SYSTEM 1 AND SYSTEM 2 (Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011)

Definition:

System 1 and System 2 thinking describes two distinct modes of processing introduced by Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. System 1 is fast, automatic, and intuitive, operating with little to no effort. This mode of thinking allows us to make quick decisions and judgments based on patterns and experiences. It drives perception and emotion. In contrast,System 2 is slow, deliberate, and conscious, requiring intentional effort. This type of thinking is used for complex problem-solving and analytical tasks where more thought and consideration are necessary. Language is an important function of System 2.

Words destroy visual perception

I no longer try to create relevant titles to my paintings, because words (system 2) interfere so heavily with visual perception (system 1). There is a field of research called "verbal interference" which describes in various articles how language not only overlays and suppresses visual input, but actually destroys it. 

Back in the day when I started my art education we had live modelling classes most days. The object was not to make great art, but to learn to see. Learning to see means training yourself to override the brain's natural process of stripping visual input down to its basic features, called perceptual constancy. It facilitates the integration of visual input and other resources, for example memory. My favourite example of colour constancy is a red car.  You see the car, it's very obviously red and that's that. However, if you analyse the colours of the car, you will find that only a small portion is actually a clear red. The rest is anything from bright, cold pastel pink highlights to aubergine in the shadows, and lots of modulations in between. We colour it all red in our minds, but that's not really all we see. The same goes for size, shape and a host of other perceptual things. Our visual system equalises and simplifies. Good for survival, bad for art.

Having one foot in the art world and the other in science has been an unexpectedly fruitful effort. Painters are not often language oriented, and scientists are not often visually oriented, they like words, so there hasn't been much of a connection. University people tend to see pictures in terms of themes, personality analyses and symbolism, which to me is a crashing bore.  I did my PhD on some cognitive neurological effects of painting and drawing from live models - see article below. When you are forced to actually see the human figure in all its complexity, the effect on all visual experience is astonishing; the world becomes a completely different and beautiful place. 

The impact this has on painting, both in viewing artwork and producing it, is that too much of the slow, cognitive activity of System 2 will reduce access to the spontaneous assessment/appreciation of System 1 - which is the most important aspect of art. It is the immediate, lively impression that packs the punch, not the laborious verbal analyses. 

My PhD examined eye movement behaviour, visual memory and hemispheric specialization (which half of the brain does what) in painters trained in live modelling compared to laymen, and to some extent painters without training in portraying the human form (I would have loved to do more research on this, but the money ran out). I found quite a lot more that anyone, including me, expected.

One of the articles post dissertation:

Experimental psychology and visual artwork; Notes from the laboratory