Abstract
This article explores the problem of depiction in tactile images, aiming to further existing understanding of what else, besides any tangible marks that may happen to be a feature of a particular image, can be said to belong to the image’s tactility. The answer to this question is sought using examples of creative practice incorporating varieties of touch perception. Analysing the examples, it emerges that the sense of touch is involved in the creation of drawings to a greater extent than tactile sensations (sensorial qualities that are conveyed during the contact). Touch enters the image area through tactile–kinaesthetic imagery based on descriptive gesture that is also shown to manifest itself in situations of non-seeing. It is also suggested that the drawing image, created using descriptive gesture, is capable of displaying intelligible links between the depicted object and the perceptual information associated with it.
An abundance of blind painters 1 and a fertile history of creating images that are intended for perception by touch raise a question: what does the ability to perceive and to create an image without sight say about the non-visuality of the process of image creation? The practice of creating images that do not require the sense of vision for perception, alongside conventional pictures, that is, that are designed to be perceived visually, affords a significant distinction between visual and tactile images, various aspects of which are considered below. If we treat an image in general terms as a configuration of certain marks in a plane, the replacement of vision with touch in the rendering of images that are accessible to individuals who are blind is relatively common (the chessboard for the blind is an example of similar configuration; the same can be said of the maps and building plans used by the blind). However, bearing in mind the function of image marks, the question arises whether it is possible to assign to touch the same mastery of the principles of image creation and perception?
The authors concerned with this issue express different opinions about how reasonable it is to identify tactile pictures as images in the same sense as their visual counterparts. According to John V. Kulvicki (2006, p. 97), imaging cannot be attributed exclusively to visuality because various – not only visible but also audible and tactile – object features and properties can be conveyed using the principles of imaging. This article argues that the conveying of features through tactile means does not preclude the process of imaging. This argument is contrary to those of Robert Hopkins (2000, p. 165), who suggests that tactile pictures fail to render the features of the object represented that would be conveyed by the tactile experience of the object in question, and therefore that tactility and depiction do not share any points of contact. 2 If there is a means of non-visual depiction, according to Hopkins, that means is not tactile.
Images and visual perception, of course, are related by especially strong links, and their analysis continues to receive particular attention. So inevitable is the perceived correlation between imagery and vision, for example, that it seems less of a stretch to assign the capability of ‘vision’ to a blind person than to question the visual aspect of an image. Hans Jonas (1954), in his article ‘The nobility of sight’, considers the possibility of replacing eyes with hands in the situation of non-seeing: Only a creature that has the visual faculty characteristic of man can also vicariously ‘see’ by touch. The level of form-perception […] will be essentially the same for both senses, incommensurable as they are in terms of their proper sensible qualities. Blind men can ‘see’ by means of their hands, not because they are devoid of eyes but because they are beings endowed with the general faculty of ‘vision’ and only happen to be deprived of the primary organ of sight. (p. 511)
It is this ‘general faculty of “vision”’ that, according to Jonas, allows relating the sense of touch to what is identified as the imagination, fantasy (imaginatio, phantasia) (Jonas, 1954, p. 511).
Imagination and memory are very important for the creator of images. If, in the case of individuals who are blind, the creation of such pictures appears to be possible due to visual images retained in memory, 3 the absence of such imagery should be a major obstacle to drawing. If, however, drawing is possible even when it is based not on visual but tactile and kinaesthetic mental images, perhaps in this case, we can meaningfully speak not about visual but about tactile images.
