Journal of Vision (2015) 15(16):12, 1–3
1
An unconventional depiction of viewpoint in rock art
Jack Pettigrew
Lee Scott-Virtue
Queensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland,
Queensland, Australia
$
Nicholson Station, via Kununurra, Western Australia,
Australia
Rock art in Africa sometimes takes advantage of threedimensional features of the rock wall, such as fissures or
protuberances, that can be incorporated into the artistic
composition (Lewis-Williams, 2002). More commonly,
rock artists choose uniform walls on which twodimensional depictions may represent three-dimensional
figures or objects. In this report we present such a twodimensional depiction in rock art that we think reveals
an intention by the artist to represent an unusual threedimensional viewpoint, namely, with the two human
figures facing into the rock wall, instead of the
accustomed Western viewpoint facing out!
The figurative image
The depiction (Figure 1) comes from the Classic
Style of the controversial Bradshaw rock art, whose
origins and age are debated, in a narrow region of
Australia’s Kimberley. The radiometric methods of
carbon 14 and uranium-thorium dating have not been
as successful in giving rock art dates in the quartzite of
the Kimberley as they have been in the limestone of
Palaeolithic rock art in Europe. However, superposition studies of overlapping art give a temporal rank
order of evolving styles that can be calibrated by
depictions of extinct megafauna that disappeared 46.5
ka, indicating that this image is 50 ka or older (the
surprisingly minimal deterioration is due to a biofilm of
pigmented, replenishing microorganisms; Pettigrew,
2010; Pettigrew et al., 2010).
The Classic Style, as illustrated here, shows unusual
definition of the body, especially the muscle groups of
the limbs, if one allows for its great age. Moreover,
there is enough definition of the heads to deduce that
these are inclined toward each other, with the figure
on the viewer’s right turned slightly to its left and the
figure on the viewer’s left turned slightly to its right,
but with both facing into the rock wall, instead of
facing out. This viewpoint is confirmed by an overall
judgement of the whole composition, especially the
genders of the two figures, whose backs are in view.
For example, the figure on the right has female
features compared to the left (male) figure, such as
smaller stature, neater coiffure, delicate toe-in and
pigeon-toed stance, and steatopygia. The identity of
this latter bulge, seen in the profile view of a partial
left turn by the smaller, putative female, has probably
escaped attention in previously studied examples,
whereas it was attributed instead to a male paunch,
(27 cases in Walsh, 2000), even though it has a gluteal
rather than an abdominal location. This misattribution would follow from the failure to recognise the
posterior view. Similar reinterpretations may follow a
failure to recognise the facing-in viewpoint in the
controversial subject of gender representation in this
kind of art, in which the male dominance in the
published literature may be an artifact of the absence
of the more obvious secondary sexual characteristics
in a posterior view.
Individual variation between
viewers
One problem with our observations on this particular rock art depiction is that it is not universally
perceived as facing in. Many viewers remain in the
facing-out mode, conforming to the habitual viewpoint of the many thousands of images to which most
of us have been exposed. This depiction has been
presented to audiences in Australia, the United States,
and Germany with a majority of viewers accepting the
facing-in percept (Table 1), although some required
coaching to see it. Unfortunately, around 30%
adhered to the facing-out viewpoint, even after
coaching and prolonged viewing. This recalls a survey
Citation: Pettigrew, J., & Scott-Virtue, L. (2015). An unconventional depiction of viewpoint in rock art. Journal of Vision,
15(16):12, 1–3, doi:10.1167/15.16.12.
doi: 10 .116 7 /1 5. 16 . 12
Received July 9, 2015; published December 23, 2015
Downloaded From: http://jov.arvojournals.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/Journals/JOV/934737/ on 03/22/2016
ISSN 1534-7362 Ó 2015 ARVO
Journal of Vision (2015) 15(16):12, 1–3
Pettigrew & Scott-Virtue
2
Figure 1. The two figures are turned slightly toward each other, as shown by the depiction of their heads and by the profile of the
buttocks of the presumed female (the member of the pair on the right). The key observation, however, is that both figures appear to
be looking in to the rock, rather than the usual viewpoint of looking out. This depiction has been published by Donaldson (2012, p.
206).
by one of us (JDP) of undergraduates in a large
practical class on perceptual rivalry, in which 3% were
‘‘stuck’’ on one perspective of the well-known Necker
cube, showing that perception of even a bistable image
with obvious perspectives can become stuck. It seems
Facing in
Facing out
Undecided
45 M, 63 F
23 M, 12 F
17 M, 23 F
Table 1. Subjective Reports of ‘‘Facing In’’ vs ‘‘Facing out’’ in 2
Audiences. Reports from two different audiences of interpretations of Figure 1 when it was projected life-size onto a screen,
broken down by whether they reported the ‘‘facing in’’ or
‘‘facing out’’ percept, but also by gender. Notes: M ¼ male
participant; F ¼ female participant.
likely that this inability to switch to an alternate
percept will be even more true for the common images
of human figures and faces, most of which predominantly face out. This bias toward a different
perspective, compared to the one that we think was
intended by the artist, is also a potential stumbling
block for the review of our work on this unusual piece
of rock art.
Motivation of artist?
It is difficult to speculate about the clear intention
of the artist to present the facing-in viewpoint,
which we think is quite clear. We note the modesty
Downloaded From: http://jov.arvojournals.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/Journals/JOV/934737/ on 03/22/2016
Journal of Vision (2015) 15(16):12, 1–3
Pettigrew & Scott-Virtue
3
Figure 2. Close-up of heads from Figure 1 to show that they are turned in the direction of each other, but they are also facing into the
rock face (e.g., headdresses and occiputs on the outside).
of some San hunter-gatherers (Lewis-Williams,
2013), but also the virtuosity of this artist, which
has enabled a clear distinction to be made between
the genders using the more subtle cues available in
the posterior view without resorting to the obvious
secondary sexual characters that would be obvious
in a frontal view.
Keywords: rock art, Bradshaw figures, Kimberley,
gender differences, viewpoint, facing in
Acknowledgments
Commercial relationships: none.
Corresponding author: Jack Pettigrew.
Email: [email protected].
Address: Queensland Brain Institute, University of
Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
References
Donaldson, M. (2012). Kimberley rock art: North
Kimberley. Mt. Lawly, WA: Wildrocks Publications,
Lewis-Williams, D. J. (2002). The mind in the cave:
Consciousness and the origins of art. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Lewis-Williams, J. D. (2013). San rock art (pp. 158).
Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Pettigrew, J. D. (2010). Iconography in Bradshaw rock
art: Breaking the circularity. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 88, 39–45.
Pettigrew, J. D., Callistemon, C., Weiler, A., Gorbushina, A., Krumbein, W., & Weiler, R. (2010).
Living pigments in Australian Bradshaw rock art.
Antiquity, 84, 326. Available from http://antiquity.
ac.uk/projgall/pettigrew326
Walsh, G. L. (2000). Bradshaw art of the Kimberley.
Toowong, Queensland, Australia: Takarakka
Nowan Kas Publications.
Downloaded From: http://jov.arvojournals.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/Journals/JOV/934737/ on 03/22/2016