An Introduction to Optical Art by Cyril Barrett (review)

Books 181 upon a personal preconception of what a book devoted to the influence of photographs on painting should contain-a preconception involving theoretical principles defined more neatly and logically. Coke, instead, provides a deluge of examples of paintings with their photographic sources, loosely arranged by subjectmatter. Theoreticalstatements are indeed somewhathidden between examplesbut they are pithy, aphorismic,quotable and frequently graceful. I believe that the book will be a source of fascinating revelation to most readers and that it will in time be regarded as a classic. The book is a provocative springboardfor further research and contemplation. Coke has attempted, I feel, to overwhelm the world of art history and criticism by the sheer number of examples of correspondences between paintings and photographs he has uncovered. The ultimate effect, if his mission is accomplished, will be a more serious understanding of the visual impact, documentary function and creative potential of photographs, as well as the pervasive cultural and visual ambiance formed by cameraimagery. Coke has pursued vigorously the motivating forces behind artists’ preoccupation with photographs . The discussionsare enlivenedby splendidly revealing comments that he extracted from letters and conversationswith contemporary artists. Their candid comments reinforce the author’s interpretations and suggestions,helpingto emphasizethe overt nature of the use of photographs by these artists in contrast to their covert use in the 19th century. An Introduction to Optical Art. Cyril Barrett. Studio Vista, London, 1971. 160 pp., illus. E1.80. Reviewed by :John ScottWillson* This book is a concise illustrated prkcis of Cyril Barrett’s earlier, more comprehensive treatise, ‘Op Art’, which was reviewed by Gerard Oster in Leonurdo 4,398 (1971). In Leonard0 5, 182(1972) Barrett concluded his review of a book by Oster with the suggestion that artists are beginning to lose interest in some of the perceptual effects used in Op art. Howeverit isclearthat this ‘Introduction’ willarousetheinterestand curiosityof allthose who pick it up. Although the book is writtenin a logical sequence of chapters, I feel that many readers will find its 110illustrations so intriguing that they will peruse it during odd moments rather than read it from start to finish. In the first part of the book the author discusses the nature of optical art and showsthrough various simple examples that it is dependent upon physiological and psychological processes in the eye and brain of the observer. Some basic optical effects, such as redundant figures, tessellated designs and after-images, are described and related to works of artists who have made use of these phenomena. * Manchester Grammar School, Manchester M13 OXT, England. No attempt, however, is made to explain the effects or to discuss the relevant hypotheses on the mechanisms of visual perception. The author brieflymentions some occurrencesof optical artin pre-20th-centurydesignsandpaintings and then discusses the works of this century that led to the establishmentof the Op art movementin the late 1950’s. At this point the discussion moves from pure optical art to a broader field, including works in which the visual effect is dependent upon movement of the observer and structures in which parts actually change shape, color, position or brightness. Although some of the exampleswould be more aptly classified as kinetic art rather than Op art, the author includes them as they depend to someextent upon Op art effects. Some interesting biographical details and thoughts of Vasarely are included with a review of his paintings and, in a similar study of the works of Soto, some applications of the moirC effect are discussed. Apart from a detailed analysis of the development of the paintings of Bridget Riley, the rest of the book is essentially an illustrated encyclopedia of over forty European and American artists who have produced works involving Op art effects. Unfortunately,many of the illustrationsfail to showthe Op art effectsthat are so strikingin the original works. Although the two-dimensional reproduction of three dimensionalor kinetic works is impossible, it is sad that colored paintings could only be reproduced as ineffective black and white illustrations. Barrett concludes that Op art is not just illusionism or experimentalpsychology; it has its originsin the recognized art forms of the past and will in the future be recognized as a true art form reflecting somethingof the present...