Mental images, which are the ‘property’ of the artist and are visible only to him, are ‘pulled’ into the daylight during the process of drawing and visualised – become visible to others. As Rudolf Arnheim (1969/1997) notes, drawings ‘cannot be faithful replicas of mental images but are likely to share some of their properties’ (p. 116). He observes the difficulty of identifying and describing mental imagery that may or may not exist beneath the level of consciousness. In light of these observations, the material provided in the study ‘The synaesthesia of a blind subject with comparative data from an asynaesthetic blind subject’ by Raymond Wheeler and Thomas D. Cutsforth (1922) seems even more valuable, presenting the recorded imagery of two blind persons and distinguishing their imagery according to the sensory modality with which they are associated. The above-mentioned material, obtained employing the method of self-observation, implies that visual imagery is prevalent (i.e. is the first to appear, is the most stable, most susceptible to conscious control) in the case of the synaesthete, while in the other case, tactile–kinaesthetic imagery is predominant. In the first case, objects are depicted as colour spots; the imagery reveals shades and ranges of light in detail, rather than the form of the object or the contour (Wheeler & Cutsforth, 1922, pp. 15–27, 76). The latter properties of the imaginary object are revealed in tactile–kinaesthetic imagery (the study also suggested that tactile and kinaesthetic images are captured separately, but the perception of shape and contour was found to require both senses working together) (Wheeler & Cutsforth, 1922, pp. 40–45, 48–54). Although the conclusions presented by Wheeler and Cutsforth are not directly related to image creation processes, we may deduce from their observation of the fact that the visual images experienced by the ‘blind synaesthetic reagent’ were much richer in details of hue and brightness than in details of shape and outline (Wheeler & Cutsforth, 1922, p. 76) that, in terms of imagery impact on the development of pictures in the situation of non-seeing, visual imagery is more efficiently used in the case of images created by painting techniques and that imagery related to tactile and kinaesthetic senses is of more useful service for drawing (this deduction would appear to be corroborated by the tendency among the painters encountered by the author in the course of the research informing this study to volunteer that they usually ‘think’ in colours, while drawers, in contrast, regularly claim to ‘think’ in outlines).
Recognising the importance of the sense touch in creating and perceiving images in the situation of non-seeing allows a more probing redrafting of the initial question (what does the ability to perceive and to create an image without sight say about the non-visuality of the process of image creation?): what else, in addition to the touchable marks, belong to the sense of touch in the image?
The search for the answer to this question is based on the involvement of the sense of touch in the process of graphic image creation. A brief overview of theories addressing the problem of the relationship between sensory perception and creative activity helps disclose that successiveness (characteristic to perception by touch as well as to the close view) is by no means an obstacle for creative activity but can be seen as a basis for different artistic styles. In order to assess the feasibility of involving the tactile sense in perceiving images, the ideas of Italian futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (1876–1944), published in The Manifesto of Tactilism in 1921, proves a useful point of reference in the analysis provided below. In order to support the claim that a particular group of images can be referred to as tactile, the relation between the senses of vision and touch is assessed, after which the case study of a blind artist is presented.
The relations between sensory perception and creative activity: ‘Tactile Vision’ and ‘Ideoplastic Style’
In his overview of art theories, spanning the second half of the 19th century and 20th century, Moshe Barasch (2000) notes that efforts to understand visual art and the nature of its production tended, during this period, to be confined to two fields of inquiry: psychology and art. The tradition of distinguishing two types of viewing/seeing, one of which has ‘tactile’ characteristics, probably starts with Robert Vischer’s dissertation ‘On the optical sense of form’ (Über das optische Formgefühl; Barasch, 2000, p. 101), published in 1873, providing a typology of seeing. Such a distinction has benefited Vischer in explaining the existence of different artistic styles. Slightly later, the Swiss art historian Heinrich Wölfflin (1864–1945; who, as Barasch [2000, p. 102] notes, was familiar with the work of Vischer), in his work Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art (Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe; das Problem der Stilentwicklung in der neueren Kunst, 1915), developed the classification of styles according to the same basis, naming different stylistic characteristics ‘painterly’ and ‘linear’. Efforts to understand the creative process encouraged German sculptor Adolf Hildebrand (1847–1927) to try to understand how sensory perception is associated with creative activity. In the work The Problem of Form in the Visual Arts (Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Künsten; Barasch, 2000, p. 133) that appeared in 1893, Hildebrand follows Vischer in analysing two methods of visual perception. He linked two different ways of viewing with two distinct types of visual art – sculpture and painting (Hildebrand suggests that sculpture is characterised by its conduciveness to the close view, whereas painting is associated with a more distal perspective) (Barasch, 2000, pp. 136–141). However, the use of the term ‘tactile’ (or ‘haptic’) vision, specifying one of the methods of visual perception, is mostly associated with the name of Alois Riegl (1858–1905).
