Chris Campbell on sat 20 oct 07
What do you see here?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
Enjoy!
Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
Chris Campbell Pottery LLC
9417 Koupela Drive
Raleigh NC 27615-2233
Designs in Colored Porcelain
1-800-652-1008
Fax : 919-676-2062
website: www.ccpottery.com
wholesale : www.wholesalecrafts.com
Liz Willoughby on mon 22 oct 07
Well, I can't get that lady to do anything but go clockwise too.
Liz from Grafton, Ontario, Canada.
>On 10/22/07, claystevslat wrote:
>> Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be
>> 'read' as counter-clockwise.
>
>I can't get it to go counter-clockwise ... no matter how hard I try.
Earl Krueger on mon 22 oct 07
Sorry folks. There is no mystery or magic.
She is spinning to her left, counterclockwise.
Her more vertical leg is her right, the raised
is her left.
How can I be so sure, you ask?
The spinning woman is an animated gif image.
If you save the gif to your computer and then
open it with an image editor you will see that
there are 34 different images, which played
one after the other in sequence gives you the
impression you are watching a woman in motion.
Upon close inspection you will see that in each
individual image there are almost no clues as
to which is her left side vs right side. Without
these clues you cannot tell if she is facing
toward or away from you. This is why it is
confusing as to which direction she is spinning.
Your mind thinks one direction for awhile and
then switches and thinks the opposite direction.
However, if you look closely at frame 13, just
at the front of the straight leg where the raised
leg crosses it you will see a faint highlight on
the straight leg. To get this highlight requires
that the straight leg be closer to you and therefore
must be the woman's right leg. It also means that
she is facing away from the viewer.
Comparing frame 13 with the next in the
sequence, frame 14, you will see that her
raised left leg moves closer to being eclipsed
by her right leg. This requires that she be
spinning to her left, or anti-clockwise.
Even knowing this I still get confused looking at
the images.
Earl Krueger
Elmira, Oregon, usa
Jeanette Harris on mon 22 oct 07
>What do you see here?
>
>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
Wow. I see her going one way,then going the other way. That is weird.
Good thing I don't see that way when I throw! heh
Do you know you use both sides of your brain when you sing a song with lyrics?
--
http://jeanetteharrisblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.washingtonpotters.org/members/Jeanette_Harris/wpa_jeanette_harris.htm
Jeanette Harris
Poulsbo WA
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on mon 22 oct 07
Hi Chris
Wow, interesting...
For me, she was revolving counter Clockwise...and I glanced at the text but
I could not imagine being able to see her ( or ger her to be, ) revolving
Clockwise.
So, I looked down a moment, made a sort of mental 'Horeshoe' path in my
Skull, looked again, and she was sure-enough revolving Clockwise...
So, I looked down then, changed it back...counter Clockwise...looked down,
changed the path again, then Clockwise.
I did not know I could do that.
I tried a few more times, and found I could get it to happen without looking
away also...
That was fun...
I got her to go back and forth for a little while...
I will see if I can get to appear to be going both directions at once.
Lol...
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Campbell"
> What do you see here?
>
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
claystevslat on mon 22 oct 07
Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be
'read' as counter-clockwise.
-- Steve Slatin
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> What do you see here?
>
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
Kathy Forer on mon 22 oct 07
On Oct 22, 2007, at 1:06 PM, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
> That was fun...
>
> I got her to go back and forth for a little while...
She was initially turning clockwise, until I focused on the tool tip
words 'spinning lady', then it went counter-clockwise. All my looking
down or away couldn't make her go back clockwise until I just stared
and as is my habit when staring, my eyes went out of focus, my right
lazier eye looked out the window and, lo, the dancer changed
directions. Once I had "corrected" though I couldn't repeat it at
will until I let my right eye go "lazy." What a good exercise! If
annoying as an exercise can be.
Kathy
Patrick Cross on mon 22 oct 07
yup...the switching trigger appears to be in the center foot area of the
image...and I guess it has something to do with the "hop" too.
Patrick Cross
Cone10Soda
On this rainy Mississippi day, listening to:
http://www.muchmusic.com/music/firstspin/ryanadams/
Favorite track is a toss-up between: #6 Tears of Gold and #13 I Taught
Myself How To Grow but they're all great.
