How Monet's masterpieces manipulate our brain: Scientists reveal what makes the art 'trick' our eyes

Dailymail.com ^ | 18:37 EST, 4 January 2019 | Annie Palmer

[BenLurkin]

'With each of the paintings in the series, Monet manipulates viewer perception in a way that scientists at the time did not completely understand,' the university explained.

The study 'provides insight into the complexity of the visual system, illuminating Monet's processes and the intricacies of his work,' they added.

Monet's series shows the Waterloo Bridge amid the landscape and atmosphere of its surroundings, including the swirling fog, soft light and mist.

The researchers noted that each painting uses a very limited color palette, yet, somehow it appears unique every time.

The answer to why each work of art appears different may lie in how our eyes take in wavelengths of light.

The retinas in our eyes are made up of three different types of cones, including blue, which picks up on short wavelengths of light, green, which is sensitive to medium-wavelength light and red, which is sensitive to long wavelengths of light, according to the University of Rochester.

Once our retinas process this information, it then travels to the visual cortex in the back of the brain, which then transmits it to 'higher-level parts of the brain,' such as those that deal with memory and experience, the University of Rochester noted.

Monet manipulates our perception further by painting 3D scenes on a 2D surface.

What's more, he uses contrasting brush strokes to confuse how our brains interpret each color.

[neverevergiveup]

I’m sure Monet wasn’t thinking about the science of vision when he painted.

[rktman]

So, just who is it that anoints painters and authors and actors as the flavor of the day? Say, Andy Warhol or some screeching singer or crappy poet.... Who makes that call? Cause I wanna have a word or two with them. 😹😹

[Delta 21]

If you need science to explain it, ITS NOT ART.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I love Monet’s work. Thanks for posting.

[exDemMom]

I’ve heard a much simpler explanation of impressionist art.

Monet was nearsighted, and painted how he saw.

Anyone who is nearsighted can attest to the fuzziness of the world without glasses.

[Sacajaweau]

When I took up painting, I found my style to be in Monet. I also found hidden things in my drawings.

[grey_whiskers]

[BenLurkin]

So you figure it was just luck.

[pfflier]

He very likely found something that worked for him and used it. Coincidentally, it is appealing to the unknowing viewer also. Like seafoam green???

[BradyLS]

Good ol’ Clavin and Bohbes!

[AndyJackson]

I think this is a tautology, actually. Of course a great artist understands how to control what the viewer perceives by how he paints his painting.

I don't want to say the article is uninstersting, because it isn't, but at the same time it is a bit of a "d'uh."

[Telepathic Intruder]

He was basically using elements of modern color theory before it was even around. It’s what today’s screeens and printers use.

[BradyLS]

A lot of wannabes (and admirers and apologists) become annointers if they have a (media) outlet for their views.

[BradyLS]

Very true! Great point!

[Bob434]

he very well may have been- many painters in those days were experimenting with color theory and how it affects visuals- Seraut was a good example with his pointillism, juxtaposing certain colors for unique effects— van gogh actually- experimenting with ‘electric colors’ that portrayed things like sulfer yellow lighting- the fauvists experimenting with wild colors (fauvists were called ‘wild beasts)

Art was very much an exploration of visual senses, and how color affects the mind- artists like Seraut did explore how it scientifically affected them ind=-

[laplata]

I like Monet’s work. Thanks for posting.

But I won’t read the article.

[rktman]

LOL! Guess we’re too critical? We look at some “wonders” and think, really? WTH were they smokin’?

[TonyM]

“I’m sure Monet wasn’t thinking about the science of vision when he painted.”

He was French, so he was almost certainly drunk off his arse.

[Joe 6-pack]

Monet's painterly style was not without precedent, and there were quite a few developments that led to the impressionist movement as we know it. The revolutionary spirit in France throughout the 19th century was one. Older court painters such a Jacques Louis David stopped painting nobility and started doing portraits of Napoleon but held onto the neo-classical style. The spirit of revolution extended itself to the Academy and the arbiters of taste and style, so some of it (perhaps starting with Manet) was seen as putting a thumb in the eye of the old order.

A more pedestrian development was the foil tube. Oils are notoriously messy to work with, and traditional landscape painters would do their sketches from life, but bring them back to the controlled environment of their studios where they could mix their linseed oil and pigments and develop their landscapes from their sketches. The foil tube (which as I understand it, was originally developed as a method of food storage for Napoleon's armies) proved to be an ideal method of carrying premixed oil paints into the field and painting "impressions" from real life.

There undoubtedly were many other factors, but indeed, the concept of optical mixing and color theory were certainly on the radar of 19th century painters, probably best exemplified by the pointillists who grew out of the impressionist movement.