A related theory, set out in 1907 in the work Towards a Psychology of Primitive Art (Zur Psychologie der primitiven Kuns) by German psychologist Max Verworn (1863–1921), who was primarily concerned with different aspects of the phenomenon of creativity, reveals the primary rationale underpinning the division of artistic styles into types – it is not the difference between the methods associated with different modes of sensory experience that is deemed to be of primary significance, but the different uses of that experience during the creative process. According to Verworn, the fine arts consist of two styles – ‘physioplastic’ and ‘ideoplastic’ (Barasch, 2000, p. 232). Works in the ‘physioplastic’ style, claims the author, depict visually perceptible features of nature or the environment, rendered in such way as the eye perceives them (this is claimed to be the case even in cases of depiction from memory). The artist who creates in ‘ideoplastic’ style, in contrast, does not attempt to convey the features of a concrete object. The basis of such renderings is a mental image, rather than specific sensory impressions, even if the creation of such images is stimulated by such impressions. These impressions have passed through many filters (experiences, reflections, etc.), having absorbed many associations, and have already been changed to such an extent that there are no remaining links to any specific forms of sensory experience. According to Verworn, ‘ideoplastic’ works convey what we know of the represented figures or objects, rather than how we see them (Barasch, 2000, p. 232).
The links between sensory perception and creative activity have interested a large number of authors. However, few of them have dared to assume that the basis of creation could be anything other than visual experience. Verworn’s theory differs from the classification used by other authors, who had previously probed the same question: his approach to creative styles incorporates issues of memory, knowledge and personal associations. In a sense, the image, created through a combination of these faculties, is not visual. Even Verworn, however, does not go as far as to suggest that ‘ideoplastic’ images could be created in the complete absence of input from vision.
In search of ‘Pure’ tactility: tactile board by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti
John Willats, exploring the principles of artistic imaging (Willats, 1997), indicates that artists (as well as other image makers) use a number of different ways to transfer the properties of the depicted objects into the plane. The processes, through which colours are conveyed by points, as part of an ‘optical denotation system’, receive particular attention (Willats, 1997, p. 128). Looking from a distance, distinct dots in the images created using this system (pointillism paintings, photographs) blend together. The points here reflect different tones and the intensity of light, for example, rather than the tangible features of three-dimensional objects (Willats, 1997, pp. 128–130). Might it be possible to create images using a tactile equivalent of such an optical denotation system?
Italian futurist F. T. Marinetti was one of the few artists who clearly imagined the way tactile qualities could be transferred into works of art. Among the examples of tactile objects presented in ‘The manifesto of Tactilism’ (Marinetti, 1921) are tactile boards 4 – abstract works, created by using various materials that generate tactile sensations and, of course, intended to be perceived by touch. According to Marinetti, certain objects or their fragments (sandpaper, silver-coated paper, smooth silk, silk crepe, velvet, fleece, mesh fabric, horse or dog hair, soft brush, sponge, etc.), which trigger specific tactile sensations, actually convey something that does not belong to the material in question (neither as an object, nor as the material from which it is made). In Marinetti’s description of one of his tactile boards Sudan–Paris, ‘slippery, metallic, fresh tactile values’ of silver-coated paper represent the Sea; ‘rough, greasy, coarse, prickly, burning’ values, conveyed through the sensations given by ‘spongy material, sponge, sandpaper, wool, brush, wire brush’, represent Sudan, and the part of the board representing Paris is covered with silk, velvet, feathers, down, providing ‘soft, delicate, caressing tactile values, hot and cold at the same time’ (Marinetti, 1921).
It seems that when considering the potential involvement of touch in the process of perceiving images, it is possible to recognise such opportunities in the case of abstract works: tactile values can be used as well as optical – they, of course, would denote other ‘values’, but the denotation principle would remain the same. However, this recognition signals the elimination of touch from the group of graphic images, or drawings. In order to reveal how touch can be involved in the creation and perception of graphic images without vision, one needs to keep in mind that touch is not synonymous with tactility in any simple way.
Touch is a complex sense of which tactility is only one component. Strictly speaking, tactile senses, also called senses of the skin, are associated with passive touch (‘to be touched’). However, in terms of art practices and everyday life, tactile senses are ones that convey differences of texture (the surface of objects). Acquiring sensitivity to such distinctions requires movement – an intentional movement directed at the environment. Active touch, depending on the object to which the perceiver’s attention is directed, involves the senses of fingers, arms, hands or the whole body (Millar, 1991, pp. 302–304). The strict separation of these senses is arguably only possible in laboratory conditions, which are not always highly compatible with those which are conducive to creative activity (Heller, 2000, p. 201).
