Talk:Rubin vase

Image

For some reason, this doesn't contain the actual image of a rubin vase... that's stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.19.59 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have 2 FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And both were deleted for copyright issues. A pity. I'm not too concerned though - Rubin vases are easy to make if you have any graphical talents. I don't have any though... --Gwern (contribs) 15:47 29 June 2008 (GMT)

Flag

Why is the Canadian Flag there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.158.197.66 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real vases

There is a company that makes wood "pirolettes" of your profile that are based on the Rubin vase. Check it out: http://www.turnyourhead.com/pirolette.php

illusion?

I don't understand why this is termed an "illusion". It's just an ambiguous image, while "illusion" implies a deception of the eye/brain. It seems to me this is no more an illusion than the fact that text, with my middle-aged eyes, looks like blurs and blobs up close, but held at sufficient distance (or with more light) looks like text. Real illusions are impossible, or nearly so, to switch off, but the Rubin vase just requires looking at the object(s) in a different way. Perhaps I misunderstand the term "illusion." (or maybe I'm just puzzled because, contrary to these Gestalt assertions, I have no trouble seeing both the vase and the faces simultaneously -- in fact, I can't see them any other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.61.134 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I was confused when my students started referring to Rubin's figures as visual illusions, and then horrified to see that they were citing this article. This article needs a major re-write; and if not, it should be deleted. I'm going to figure out how to flag this article ASAP. To clarify: Rubin's famous face-vase figure is an example of "ambiguous" or "bistable" images. There is no error or mistake in either interpretation. On the other hand, an illusion is an error in perception. For example, perceiving two equal lines to be mismatched in length is an error in perceptual judgment! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.31.150.138 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I edited the intro and the Illusion section. When I read the Illusion section more carefully, I found someone had written that only "one" of the shape interpretations is "valid." Not only is that nonsense, but it conflicted with the original introduction. If anything, this article has provided me a fresh example of why students should not rely so heavily on single websites like Wikipedia when they do research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.31.150.138 (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Rubin2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin's vs Rubin

The title of this page is "Rubin vase", while the article body uses "Rubin's vase"; this should be standardized. 128.76.194.227 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]