tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post5161554106852420190..comments2024-03-28T03:44:28.896-04:00Comments on Gurney Journey: Eye tracking the stairway illusionJames Gurneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-67852681356354299902015-09-20T11:55:36.614-04:002015-09-20T11:55:36.614-04:00If it's of any help to you, the endless stairw...If it's of any help to you, the endless stairway was one of the initial things I noticed when I saw this piece before I read article :)Wendy Froshayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01473280904899347269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-46757204452552996712015-09-20T05:27:43.710-04:002015-09-20T05:27:43.710-04:00It would be interesting to ask (after they had sat...It would be interesting to ask (after they had sat the test) whether the subjects were aware of the original Penrose Steps illusion beforehand.<br /><br />I'm with Susan in that I think narrative (human figure/animals) overrides other considerations in an image. I also think that you'd need to be primed that you're looking at a puzzle. It's very difficult to see something you're not expecting ( see Selective Attention on YouTube ), which is not to say you can't, but the 15 second viewing seems short to discover an anomaly, try to resolve it, fail, and thus realize it's an illusion. Especially when competing with a narrative which itself needs integrating into the puzzle.<br /><br />In the movie "Inception" the characters walk around such a staircase discussing it's illusory nature ( narrative and puzzle in one blast!) but it's not until the final change of camera angle that the illusion breaks spectacularly for the viewer, and the logical impossibility becomes apparent ( see "part of the movie inception; penrose steps" on YouTube).DamianJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813228931887422441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-21321816577305739602015-09-19T17:36:29.243-04:002015-09-19T17:36:29.243-04:00Wouldn't a human or animal figure in any illus...Wouldn't a human or animal figure in any illustration always trump architecture? So, this data seems to suggest that if you wanted to have the illusion as the focus, I think maybe it would have to be life-form-free. Escher's stuff was almost always life-form free, right? Or, am I remembering wrong? Probably. But his work, in my mind, doesn't really seem to be about the animate form. It's puzzle. Kinda like Agatha Christie novels: the puzzle is the thing. Susan Krzywickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734833252007456199noreply@blogger.com