The illusion allowed the viewer to become undeceived, a way of recovering personal agency. To some “Art” was suspected as a frivolous and expensive pursuit capable of creating political illusions, but also capable of illustrating moral examples. It had a diverse population and burgeoning print and economic cultures. Why was Philadelphia the center? This city held both Revolutionary and Continental congresses and was, in the 1790s, the seat of the federal government, thus a place that fostered and publicized political debates.
Less well known, but still significant to the study, is Charles and Titian’s watercolor depiction of The Long Room, Interior of the Front Room in Peale’s Museum (also 1822, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit), whose sharp single-point perspective was later heightened by its pairing with a piece of optical equipment (a small “cosmorama”) in the museum, creating an early type of illusionistic virtual space.Ĭhapter 1, Theaters of Visuality, moves back in time to explain that by the eighteenth century, Philadelphia already had a strong culture of “looking”, fostered by microscopes, camera obscuras, and magic lanterns. The purveyors of visual deception similarly operated in a space where artistry, science, and pure showmanship overlapped.Īs one would expect, the book opens with a discussion of Charles Willson Peale’s iconic painting Artist in His Museum (1822, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia), which captures a retrospective of his pursuits in both art and natural history, and highlights, through its representation of visitors to the museum enacting awe, curiosity, and intellectual enlightenment. Importantly this education of the senses took place in a multitude of spaces capable of separating social classes and political affiliations: taverns, gardens, museums and national exhibitions. Explored together, these three categories of objects (none of which originated in nineteenth-century America) nonetheless helped develop a shared visual literacy among Americans who did not necessarily share a common verbal language. The author explores the cultural function of visual perception and deception articulated in trompe l’oeil paintings (hyper-realistic oil paintings designed to visually “fool the eye”), optical devices intended to aid vision, and spectacular hoaxes. Wendy Bellion, associate professor of art history at the University of Delaware, centers her study within the history and politics of Philadelphia by focusing on the natural history museum and the art of the Peale family (Charles, Titian, Rembrandt, and Raphaelle). This may well be tempered over a longer period of use, though.Wendy Bellion, Citizen Spectator: Art, Illusion & Visual Perception in Early National America.Ĭhapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.ģ88 pp. Some digital creatives may prefer this exaggerated surface texture, but I think it may be a little bit too pronounced, as is the resulting graininess of the visuals. In terms of longevity it’s hard to say, without prolonged use, which will last the longest - the surface texture of the screen protector or the nib of the Apple Pencil. Using various brushes in Procreate I found I had to exert far more pressure than I’m used to doing. The more tooth a surface has the more visual noise you’ll get (a grainy look to the screen) and ultimately it will be more wearing on the nib of your pencil. Ideally you want a happy medium between texture and smoothness. However, the ‘tooth’ of the textured surface is way more pronounced than any others I’ve tried. Even the removal of air bubbles using the provided card scraper is a lot easier than many other protectors.įirst impressions are that the anti glare element works very well, due to the textured surface.
The overall quality is good, including the installation kit provided, and as already mentioned the tray provided for alignment is a nice touch.
#Art of illusion reviews pro#
(Image credit: Future) PaperTouch Pro screen protector: quality