The relationships between vision and touch: ‘Spatial Entity of the Object’, object contour representation
It is easier to find correspondences between tactile and acoustic works than between tactile and visual ones. According to Marinetti’s follower Bruno Munari, 5 perception of tactile boards is linear, similar to perception of music or literature. Duration and tempo play a significant role in these works, and so the dimension of time assumes great significance in their perception.
Hans Jonas, when comparing vision, touch and audition, examines the successional nature of perception (Jonas, 1954). Forms of apprehension through the modalities of touch and hearing share this quality of successiveness, but, as Jonas claims, touch shares with vision an attunement to static objects (Jonas, 1954, p. 511). A tactile object is not given to a perceiver all at once. Its perception requires the associative interplay of diverse elements, which occurs only when simple tactile contact is transformed into a series of separate tactile sensations: ‘Already the simple tactile qualities, such as soft and hard, and even more so rough and smooth, require a series of changing sensations obtained by pressure and by friction, i.e., generally speaking by movement’ (Jonas, 1954, p. 511). Memory is involved in unifying the series of sensations, over a given time span, into a single ‘object’. In this respect, as Jonas notes, touch and hearing concur. On the other hand, tactile qualities, manifesting in sequence, are arranged spatially. This means that even though those qualities are perceived sequentially, the order in which these qualities are apprehended may vary, without influencing object identity, as happens in the case of hearing. The analysis of tactile objects may take place in any direction and is controlled by the perceiver. The result of the synthesis, in the case of surface and shape perception, according to Jonas, represents a spatial and not a temporal entity.
Kimon Nicolaides (1891–1938), an American artist, teacher and author of the popular drawing manual The Natural Way to Draw (Nicolaides, 1941/1969), contends that tactile sensations play an important role in obtaining perceptual information about the object that the drawer intends to represent. One of the methods that Nicolaides (1941/1969) recommends to novice painters, endeavouring to acquire drawing skills, is contour study: Imagine that your pencil point is touching the model instead of the paper. Without taking your eyes off the model, wait until you are convinced that the pencil is touching that point on the model upon which your eyes are fastened. Then move your eyes slowly along the contour of the model and move the pencil slowly along the paper. As you do this, keep the conviction that the pencil point is actually touching the contour. Be guided more by the sense of touch than by sight. (pp. 9–10)
By using this method, drawing, according to the author, assumes a similarity to the process of climbing a mountain, as contrasted to the feeling of flying over the same mountain in an airplane (Nicolaides, 1941/1969, pp. 111–112). The eye, as in the case of ‘tactile’ vision, takes over the function of the hand. It moves over the surface, aiming to explore – millimetre by millimetre – the bends and hollows that form the object shape, as though in the knowledge that this form will not yield itself to perception all at once, but rather as a sequence of sensations in a way that affords direct comparison with Jonas’ description of tactile experience outlined above. This sequence is replicated by the line drawn on the surface of the created image, and the resulting contour of the image, which could emerge while tracing one or two fingers along the imaginary cutting line of the object.
The descriptive gestures (a case study)
The method of Nicolaides’ contour study disclosed that the tactile experience of an object can be directly and immediately transferred to a drawing (Figures 1 to 4). Continuing the analysis of the participation of touch in the process of image creation, the same method can be once again applied. In order to clarify the role of the sense of touch during the process of drawing in the conditions of non-seeing, the author of this article conducted a case study between August and September 2011 in Vilnius. The case study involved a person who was blind since birth. The aim was to discover how tactile, haptic and kinaesthetic qualities are transferred to the image with the help of drawing tools. Another goal was to verify the importance of the role allocated to the egocentric reference system – premised upon the coordination of the movements of the drawing and the exploring hand in relation to the vertical axis of the drawer’s body – in creating images in the situation of non-seeing by means of graphic expression. This objective was formulated in the context of Susanna Millar’s observations (Millar, 1999, p. 756) about the significance of the egocentric reference system for the blind perceiver when drawing or recognising tactile images.
Contour study, step 1.
Contour study, step 2.
Contour study, step 3.
Contour study, step 4.
The case study employed two different methods of drawing: an adjusted form of the method employed in Nicolaides’ contour study (contour of object is followed by fingers) (Figures 1 to 5), and a method utilising descriptive gestures. The aim of drawing, employing the descriptive gestures, is to portray an explored object through gestures (to draw in the air) before transferring them to a plane.
