."
One museum curator, Richard Kendall, called Marmor's publications on Degas and Monet "of considerable value to the art historical community."
"I consider him one of the most thoughtful commentators from the scientific community on questions of eyesight among French 19th-century artists,'' said Kendall, who is curator-at-large at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Mass.
To create the images of the artists' paintings as seen through their own eyes, Marmor used Adobe Photoshop software. He adjusted the blur and filter settings to what he determined would be the different stages of Degas' and Monet's eye diseases, based on medical expertise and historical research.
Degas suffered failing vision from 1860 to 1910. As his eye disease progressed, his paintings grew increasingly rough. From treating hundreds of patients with retinal disease similar to what Degas suffered, Marmor said, he knows that the shading and contrast of images becomes less defined and blurriness increases as such illness progresses.
"Friends would ask Degas, 'Why are you still painting?'" Marmor wrote in his December paper. "His works in the 1870s were drawn quite precisely with facial detail, careful shading and attention to the folding of ballet costumes and towels." By the 1880s and 1890s, the shading lines and details of the face, hair and clothing of the same subjects became progressively less refined.
"After 1900," Marmor said, "these effects were quite extreme and many pictures seem mere shadows of his customary style."
Monet wrote of his growing frustration with his deteriorating vision, describing how he was forced to memorize where the colors were placed on his palette. In 1914 he wrote in his correspondence that colors no longer had the same intensity. "Reds had begun to look muddy," he wrote. "My painting was getting more and more darkened." He was forced to rely on the labels on the tubes of paint in place of his own vision.
"Like retinal disease, cataracts also blur vision," Marmor said, "but more importantly for a painter like Monet, whose style was based on the use of light and color, they can affect the ability to see colors."
"Monet must have struggled mightily as he looked out into the murky yellow-brown garden and tried to decide what subtle impression to create on canvas," Marmor wrote in the December paper. "Slowly progressive age-related cataracts manifest as yellowing and darkening of the lens. This has a major effect on color perception as well as visual acuity."
After reluctantly submitting to cataract surgery in 1923, Monet returned to his original painting style, even throwing away much of the artwork he'd done during the 10-year period that he had cataracts.
"He just couldn't see the colors," Marmor said. "These simulations show how much his sense of color had been destroyed. Some people say, 'Oh, it's a stylistic change.' Gosh, I don't think so."
Understanding the challenges these artists faced because of eye disease helps further illuminate the accomplishments they achieved despite their disabilities, Marmor said.
"There's some reluctance among people in the art world to look outside the historical or psychological influences on the great artists," Marmor said. "I'm open to debate about what these visual changes might mean stylistically or aesthetically. What is not open to debate is what the artists saw. If you ignore that, you're ignoring facts."
### Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication & Public Affairs at
Sam,
Done any flats fishing, lately?
That drug hypothesis is series, but I am not sure it will ‘grow feet’ sufficiently to be considered hugh.
And, speaking of art - any Florida FReepers going to the Sun-N-Fun fly in?
Remember what Tom Sheets said,
“You can’t be an artist without an ego...
But just because you have an ego...
doesn’t mean you’re an artist.”
Tom Sheets 1980
— Remember what Tom Sheets said,...
I stand corrected. I’m not an artist. I just stink, period.
Art has meaning? Who knew?
(:-D
Art has meaning(relatively speaking)
No, I haven’t done much of any kind of fishing lately. I hardly ever find the time anymore, though this may be more of a function of the way in which time compresses itself as one grows older ;-)
Impressionism isn’t my favorite school of art (to put it mildly). It is much better in person than as a print, moreso than any other genre of painting, but I’d rather look at original PRB stuff, and all those guys were high and sharing the same hookers.
I think it's lots simpler than that - they do different drugs.
Someone photoshop looter guy into the painting in post #9.
Cheers!
I agree, even the best lithographs of the Impressionists are worthless. Other than the true Renaissance masterpieces, Impressionism is probably my favorite. Any time I’m in a new city with a decent art museum I find time to go. For whatever the reason, Europeans at the time saw little value in Impressionism, so many of the greatest works are in the US.
I noticed that a lot of well-known Impressionist stuff is in the National Gallery, which is where I noticed the discrepancy between live and repro. But as I said, not my favorite genre. Van Gogh was a nut, and I’m also not a big fan, but his work looks spectacular in person; I doubt he’s considered an Impressionist. J.S. Sargent is best known for portraits, but also painted impressionist works which I’ve never seen “live”.
Precursor of Cinemascope. ;’)
I remember seeing them in art museums as a kid, but at that time all I really wanted to see in museums was dinosaurs, suits of armor and stuff like that. As I grew older, I had saw the prints and couldn’t figure out what the big deal was. But seeing them is person is spectacular.
As you said, the National Gallery has a wonderful collection, I think the best is probably at the Met in NYC, followed by the Art Institute of Chicago. The collections at the Bellagio and Wynn in Las Vegas are small, but very good.
some JSS showing influences:
http://www.thecityreview.com/f00camp6.jpg
http://www.cassdesign.com/images/panel19.jpg
http://www.tfaoi.com/mn/mic/mic195.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MCG/pf677_b~Seista-Posters.jpg
http://www.abcgallery.com/S/sargent/sargent6.html
Yes!
Chicago is the place to see Impressionists. New York City turned their nose up to this new French “art” and Chicago bought it (1890s I think).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
