Comments on: Eye Placement in Portraits

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 03:23:38 +0000

Speaking of weird science, readers may be interested in peacay’s excellent blog, BibliOdyssey, which is chock full of delightfully weird and obscure visual material from old books: maps, diagrams, engravings and illustrations of all sorts.

By: peacay

peacay — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:46:47 +0000

Heh. Interesting analytical observation. It seems to leave out the commonsense argument in that a portrait is really only a portrait when there is a head/face in the approximate middle. If you take the width of the eyes against the width of the head then the probability of an eye being dead-centre is going to be high anyway without projecting the outcome onto an innate orderliness on the part of the artist.

I wonder if he’s analyzed noses or say chins or the like (just as a statistical comparison). I mean I like that he’s gone to the trouble and such but the truth in what Corbin Hollis Cohate says is pretty obvious isn’t it? [I'm critiquing but in reality I'm smiling at the guy having given such depth of thought to it and then taken it to its academic conclusion so to speak]. Weird science
{full disclosure: I only skimmed through the material}

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:52:09 +0000

Yes. I’m planning a future post about the use of “targets” in master paintings, in which the artists arranges the composition so that alternating bands of dark and light values lead your eye to the intended focal point of the paiting. (Vermeer excelled at this.)

By: Corbin Hollis Choate

Corbin Hollis Choate — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:35:29 +0000

All of history’s great portraitists who mastered composition would arrange the elements within the composition in such a way as to hold the your attention in the center of the image. The eyes are at that center because that is where everything comes together…creating a sense of place and time.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:08:24 +0000

Owen,
You may be right, but I won’t know until I finish calculating PHI out to ten million decimal places…

Your portrait seems to have its center “right between the eyes”, so I guess you’re not part of the conspiracy.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:00:35 +0000

Laura,

Yes, in Tyler’s grouped image, he has cropped them vertically to fit his group, but the horizontal dimensions are untouched, so the center indicated by the vertical line is accurate. The page I point to also has a grouped image he put together of shorter slices of 20 images.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:57:51 +0000

Pavel,

Thanks. I’ve fixed the image problem. IE apparently thinks an empty image height tag means set image height to “0″.(Sigh.)

Thanks for letting me know about Migunov!

By: Owen

Owen — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:52:35 +0000

There can be only one answer. The Catholic Church is evil and has been leading people away from the sacred feminine for 2000 years. It’s only now that the Horizontal Center eye code has been cracked.

M-m-m, I wonder if it works with the portrait on my blog?

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:05:56 +0000

The vertical center line, right? This is fascinating. Will check out the articles. Thanks for posting.

By: Pavel Sokolov

Pavel Sokolov — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:09:05 +0000

Hi again!
1. Just to let you know: in about 3 of last 4 articles prictures do not appear wile viewing in IE. FF is OK.
2. Check http://www.rusf.ru/kb/pict/migunov.htm. These are illustrations by Migunov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Migunov) for “Alice Selezneva” sci-fiction series for children by Kir Bulychev.
I very liked those in childhood and now.

Pavel