Leonardo

Astrology Disproved
Author(s): Lawrence E. Jerome
Source: Leonardo, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), pp. 87-88
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1574535 .
Accessed: 11/06/2014 05:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Leonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.111 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:22:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lette rs
I believe whathe says aboutperspectivepictures'requiringan
unmovingpoint of convergenceis equivalentto my analysisof
the two kinds of eye movement.His accountof seeing train
tracksand lines of poles seems to me to shift confusinglyin
mid-argumentfrom describingsuch a scene to describing
looking at a picture of such a scene. In his article The
Perception of Pictorial Space in Perspective Pictures in
Leonardo 9, 279 (1976), he shows why that difference is
important,as does Gombrich[cf. Ref. 6 in my article].At the
end of PartII of my articleI describelookingat the scene, not
lookingat a pictureof that scene.
David Carrier
Dept. of Historyand Philosophy
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh,PA 15213,U.S.A.
In his article in Leonardo 13, 283 (1980) David Carrier
asked why, since a 'verbal descriptionof a scene can be
convertedinto a perspectivepictureandvice versa ... should
the perspectivepicturehave a privilegedstatus?'In his letter
above [Leonardo14, 86, (1981)] he objects to my proposed
answer as being 'somewhatunclear', namely, that perspec-
tive'sspecialstatusis deserved'becauseinformationis givenin
the sameform[perspectiverelationshipscarriedby lightto the
eye] as thatpresentedby the visibleworld.'Is it unclearto him
that perspective relationshipsdescribed in words are pre-
servedin the meaningsgiven by conventionto the wordsand
in theirgrammaticalstructureratherthandirectlyby geomet-
ric equivalency?
He denies havingclaimedthat reverseperspectivewill do
the same job as perspective.Whathe wrote in PartIII of his
article was that 'the verbal description[of a scene] can be
convertedinto a perspectivepictureand vice versa' and that
'the same points could be made in contrastingperspectiveto
nonperspectivepictures.The informationprovidedin a pers-
pective picture could also be recorded in nonperspective
pictures.'But since he admitsthat reverseperspectivebrings
othersurfacesinto view and, conversely,mayobscuresurfaces
(imaginereversingthe perspectiveof the interiorof a roomor
box), a perspectivescene cannot be transformedaccurately
into reverseperspective.Furthermore,obscuredinformation
wouldbe lost anddetailson surfacesthatcome intoview, such
as the position of windows on a house, would have to be
invented. Wordscan accuratelydescribeboth what one sees
fromone positionin a landscapeand the perspectivetransfor-
mations that occur as one moves through space. Reverse
perspective and some combinationof perspective and of
reverseperspectivecorrespondneitherto whatis visiblefrom
one positionnor to changingappearancesrelatedto a viewer's
changingposition.
Carriersays in PartI of his articlethat eye movementsthat
'move the eye awayfroma focus on the centerof the picture'
occureven when a pictureis viewedthrougha peepholefrom
the correctstationpoint, 'butin practicethis distortionwillbe
small'. Apart from the lack of any antecedentreferenceto
'thisdistortion',the confusionthat I attributedto this passage
lies in the implicationthat for a pictureto supply a perfect
perspectivalequivalentto the originalscene a viewer's eye
needs be focussedon the centerof the picture(or else therewill
be a smallprojectivedistortion).This is wrong.If the point at
which light convergesin the eye is located at the projection
point for the perspective,then there will be no distortion,no
matterwhat point in the picturethe line of vision is directed
toward.
Carrier'sobjectionsto myviewsof Goodman'sdiscussionof
perspectivedepictionsof traintracksandlines of poles seems
to be the result of his failureto read it carefully.Yes, I was
awarethat he 'describedlooking at the scene, not lookingat
the pictureof thatscene'whenhe wrotein PartII of his article
that 'standingat some height and viewingthe poles with the
head parallelto the tracksis the more usualviewingposition.
Then the poles will be perpendicularto a line from the
viewer's eyes, and so should be drawnas verticalparallels.'
Apart from the questionsof what it could mean to have the
head parallelwith the tracks and how the poles can be any
more perpendicularto a line from a viewer'seyes thanwhen
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.111 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:22:03 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
87
viewed at tracklevel (the point of the perpendicularintersec-
tion only changesposition), my point was and is that which
kind of perspectivesystem (parallelor convergent)correctly
depicts lines of poles has nothingto do with the angle of a
viewer's gaze, either towardthe originalscene or towarda
pictureof it. Rather, there are an infinitenumberof correct
projectionsto a given point, derivedby changingthe angle at
which the projectionplane intersectsthe visual field. That
most frequentlyused is the verticalintersection.