On 10/22/07, claystevslat wrote:
>
> Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be
> 'read' as counter-clockwise.
>
> -- Steve Slatin
>
> --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell wrote:
> >
> > What do you see here?
> >
> > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
Jennifer Boyer on mon 22 oct 07
If you look closely the whole thing is reversible. Even the shadow is
non directional except that your brain assigns a direction. When I
first looked I was only seeing her go clockwise, but as I've looked
more and tried to play with it I can get her to switch to counter
clockwise. But she switches back to clockwise if I relax my
concentration. If she's not switching for you, you may feel sure that
she only goes one way, but believe me. She can go both ways....
Really cool!
Jennifer
On Oct 22, 2007, at 2:33 PM, claystevslat wrote:
> Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be
> 'read' as counter-clockwise.
>
> -- Steve Slatin
>
> --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell wrote:
>>
>> What do you see here?
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change
> your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
*****************************
Jennifer Boyer
Thistle Hill Pottery
Montpelier, VT
http://thistlehillpottery.com
*****************************
Timothy Joko-Veltman on mon 22 oct 07
On 10/22/07, claystevslat wrote:
> Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be
> 'read' as counter-clockwise.
I can't get it to go counter-clockwise ... no matter how hard I try.
Jeanie Silver on mon 22 oct 07
Kathy
She's unchangeably clockwise for me...I think it may have something to do
with the whole lazy eye thing-I've got one too. Even studying the shadow
didn't help.
Jeanie in Pennsylvania
Kathy Forer on tue 23 oct 07
Jeanie,
I found that if I concentrated on the "extraneous" image of my lazy
eye, I could get it to change directions, but I couldn't make it
change as long as I was filtering out or correcting that info and
trying to see clearly. I had to basically observe the blur rather
than the focus, then it would change, depending which eye was
blurred. It's more a change of state of mind than of willful change.
I can't see this for the life of me, blur, focus or tears!
Ramachandran's "Science of Art," Figure 1, Page 21
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf
(I can't find the image anywhere
A jumble of splotches or a face?
I see a dancing woman kind of figure with a headdress looking left,
but nothing resembling a face.
Kathy in NJ at the end of a glorious day
Victoria E. Hamilton on tue 23 oct 07
Steve -
Got it. Thank you for the history/explanation.
Boswell and Johnson were a great pair, yes? Could/Would any of us do/say
now what they did then? Explains a lot about my place of birth and
everything that still gets said about dear Berkeley.
Vicki Hamilton, BBB
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of claystevslat
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:04 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: [CLAYART] Left or Right brain?/maybe OT
Vicki --
Well, as a BBB (Berkeley-born-babe) surely you know the story about some guy
or another standing on a hill looking over what is today Berkeley and being
reminded of the lines "westward the course of empire takes its way" by
Bishop Berkeley and naming the city Berkeley after him.
Well, Bishop Berkeley said many other things. As a phenomenalist
philospher, he held that the experiences of the mind *were* reality, and
that there could be no absolute confidence in the existence of the world
around us -- that the material world and our senseory inputs were ephemeral,
but ideas were real and concrete. (This idea goes back to Plato.) In this,
he should be distinguished from the transcendental idealists, like Kant, who
argued that we possess a priori knowledge of the universe that precedes our
experience of reality, and informs it.
Anyway, he used to preach on his philosophical understandings.
(Can you imagine a religious leader in our era discussing philosophy from
the pulpit?) One Sunday, after an extended ramble on that subject from the
pulpit, Boswell (known for his 'Life of
Johnson') and Johnson (know for being Johnson, and having poor
hygiene) walked out of church discussing Berkeley's latest sophistry, and
trying to identify how to refute it, and Johnson walked up to a huge rock,
and gave it one titanic kick after another, until he nearly knocked himself
over with the effort. Then he turned to Boswell, and said ...
"Thus I refute Berkeley."
So after beating some tiny issue to death, I tend to think of Dr. Johnson.
Best wishes -- Steve S
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve -
Berkeley? "Thus I refute Berkeley?" Showing my ignorance here - please
explain.
I was born in Berkeley!
I can make her turn both ways. Amazing.