Outline drawing created using the adjusted method of Kimon Nicolaides’ contour study.
The representational capabilities of descriptive gesture are very limited; the limits relate primarily to the capacity of memory for maintaining the trajectory of the movement that does not leave any visible or tangible traces. ‘By the very nature of the medium of gesture, the representation is highly abstract,’ according to Rudolf Arnheim (Arnheim, 1969/1997, p. 117). However, as ‘forerunners of line drawing’ (using Arnheim’s words), they can also be utilised in non-seeing situations. A blind drawer L., who participated in the study, when asked about the gestures she uses to convey the features of tangible objects, volunteered that she had used gestures only once, aiming to indicate her imaginative conception of the visual appearance of Braille slate. Nevertheless, by the end of the first session, she was already able to draw in the air the contours of objects that she had previously explored only by touch.
The study consists of three parts: (1) the contour study, (2) drawing by means of descriptive gesture and (3) drawing objects with ‘distracting’ tactile impressions. Materials used were aluminium foil and paper. The participant was asked to render an image by means of a ballpoint pen or a similar tool impacting the surface on which she was drawing. The trace left by the tool (the marks of the drawing) was controlled by the fingers of the non-drawing hand (except when using the adjusted method of Nicolaides’ contour study). Drawings in aluminium foil were created employing the principle of a mirror – the created image must be reversed for the result to be perceived. The object was drawn soon after it was explored; in addition, the object was brought into service to correct the impressions during the drawing process. Objects employed included flat symmetric objects, flat asymmetric objects (up to 20 cm × 20 cm, so that it would be possible to cover them with both palms) and three-dimensional symmetric and asymmetric objects (up to 35 cm in height, approximately equal to the length of a forearm). The idea of supplementing the drawing sessions with a number of tasks occurred in the course of the session. The purpose of these tasks was to ascertain whether tactile sensations of some objects distract attention from their shape perception to an extent that precluded successful representation in a linear drawing. 6
Twenty-year-old L., who participated in the study, had been blind since birth (retinopathy of prematurity), with no perception of light. She had very little previous experience of drawing; her predominant mental images were auditory and tactile. L. said, ‘I cannot imagine how the object looks like, I cannot imagine any object as a whole, only separate [tactile] senses associated with it’. Nevertheless, she proved capable of creating graphic representation in the absence of a mental image of the whole object she was endeavouring to depict. 7
A total of 12 different outline drawings of the objects were created according to the adjusted Nicolaides’ method, 10 drawings were created using descriptive gestures, 2 drawings depicted objects with ‘distracting’ tactile senses. The findings of the study are as follows: (1) it is possible to create an image, despite the fact that there is no visual imagery; (2) body axis plays an important role, especially in rendering symmetrical objects (drawing with both hands at the same time helps keep the symmetry of the left and right sides of the represented object); (3) tactile impressions that distract attention do not preclude understanding of the object contour or the transfer of this contour into the drawing.
Conclusion
The aim of this article was to further existing understanding of the question ‘What aspects of an image, besides any tangible marks it may possess, can be said to belong to its tactility?’ The approach adopted was based on examples of the creative practice involving different components of the complex sense of touch. On the strength of the fact that different sensations convey different sensory qualities, an attempt was made to distinguish which of them are involved in the creation of drawings. With the help of Italian futurist Marinetti’s concept of Tactilism, it was found that in artistic practice, tactile perception, conveying different sensory qualities of materials, can successfully render the ideas expressed in abstract images. However, touch is involved in the creation of drawings to a greater extent than tactile sensations. Touch enters the image area through the descriptive gesture that is also manifest in situations of non-seeing. Producing descriptive gestures (drawing in the air and then – on paper) requires the supplementary involvement of kinaesthetic and haptic sensations.
The study of the external features of objects and their transference through depiction is the basis for drawing. The drawing – image created using the descriptive gesture – appears capable of displaying associations between the depicted object and the perceptual information associated with it. There is therefore no obvious reason to associate the basis of depicting by drawing exclusively with the sense of sight. Thus, there appears to be some justification for introducing the category of tactility when discussing images created and/or perceived in the situation of non-seeing.
Footnotes
Funding
This work was supported by the European Union Structural Funds project “Postdoctoral Fellowship Implementation in Lithuania” [grant number SF-PD-2012-12-31-0414].