Finally,in his letteraboveCarrierproperlychidesme for my
inaccuratereferenceto his viewsconcerningthe conventional-
ity of perspective.Indeed, in PartIV of his articlehe offered
two 'facts'to show that perspectivedeservesits specialstatus.
Unhappily, the first - that 'compensationsfrom incorrect
viewing points are relatively simple' - is unproven and
doubtful(see my discussionin Leonardo9, 279 (1976) Part
VI of the complexity of perspective transformationsand
compensationswhen a picture is viewed from the wrong
stationpoint); the second- that 'the effect of the compensa-
tions is that one sees the pictureas if one were seeingit from
the correct viewing point' - is wrong. It is true that one
appearsto continueto view the depictedspace from approxi-
matelythe samepoint, althoughnot becauseof anycompensa-
tions but ratherbecause the informationfor the position of
viewersis structuredinto the picture'sperspective.However,
compensationsfor incorrectviewingposition (nothingmore
than shape constancy,which functionsfor all pictures,pers-
pectivalor not) alert viewersto the real shape of the picture
plane and of any depicted planes parallelto it preciselyby
simultaneouslyalertingthem to the slant of these surfacesin
relation to their viewing position. The perception of the
pictureplane as being slantedinappropriately for the point of
view (whichremainsfixedin perspectivepictures)guarantees
a differenteffect from that obtained at the correctviewing
point, but perceived differencesare typicallydiscountedas
being productsof an eccentricviewing position ratherthan
seen as propertiesof the depictedspace.
JohnL. Ward
Dept. of Art
Universityof Florida
Gainsville,FL 32611, U.S.A.
ON BOOKREVIEWS
'AstrologyDisproved'
I appreciateMichaelZeilik'sreviewof my book in Leonardo
13, 163 (1980). Authorstend to be so close to theirbooks that
they do not realizeif they have succeededin explainingtheir
ideas. Often an impartialreviewercan point out weaknesses,
and I feel Zeilik has done this.
I, too, am uneasyaboutthe finaltitle;it was not my original
one, but a version I accepted as a compromisewith the
publisher.How can one disprovein a scientificsense a system
of belief that had arisen 2000 to 3000 years before moder
scientificmethodswere developed?
Zeilik is correct when he states that 'many people -
astrologersincluded- take astrologyon faith,like a religion.'
That is preciselythe point of my book: Astrologyis a system
based on an early kind of religiousfaith involvingmagicthat
stems from the 'principleof correspondences'.Because the
planet Mars appearsreddishin the sky, ancient astrologers
believed it must have some 'god-like'connectionwith blood-
shed and, therefore, with military matters. Similarly,the
planetVenus, the brightmorningand evening'star'visiblein
early morning and early evening, was associated by the
principleof correspondenceswith femininebeautyandgrace,
and, therefore, with the goddess of love. This 'principle'is
widely applied in black and white magic of various kinds
practicedin manysocieties.Yet, some scientistsare willingto
grantthat there might be some truthbehindmagicalbeliefs.
However, to my knowledge,none has providedany evidence
to supportthe 'predictions'of astrologers.
As for my 'impatient,flippant,condescendingandarrogant'
attitudethatZeilikfindsexpressedin my book, I apologizefor
it, andconfessthatportionsof the book werewrittenin a state
of irritation.Also I succumbedto a style that in the U.S.A. is
88 LIetters
often believedto be effectivein drawingattentionto a subject
considereddreadfullydullby most people.
I have appreciatedthe revivalof the debateon the validity
of astrology generated by my article in Leonardo 6, 121
(1973). It may be surprisingthat the most personal and
career-damagingattacks on my article and book came not
from astrologersbut from researchersclaiminga 'scientific'
proof of astrology. I did not mind threats of legal action
againstme, nor 'practicaljokes', but I didmindthe holdingup
of the publicationof my book by legal action by certain
individualsin the U.S.A. I did not anticipatesuchactionsin a
societythat claimsto believein the freedomof the press.
LawrenceE. Jerome
10301SerranoCourt
SanJose, CA 95127, U.S.A.