Vicki Hamilton
Millennia Antica Pottery
Seattle, WA
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots2@visi.com
James and Sherron Bowen on tue 23 oct 07
For me with my lazy right eye it only goes clockwise, but for my wife
Sherron who is still recovering from mono Lasix surgery sometimes she sees
two both going the same direction and she can change directions at will.
JB
Out here on the prairie watching four mule deer nibbling on the trees while
two Great Horned Owls watch from above.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
scmillers on tue 23 oct 07
If you look at your screen from the side you can see she never turns
completely. Her legs go from side to side, never a complete turn. Then
look at her by looking at the front of the screen and you can see her
turning both ways.
In Christ,
Ava
Victoria E. Hamilton on tue 23 oct 07
Steve -
Berkeley? "Thus I refute Berkeley?" Showing my ignorance here - please
explain.
I was born in Berkeley!
I can make her turn both ways. Amazing.
Vicki Hamilton
Millennia Antica Pottery
Seattle, WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of claystevslat
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:54 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: [CLAYART] Left or Right brain?/maybe OT
Jennifer --
Just my thought on this, but unless I can see the shadow I see the 'both
ways' side of this -- but look at the shadow -- it's in front of the figure,
so the light source is behind it.
If the figure is going clockwise, the shadow of the right
(elevated) foot should go 'behind' the other foot when the elevated foot is
behind the supporting foot. Instead, it goes away altogether. "Thus I
refute Berkeley."
Best -- Steve S
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Boyer wrote:
>
> If you look closely the whole thing is reversible. Even the shadow
is
> non directional except that your brain assigns a direction. When I
> first looked I was only seeing her go clockwise, but as I've looked
> more and tried to play with it I can get her to switch to counter
> clockwise. But she switches back to clockwise if I relax my
> concentration. If she's not switching for you, you may feel sure
that
> she only goes one way, but believe me. She can go both ways....
>
> Really cool!
> Jennifer
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 2:33 PM, claystevslat wrote:
>
> > Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be 'read' as
> > counter-clockwise.
> >
> > -- Steve Slatin
> >
> > --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >> What do you see here?
> >>
> >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-
661,00.html
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
> > ________
> > Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@...
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or
change
> > your
> > subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> > melpots2@...
>
> *****************************
> Jennifer Boyer
> Thistle Hill Pottery
> Montpelier, VT
> http://thistlehillpottery.com
> *****************************
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@...
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change
your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots2@...
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots2@visi.com
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 23 oct 07
Hi Kathy, all...
Yahhhhh..I could see the 'Dalmation' instantly, but the supposed 'face' I
was not able to locate either.
I went looking for things, found this, so...more fun, if of a differing sort
here -
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/saishin21e.html
At the bottom are links for other of his pages containing more
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Forer"
> Jeanie,
>
> I found that if I concentrated on the "extraneous" image of my lazy
> eye, I could get it to change directions, but I couldn't make it
> change as long as I was filtering out or correcting that info and
> trying to see clearly. I had to basically observe the blur rather
> than the focus, then it would change, depending which eye was
> blurred. It's more a change of state of mind than of willful change.
>
> I can't see this for the life of me, blur, focus or tears!
> Ramachandran's "Science of Art," Figure 1, Page 21
> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf
> (I can't find the image anywhere
> A jumble of splotches or a face?
> I see a dancing woman kind of figure with a headdress looking left,
> but nothing resembling a face.
>
> Kathy in NJ at the end of a glorious day
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 23 oct 07
Different...but interesting...
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_hollow-face/index.html
The one on the left could be made of some thin Porcelaineuous or other White
Clay of course...left unglazed/translucent.
Hmmmmm...be pretty cool...
Phil
l v
Carl Finch on tue 23 oct 07
At 11:15 PM 10/22/2007, Kathy Forer wrote:
>I can't see this for the life of me, blur, focus or tears!
>Ramachandran's "Science of Art," Figure 1, Page 21
>http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf
>(I can't find the image anywhere
> A jumble of splotches or a face?
>I see a dancing woman kind of figure with a headdress looking left,
>but nothing resembling a face.
How interesting! I saw it right off. Here's how:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djinn/
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
claystevslat on tue 23 oct 07
Jennifer --
Just my thought on this, but unless I can see the shadow
I see the 'both ways' side of this -- but look at the shadow --
it's in front of the figure, so the light source is behind it.
