Look at this painting - did you notice the missing piece?
October 6 2011
Picture: Tate
As I mentioned earlier, the Tate has restored the missing section of John Martin's Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The decision to restore it was undertaken with the help of a vision scientist, Tim Smith, who tracked the eye movements of 20 people to see how they reacted to the damage in the painting. Not surprisingly, they noticed the missing section. He has written an article about the process:
The decisions made by conservators when restoring important works of art have a direct influence on how the final painting will be perceived and there is a lot of psychological insight that can inform this process. For example, computational models of visual attention can tell a conservator whether a crack or the loss of a segment is likely to capture the viewer's attention and how this will change depending on the context in which the painting is viewed.
For the damaged John Martin we decided to compare how viewers attended to and made sense of different digital reconstructions of the painting by recording viewer eye movements. An eyetracker uses high-speed infrared cameras to record where a person looks on a screen. This allowed the TATE to foresee how viewers might attend to the final product before embarking on costly and time-consuming work on the painting itself.
[...]
In the neutral version of the painting the mouth of the volcano and part of the city is lost and instead the viewer dwells on the edges of the loss, spending significantly less time on the foreground figures. The consequence of the different gaze pattern is that when asked to describe the content of the painting, viewers of the unreconstructed version did not realise it was a painting of an erupting volcano. The painting had lost its meaning and viewers could not view it as originally intended by Martin.
The difference in gaze behaviour between the completely restored and unrestored (neutrally filled) versions confirmed our intuitions about how destructive the loss was. [...]
Isn't this an explanation of the bleedin' obvious? I'd love to know if this exercise cost the Tate anything.