'HighDiver'
If readers will read Michael Wishart'sautobiography,my
reviewof it in Leonardo13, 255 (1980)and his commentson
my review in Leonardo13, 255 (1980), they will understand
whyI do not wishto take up his commentspointby point. I do
wish to state that I did not place him 'in the companyof
Beaudelaire,Flaubert,Gide, Lawrence,Joyce et al'. He is
flatteringhimself.
R. S. Biran
107SouthBroadway
Nyack,NY 10960,U.S.A.
'JustThisSideof Madness:Creativityandthe Driveto Create'
I wish to commenton one aspect only of the review of my
book by D. N. Perkinsin Leonardo13, 335 (1980). Though
understandingaccuratelythe salient points of my book, he
has, I fear, failed to appreciatethe purposeof my study. I
believe that a statementof my intentwill clarifymanyof the
criticismsleveledby him. His characterization of the presenta-
tion of major ideas as 'claims', 'assertions'and 'arguments'
exemplifiesthis misunderstanding.
My purpose was to outline a hypothesisthat a 'drive to
create'is geneticallydeterminedand that at least one genetic
locus involved in the inheritanceof the creative drive is
located on the same chromosomeand relativelyclose to a
locus determiningsusceptibilityto affectivedisorders.Presen-
tation of a hypothesisratherthan assemblingevidence that
'proves'it requiresjustification.My justificationis that provi-
sion of evidencestill requiresmajorinterdisciplinary research
efforts.
The 'fair surveyof many makersin many circumstances',
apparentlyconsideredadequateby Perkins,would produce
correlations requiringhypotheses suggesting causes; these
hypotheseswouldthen have to be tested. I firmlybelievethat
at this juncturemy hypothesisof a geneticallydetermined
drive to create as distinctfromcreativetalent servesto focus
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.111 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:22:03 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the attentionof both laymenand scientistsupon new waysto
analyzeandquantifyaspectsof creativityin the broadsense. If
efforts to gather data relevant to testing the hypothesis
proposedare made, then my purposein presentingthe book
has been fulfilled.
CarolAnn Morizot
P. O. Box 59
Marshall,AR 72650, U.S.A.
'A Sense of Order:A Study in the Psychologyof Decorative
Art'
I wishto commentbrieflyon David R. Topper'sreviewof my
book in Leonardo13, 336 (1980). I am promptedto do so by
his remarkthat 'thereis no majortheoreticalconceptthatties
togetherthe variouschapters.'The faultmustbe mine, for he
is not the only well-disposedreviewerwho thus missed the
point of the book. I should have rememberedE. A. Poe's
famous story of the purloinedletter that the police cannot
find, because it is left in front of everybody'seyes. For the
'majortheoreticalconcept'for whichTopperlookedin vainis
preciselythe sense of order.
It is by no meansobviousthatthereexistssucha sense that,
as I claim,is essentialfor the survivalof anyorganismbecause
the a priori expectationof order (whetherjustifiedor not)
offers the best strategyfor the constructionof cognitivemaps
of environmentsthrough subsequentadjustmentand mod-
ification.I tried to show that one is so programmedthat any
decreaseor increasein orderimpingeson one's awareness.It
is thisemphasison the importanceof deviationsfromexpected
ordersthat distinguishesthe hypothesisI advancefrom Ges-
talt psychology.I put it forwardto explainboth the human
tendencyto producean orderedenvironmentand the aesthe-
tic relevance of breaks in continuityas 'visual accents'. I
believe that this assumptionand its implicationsilluminate
manyaspectsof decorativedesignand otherhumanactivities
(includingthe dance, music and verse) that exemplify the
sense of order. This theoreticalframeworkowes, of course,
much to the theory of informationand to K. R. Popper's
epistemology.It has nothingto do with the historicalhypoth-
eses of ThomasS. Kuhn,to whichI have referredin my book
Ideals and Idols: Essays on Valuesin Art and in Art History
(Oxford:Phaidon,1979).
Most books on arthistoryare veryproperlyconcernedwith
individual facts and events rather than with such general
issues. It musthave been my somewhatunusualprocedureof
using historicalmaterialmainlyas evidence for explanatory
hypothesesthat madeTopper'lose the forestfor the trees'. I
had thoughtI had erecteda sufficientnumberof signpostsin
the forest, and the numberof readerswho managedto follow
the trailinto and out of the wood reassuresme thatI was not,
perhaps,recklesslyoptimistic.
E. H. Gombrich
19 BriardaleGardens
London,NW3, England