If the figure is going clockwise, the shadow of the right
(elevated) foot should go 'behind' the other foot when the
elevated foot is behind the supporting foot. Instead, it goes
away altogether. "Thus I refute Berkeley."
Best -- Steve S
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Boyer wrote:
>
> If you look closely the whole thing is reversible. Even the shadow
is
> non directional except that your brain assigns a direction. When I
> first looked I was only seeing her go clockwise, but as I've looked
> more and tried to play with it I can get her to switch to counter
> clockwise. But she switches back to clockwise if I relax my
> concentration. If she's not switching for you, you may feel sure
that
> she only goes one way, but believe me. She can go both ways....
>
> Really cool!
> Jennifer
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 2:33 PM, claystevslat wrote:
>
> > Chris -- Look at the shadow -- I'd say it has to be
> > 'read' as counter-clockwise.
> >
> > -- Steve Slatin
> >
> > --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >> What do you see here?
> >>
> >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-
661,00.html
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
> > ________
> > Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@...
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or
change
> > your
> > subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> > melpots2@...
>
> *****************************
> Jennifer Boyer
> Thistle Hill Pottery
> Montpelier, VT
> http://thistlehillpottery.com
> *****************************
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@...
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change
your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots2@...
>
Kathy Forer on wed 24 oct 07
Carl wrote:
>How interesting! I saw it right off. Here's how:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/djinn/
Interesting that those who could see the face caught it immediately while the positive-spacers couldn't see it at all.
Kathy
Chris Campbell on wed 24 oct 07
These new links mostly made me feel
a high degree of motion sickness!
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/saishin21e.html
I get seasick very easily and always
thought it had to do with ear canals
and balance but now suspect it has
more to do with vision and perception.
I saw all the things that were in the images
but ... ughh!!!
Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
Chris Campbell Pottery LLC
9417 Koupela Drive
Raleigh NC 27615-2233
Designs in Colored Porcelain
1-800-652-1008
Fax : 919-676-2062
website: www.ccpottery.com
wholesale : www.wholesalecrafts.com
Carole Fox on wed 24 oct 07
I love puzzles like this! Here's how I can get the direction to change:
my natural tendency is to see the clockwise spinning version first. To
see the counterclockwise version, I just start doing arithmetic in my head
(division works great), and presto, change-o! To go back to clockwise,
stop the arithmetic, and think of any pleasant thought.
Carole Fox
Dayton, OH
claystevslat on wed 24 oct 07
Vicki --
Well, as a BBB (Berkeley-born-babe) surely you know the story about
some guy or another standing on a hill looking over what is today
Berkeley and being reminded of the lines "westward the course of
empire takes its way" by Bishop Berkeley and naming the city Berkeley
after him.
Well, Bishop Berkeley said many other things. As a phenomenalist
philospher, he held that the experiences of the mind *were* reality,
and that there could be no absolute confidence in the existence of
the world around us -- that the material world and our senseory
inputs were ephemeral, but ideas were real and concrete. (This idea
goes back to Plato.) In this, he should be distinguished from the
transcendental idealists, like Kant, who argued that we possess a
priori knowledge of the universe that precedes our experience of
reality, and informs it.
Anyway, he used to preach on his philosophical understandings.
(Can you imagine a religious leader in our era discussing
philosophy from the pulpit?) One Sunday, after an extended ramble on
that subject from the pulpit, Boswell (known for his 'Life of
Johnson') and Johnson (know for being Johnson, and having poor
hygiene) walked out of church discussing Berkeley's latest sophistry,
and trying to identify how to refute it, and Johnson walked up to a
huge rock, and gave it one titanic kick after another, until he
nearly knocked himself over with the effort. Then he turned
to Boswell, and said ...
"Thus I refute Berkeley."
So after beating some tiny issue to death, I tend to think of
Dr. Johnson.
Best wishes -- Steve S
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve -
Berkeley? "Thus I refute Berkeley?" Showing my ignorance here - please
explain.
I was born in Berkeley!
I can make her turn both ways. Amazing.
Vicki Hamilton
Millennia Antica Pottery
Seattle, WA
Carole Fox on wed 24 oct 07
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:27:44 -0700, Carl Finch
wrote:
...
>>http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf
>...
>How interesting! I saw it right off. Here's how:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/djinn/
>
>--Carl
>in Medford, Oregon
>
Carl - the image that you posted on flickr.com contains many lines that
are not present in the image I see in the .pdf file at the original link.
Did you add all of the lines that appear gray in your image? Or were any
of them in the original? Also,the whites of the eyes are non-existent
in the .pdf - that section of the image is completely black, as is the
section where you show lips, which appears on Flickr to have had some
original white which you colored red. I'm just wondering if some of us are
not getting the same original view, perhaps due to different versions of
software to display the .pdf file.
Carole Fox
Dayton, OH
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 24 oct 07
Hi Carol,
Good question...
I did not feel there was enough visual cues in the image to qualify in any
way whatever 'as' a 'face'.
At least not in the version appearing on my Computer Screen...
Or, if it were, then I could find far more 'faces' anywhere, everywhere, any
time, and then some.
Lol...
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carole Fox"
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:27:44 -0700, Carl Finch
> wrote:
> ...
>>>http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf
>>...
>>How interesting! I saw it right off. Here's how:
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/djinn/
>>
>>--Carl
>>in Medford, Oregon
>>
> Carl - the image that you posted on flickr.com contains many lines that
> are not present in the image I see in the .pdf file at the original link.
> Did you add all of the lines that appear gray in your image? Or were any
> of them in the original? Also,the whites of the eyes are non-existent
> in the .pdf - that section of the image is completely black, as is the
> section where you show lips, which appears on Flickr to have had some
> original white which you colored red. I'm just wondering if some of us are
> not getting the same original view, perhaps due to different versions of
> software to display the .pdf file.
>
> Carole Fox
> Dayton, OH
Carl Finch on wed 24 oct 07
At 02:05 PM 10/24/2007, Carole Fox wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:27:44 -0700, Carl Finch
>wrote:
>...
> >>http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf
> >...
> >How interesting! I saw it right off. Here's how:
> >
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/djinn/
> >
> >--Carl
> >in Medford, Oregon
> >
>Carl - the image that you posted on flickr.com contains many lines that
>are not present in the image I see in the .pdf file at the original link.
>Did you add all of the lines that appear gray in your image? Or were any
>of them in the original? Also,the whites of the eyes are non-existent
>in the .pdf - that section of the image is completely black, as is the
>section where you show lips, which appears on Flickr to have had some
>original white which you colored red.
Oh my--NONE of the grays and colors you mention are in the
original! All those were my additions, made just to indicate the
facial features that were somehow clear to me, but not to others.
>I'm just wondering if some of us are not getting the same
>original view, perhaps due to different versions of
>software to display the .pdf file.
I guess that's possible, but I think it unlikely. The original as I
saw it was solid black and white.
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
claystevslat on thu 25 oct 07
That particular one is so vague, you can see anything
in it.
The first thing I saw was the arm and chin of a man --
he has a goat-like beard -- holding up a puppet with
the head of a cartoon character as his sleeves (he's
wearing french cuffs) flop open.
But that's just my imagination.
Running away with me-e.
Well, you know --
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Kathy Forer wrote:
>
> Carl wrote:
> >How interesting! I saw it right off. Here's how:
> >
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/djinn/
>
> Interesting that those who could see the face caught it immediately
while the positive-spacers couldn't see it at all.
> Kathy
Jennifer Boyer on thu 25 oct 07
Hi Steve,
It's not vague at all once you see it. If it seems vague you have to
try and reverse the black and white, like a negative rather than a
positive.
Going back to the original:
>>>>I can't see this for the life of me, blur, focus or tears!
>Ramachandran's "Science of Art," Figure 1, Page 21 >http://
pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dyer/ah336/papers/ramachandran-science-art.pdf >(I
can't find the image anywhere > A jumble of splotches or a face? >I
see a dancing woman kind of figure with a headdress looking left,
>but nothing resembling a face.<<<<<<
Jennifer, wanting to read the article now!
On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:08 PM, claystevslat wrote:
> That particular one is so vague, you can see anything
> in it.
>
> The first thing I saw was the arm and chin of a man --
> he has a goat-like beard -- holding up a puppet with
> the head of a cartoon character as his sleeves (he's
> wearing french cuffs) flop open.
>
> But that's just my imagination.
> Running away with me-e.
