Eye of the Beholder

I recently saw a university interview question for Natural Sciences. It asked ‘how far is sight the most important sense for humans?’ Whereas there is a range of scientific answers, I –of course- would approach it from my artistic background. I have always thought of our species as exceedingly visual, more and more so as technology progresses in the way it is currently. In a culture of consumerism, advertising, and social media, it seems that almost everything is based on image and visual value. But where does that place people who cannot see? Does that mean they cannot appreciate and contribute to our ever evolving world of visual art?

Watching a series of lectures about ophthalmology for Gresham College by Professor William Ayliffe, I found it curious that in his seminars on the lack of sight, images were still so important in his presentations. He decided to devote an entire lecture to the place of blind people as a theme in art, and the iconography of loss of sight, which made me reconsider the interview question above. 

Art has historically been important for the illiterate, to enable them to understand something without having to read it. This was especially important for worship as the poor could still appreciate Biblical stories using illuminated manuscripts. Clearly this would immediately be an issue for those who could not see. As the poor were more likely to suffer from disease and lose their sight, they were unlikely to be able to visually comprehend Biblical stories. Perhaps this is a reason why sight was used as a metaphor for being God-fearing.

Jesus curing people of blindness is an artistic and religious theme that has been portrayed and discussed time and time again. “He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing,” (John 9:7). It is clear that this is because it was seen as symbolic of Jesus allowing people to see and appreciate God. From a Byzantine mosaic to Poussin, from El Greco to de Mura, it is a popular religious theme in art history

  

 

Christianity believes God is incorporeal, so surely he can be appreciated through hearing as well as sight? But deafness is clearly not used as a theme or metaphor in the same way as blindness. Why is this? If God could be appreciated just as much through hearing as through seeing, there must be another reason for the difference. I wonder if it is because deafness is not as visually obvious, and so could not be used in classical and medieval art to display God’s power. It is much easier to portray blindness being cured than deafness. This in itself is therefore interesting as the very disability which renders people unable to see is portrayed much more in art as it is easier to paint, and easier to appreciate for those who can see. 

Then there is the art, not depicting blind people, but painted by them. The majority of their pieces are full of bright, clashing, vibrant colour. For instance the artist John Bramblitt (born 1971) creates breathtaking paintings of subjects he has –astoundingly- never seen.  It is understandable that his pieces are textured –he taught himself how to use haptic visualisation, and raised lines to paint- but it interests me that he manipulates colours so beautifully.

Perhaps this displays that contemporary visual art is as much for those who cannot see it as it is for those who can. Art is so much more than the initial sight of it. It is about the message it portrays in all of its other qualities too: size, scale, texture, composition, and most of all meaning. I think artists like Bramblitt still use colour because they want to display that they can still see it, in their mind’s eye.

 

Although initially I felt that sight is critical in a world full of visual art, I now understand that the message portrayed by the art is much more important than simply its visual communication.  We no longer live in a society where sight (or lack thereof) defines people's worth, which is why, even when our culture may be ever more visually orientated, those who cannot see are demonstrably active in the art world.