Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T16:28:00.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Drawings by a blind adult: orthogonals, parallels and convergence in two directions without T-junctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

John M. Kennedy
Affiliation:
University of Toronto at Scarborough
Igor Juricevic
Affiliation:
University of Toronto at Scarborough
Chris Lange-Küttner
Affiliation:
London Metropolitan University
Annie Vinter
Affiliation:
Université de Bourgogne, France
Get access

Summary

Kennedy and Juricevic argue that in both normal sighted and blind people the development of drawing using spatial projection systems proceeds from an orthogonal basis to freehand versions of parallel perspective and inverse perspective, and then to viewpoint perspective in which convergence shows parallel edges in the scene. They suggest the development of visually realistic contour drawing using T-junctions for overlap occurs independently. The authors report a case study of a blind young woman, Tracy T, who has had exceptionally extensive drawing practice since childhood. In the case study, Tracy T used a raised line drawing kit to draw objects in various orientations. A verbal protocol was taken while drawing. Tracy T drew a 3D cube in perspective, objects from various directions and figures involved in actions. Most strikingly, she used two-point perspective when sketching the roof of a house from above. Sometimes her verbal comments would outstrip her graphic abilities. Notably, for Tracy T, overlap was a problem, and she left drawings requiring overlap incomplete. Improvisation helped her avoid problems in relatively free drawing tasks compared to more prescriptive ones. The study offers evidence that blind people tackle spatial drawing problems in similar ways to sighted people.

tracy t, a blind adult, has appreciable spatial skills and an interest in drawing. Here we find that her drawings generally employ orthogonals, that is, plans and elevations with correct orientation from the observer's vantage point. Occasionally they use freehand parallel, and one- and two-point projection.

Type
Chapter
Information
Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind
A Life-Span Perspective
, pp. 305 - 324
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berg, I. (2003). Zeichnungen blinder und sehender Kinder im Vergleich [Comparison of drawings by blind and sighted children]. Stuttgart: Ibidem.Google Scholar
Cabe, P. A., Wright, C. D. and Wright, M. A. (2003). Descartes’ blind man revisited: bimanual triangulation of distance using static hand-held rods. American Journal of Psychology, 116, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caron-Pargue, J. (1985). Le dessin du cube chez l'enfant [Children's drawings of cubes]. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
Cox, M. V. (1992). Children's drawings.London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cox, M. V. (1993). Children's drawings of the human figure.Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
D'Angiulli, A., Kennedy, J. M. and Heller, M. A. (1998). Blind children recognizing tactile pictures respond like sighted children given guidance in exploration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 187–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, Y. (1998). Tactile pictures: pictorial representations for the blind 1784–1940. Goteberg: Goteberg University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, N. H. (1986). How should a cube be drawn?British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 317–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69, 447–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golomb, C. (2002). Child art in context: a cultural and comparative perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goodnow, J. J. (1977). Children's drawings. London: Fontana.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. A. and Kennedy, J. M. (1990). Perspective-taking, pictures and the blind. Perception and Psychophysics, 48, 459–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, M. A., Brackett, D. E., Scroggs, E., Steffen, H., Heatherly, , , K. and Salik, S. (2002). Tangible pictures: viewpoint effects and linear perspective in visually impaired people. Perception, 31, 747–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, M. A., Kennedy, J. M., Clark, A., McCarthy, M., Borgert, A., Wemple, L., Fulkerson, E., Kaffel, N., Duncan, A. and Riddle, T. (2006). Viewpoint and orientation influence picture recognition in the blind. Perception, 35, 1397–1420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, R. (2003). Touching, seeing and appreciating pictures. In Axel, E. and Levent, N. (eds.), Art beyond sight: a resource guide to art, creativity and visual impairment (pp. 186–99). New York:AFB Press.Google Scholar
Jansson, G. (2001). The potential importance of perceptual filling-in for haptic perception of virtual object form. In Baber, C., Faint, M., Wall, S. and Wing, A. M. (eds.), Eurohaptics 2001. Conference Proceedings. Educational Technology Research Papers (Vol. 12, pp. 72–5). Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.Google Scholar
Juricevic, I. and Kennedy, J. M. (2006). Looking at perspective pictures from too far, too close and just right. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 448–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kappers, A. M. L. and Koenderink, J. J. (2002). Continuum of haptic space. In Albertazzi, L. (ed.), Unfolding perceptual continua (pp. 29–79). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. (1993). Drawing and the blind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. (2003). Drawings from Gaia, a blind girl. Perception, 32, 321–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, , , J. M. and Juricevic, I. (2003). Haptics and projection: drawings by Tracy, a blind adult. Perception, 32, 1059–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J. M. (2006). Form, projection and pictures for the blind. In Heller, M. A. and Ballesteros, S. (eds.), Haptics, blindness and neuroscience (pp. 73–93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. (2006). Blind man draws using diminution in three dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 3, 506–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J. M. and Merkas, C. E. (2000). Depictions of motion devised by a blind person. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 700–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landerer, C. (2000). Kunstgeschichte als Kognitiongeschichte: ein Beitrag zur genetischen Kulturpsychologie [History of art as history of cognition: a contribution to genetic culture psychology]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Salzburg.
Laursen, B. (2006). Tegning, cognition og innovation – om komplekse tegne-kompetencer [Drawing, cognition and innovation – on complex drawing abilities]. Billedpaedagogisk Tidskrift, 2, 8–10.Google Scholar
Lederman, S. J., Klatzky, R. L., Chataway, C. and Summers, C. (1990). Visual mediation and the haptic recognition of two-dimensional pictures of common objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, D. M. M. (2003). Are pictures visual: a brief history of an idea. In Axel, E. and Levent, N. (eds.), Art beyond sight: a resource guide to art, creativity and visual impairment (pp. 176–85). New York:AFB Press.Google Scholar
Milbrath, C. (1998). Patterns of artistic development in children: comparative studies of talent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millar, S. (2006). Processing spatial information from touch and movement: implications from and for neuroscience. In Heller, M. A. and Ballesteros, S. (eds.), Haptics, blindness and neuroscience (pp. 25–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nicholls, A. and Kennedy, J. M. (1992). Drawing development: from similarity of features to direction. Child Development, 63, 227–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, A. and Kennedy, J. M. (1995). Foreshortening in cube drawings by children and adults. Perception, 24, 1443–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willats, J. (1997). Art and representation.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Willats, J. (2003). Optical laws or symbolic rules? The dual nature of pictorial systems. In Hecht, H., Schwartz, R. and Atherton, M. (eds.), Looking into pictures: an interdisciplinary approach to pictorial space (pp. 125–43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×