*****************************
Jennifer Boyer
Thistle Hill Pottery
Montpelier, VT
http://thistlehillpottery.com
*****************************
Carole Fox on thu 25 oct 07
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:16:29 -0700, Carl Finch
wrote:
...
>Oh my--NONE of the grays and colors you mention are in the
>original! All those were my additions, made just to indicate the
>facial features that were somehow clear to me, but not to others.
>... The original as I
>saw it was solid black and white.
>
>--Carl
Carl - first of all, thanks for posting your colored image to flickr.com.
Now, just to be perfectly clear, did you add the white spaces that became
the eyes, or were those white spaces already in the original?
And, how about the lighter spaces within the red lips in your colored
version? Were they originally white spaces, or did you add them as well?
Thanks,
Carole Fox
Dayton, OH
looking for faces in all the wrong places
Marcia Selsor on thu 25 oct 07
I saw it right away in Black and white.
I didn't go to carole's flickr yet.
Marcia Selsor
http://marciaselsor.com
Carl Finch on thu 25 oct 07
At 07:30 AM 10/25/2007, Carole Fox wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:16:29 -0700, Carl Finch
>wrote:
>...
> >Oh my--NONE of the grays and colors you mention are in the
> >original! All those were my additions, made just to indicate the
> >facial features that were somehow clear to me, but not to others.
>
> >... The original as I
> >saw it was solid black and white.
> >
> >--Carl
>
>Carl - first of all, thanks for posting your colored image to flickr.com.
>Now, just to be perfectly clear, did you add the white spaces that became
>the eyes, or were those white spaces already in the original?
>
>And, how about the lighter spaces within the red lips in your colored
>version? Were they originally white spaces, or did you add them as well?
Carole, perfect clarity is anathema to me, but here goes anyway. I
have posted a copy of the original to my flickr site so you can see
that I added the eyeballs in their entirety. And ditto the other
stuff. Added, all added!
I also posted the negative of the original (as mentioned by Jennifer
Boyer) which to me is obscure. The original reveals the face to me
because it shows the face as brightly lit from both sides--the sort
of shadows I've seen before in real life. I get no such help from
the negative. Even knowing what I'm looking for I can't "get"
it. Does anyone?
>looking for faces in all the wrong places
Heh, heh!
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 26 oct 07
Hi Earl, all...
Just in watching the original version normally, if I were to make a friendly
wager, I would say she is actually going back-and-forth, and it is up to us
to attribute a direction for what we take to be a rotation, one way or the
other.
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Krueger"
> Sorry folks. There is no mystery or magic.
> She is spinning to her left, counterclockwise.
> Her more vertical leg is her right, the raised
> is her left.
>
> How can I be so sure, you ask?
>
> The spinning woman is an animated gif image.
> If you save the gif to your computer and then
> open it with an image editor you will see that
> there are 34 different images, which played
> one after the other in sequence gives you the
> impression you are watching a woman in motion.
>
> Upon close inspection you will see that in each
> individual image there are almost no clues as
> to which is her left side vs right side. Without
> these clues you cannot tell if she is facing
> toward or away from you. This is why it is
> confusing as to which direction she is spinning.
> Your mind thinks one direction for awhile and
> then switches and thinks the opposite direction.
>
> However, if you look closely at frame 13, just
> at the front of the straight leg where the raised
> leg crosses it you will see a faint highlight on
> the straight leg. To get this highlight requires
> that the straight leg be closer to you and therefore
> must be the woman's right leg. It also means that
> she is facing away from the viewer.
>
> Comparing frame 13 with the next in the
> sequence, frame 14, you will see that her
> raised left leg moves closer to being eclipsed
> by her right leg. This requires that she be
> spinning to her left, or anti-clockwise.
>
> Even knowing this I still get confused looking at
> the images.
>
> Earl Krueger
> Elmira, Oregon, usa
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
Carole Fox on mon 29 oct 07
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:50:10 -0700, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
...
>Just in watching the original version normally, if I were to make a
friendly
>wager, I would say she is actually going back-and-forth, and it is up to
us
>to attribute a direction for what we take to be a rotation, one way or the
>other....
Hey, Phil, I think you got it right! Here is a link with a neurologist's
opinion on the spinning lady phenomenon.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=27
Carole Fox
Dayton, OH
| |
|
