New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Art as Visual Research: Kinetic Illusions in OP Art

Art and neuroscience combine to create fascinating examples of illusory motion

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Scientists did not invent the vast majority of visual illusions. Rather they are the products of artists who have used their insights into the workings of the human eyes and brain to create illusions in their artwork. Long before visual science existed as a formal discipline, artists had devised techniques to “trick” the brain into thinking that a flat canvas was three-dimensional or that a series of brushstrokes in a still life was in fact a bowl of luscious fruit. Thus, the visual arts have sometimes preceded the visual sciences in the discovery of fundamental vision principles through the application of methodical—though perhaps more intuitive—research techniques. In this sense, art, illusions and visual science have always been implicitly linked.

It was only with the birth of the op art (for “optical art”) movement that visual illusions became a recognized art form. The movement arose simultaneously in Europe and the U.S. in the 1960s, and in 1964 Time magazine coined the term “op art.” Op art works are abstract, and many consist only of black-and-white lines and patterns. Others use the interaction of contrasting colors to create a sense of depth or movement.

This style became hugely popular after the Museum of Modern Art in New York City held an exhibition in 1965 called “The Responsive Eye.” In it, op artists explored many aspects of visual perception, such as the relations among geometric shapes, variations on “impossible” figures that could not occur in reality, and illusions involving brightness, color and shape perception. But “kinetic,” or motion, illusions drew particular interest. In these eye tricks, stationary patterns give rise to the powerful but subjective perception of (illusory) motion.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This article includes several works of art in which objects that are perfectly still appear to move. Moreover, they demonstrate that research in the visual arts can result in important findings about the visual system. Victor Vasarely, the Hungarian-French founder of the op art movement, once remarked, “In basic research, intellectual rigor and sentimental freedom necessarily alternate.”

Op artists have created some of the illusions featured here; vision scientists honoring the op art tradition have created others. But all of them make it obvious that the link between aesthetics and illusory perception is an artistic style in and of itself.

Susana Martinez-Conde is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. She is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind, along with Stephen Macknik and Sandra Blakeslee, and of Champions of Illusion, along with Stephen Macknik.

More by Susana Martinez-Conde

Stephen L. Macknik is a professor of opthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, N.Y. Along with Susana Martinez-Conde and Sandra Blakeslee, he is author of the Prisma Prize-winning Sleights of Mind. Their forthcoming book, Champions of Illusion, will be published by Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

More by Stephen L. Macknik
SA Special Editions Vol 22 Issue 3sThis article was published with the title “Art as Visual Research: Kinetic Illusions in OP Art” in SA Special Editions Vol. 22 No. 3s (), p. 78
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanillusions0913-78

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe