Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89ed2c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest 
>>part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that 
>>plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface.  So the picture 
>>space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along the viewing 
>>axis.
>>
>>What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a 
>>very important thing to them psychologically.  At a very basic level it 
>>involves a sense of self.  What about cats?
> 
> 
> I mentioned to Mike and, re-examining the photograph again, I become even 
> more convinced that the real troublemaker is the cat itself. Your comment 
> here seems to confirm this. The cat's personality (as the expression of 
> self-awareness which cats certainly possess) draws the viewer to its eyes in 
> an absolutely compulsive way, which makes any other possibility of focus 
> impossible, with the exception maybe of the point of its nose :-)
> 
> There are cases where the personality of the subject completely subjugates 
> the artist's actions. I know this can  happen in photography, I think this 
> can also happen in portrait painting.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Humans usually define their personal space to include the reach of their 
extremities (and their is even some evidence that as tool users humans 
can mentally 'map' their bodily space to include the reach of the tool 
also.)  So if the artist, or even just the viewer, was to pursue this 
theme I am suggesting, of sentience as equated to the mapping of bodily 
space, then the position of the paws, and the drawing of attention to 
them could play a role don't you think?

(I accept your point, though, that, especially with a subject as kitchy 
as this one, and also with the face aligned so perfectly with the 
picture plane, the primacy of the eyes is difficult to avoid.)

Post a reply to this message