> In this case my experience says Bill is correct. If the > subject looks dead center into the taking lens the eyes of > the portrait will seem to follow the viewer around, but if > they are just slightly off they will not. Portrait painters > have used this optical illustion for centuries. >
Pete and Dud meet at an art gallery... Dud Here, have a sandwich. My feet are killing me. Pete What's that got to do with the sandwich? Dud Nothing, I just said it afterwards, that's all. Pete Well, you shouldn't say things like that together, it could confuse a stupid person. They go on to discuss famous duck paintings: Pete If you look at his ducks, you see the eyes follow you around the room. Dud You noticed that? Pete Yer, when you see sixteen of his ducks, you see thirty-two little eyes follow you round the room. Dud No, you only see sixteen because they're flying sideways and you can't see the other eye on the other side. He never does a frontal duck. Pete No, but you get the impression, Dud, that the other eye is craning round the beak to look at you, don't you. That's a sign of a good painting, Dud. This leads to an examination of Cezanne's "Les Grandes Baigneuses": Pete The sign of a good painting when its people's backs towards you is if the bottoms follow you around the room. Dud If it's a good painting the bottoms will follow you around the room? Pete Right. Dud Shall I test it then? Pete They won't bloody budge, I'll tell you that much. Dud I can't look directly at the painting or else they'll know I'm looking and get all cagey. Pete Are they moving, Dud? Dud I think they're following me, Pete. Pete I don't think they are, Dud. Dud I reckon they are, Pete. Pete No, those bottoms aren't following you around the room, your eyes are following the bottoms around the room. Dud The same thing, isn't it? Pete Course it isn't. There's a world of difference between being followed by a bottom and you following a bottom.
