Abstract and expressionist painting is often subjective, and hence, open to a multitude of interpretations and readings. Sometimes, these interpretations may become widely accepted due to the influence of the titling of the work, the universal meanings associated with certain colours, or even the artist discussing the themes or inspiration of their work. In some cases however, the twisted lines or a Jackson Pollock painting, or the patterns and tones in a Mark Rothko may begin to speak to their viewers in a different way, forming faces or landscapes in the abstract brushstrokes or colours. This phenomenon is known as pareidolia and is a form of anophenia which causes us to see patterns in random data; usually faces, such as the likes of the viral Jesus on a cheeto, or the face of a man made by the craters on the moon.
Robert G. Bednarik writes that:
“Visual pareidolia occurs when meaningful patterns representing familiar objects are seen in what are in reality random or meaningless data. It is of significance to anthropology for two reasons: as a psychological phenomenon of the human visual system; and because of its important role in rock art interpretation. Once the brain has been conditioned to anticipate specific patterns, it tends to discover them with minimal stimulation, because most of the information processed by the human visual centre derives from within the brain.” (2017, 101)
Although Bednarik’s research is related specifically to rock art, the same can definitely be said for abstract or abstract expressionist painting. In researching my dissertation, I was led to consider the many different ways in which external data can influence and judgement and interpretation of an artwork, and whilst a title, reputation of the artist, and exhibition guide information can all influence the way in which we view a work, ultimately, our unconscious nature to see patterns in shape or colour can often mean that we find imagery in random and abstract imagery. As stated above, once the brain has been “conditioned to anticipate specific patterns” it is even more common for pareidolia to occur.
Within my work, this is a constant occurance, especially once the viewer becomes aware that my paintings are concerned with the human figure. As some on my pieces are quite immediately representative, and therefore when viewed alongside some of my more ambiguous works, viewers start to find limbs, torsos and faces within the colourful shapes and patterns. Sometimes, these are ofcourse connected to the image the painting is based on, however often viewers interpret the painting as a variety of different body parts.
Particularly as my works have begun to incorporate a wider range of source imagery – such as pornography - I am often intrigued to find viewers noticing breasts, hands and genetalia in the brushstrokes of my works, usually where there were none intentionally created. This perfectly exemplifies how pareidolia influences the way we view art, and how the context of the works and what they are presented beside can hugely change the way in which they are interpreted. During the past week, as I have begun to trial presentation compositions for my degree show, it has been particularly interesting to see how certain works influence the reception of other paintings. As such, displaying more ambiguous pieces next to clearly representational works encourages the viewer to instantly link each work to the body as its subject.
Just as Arthur C. Danto states in The Wake of Art, “Artworks have no power, just as they have no beauty, at least as objective characteristics.” (1998: 45), and as such, it is only our conditioned subconscious that finds pattern, form and meaning in abstract shapes, along with the influence of context and external data.