Wow, this is really fascinating. It's remarkable that the human brain (well, at least my brain) has almost no issue understanding the "scene". I wonder how a NN would do...

The composition of the scenes seems to neatly match the particular way how human vision works, namely, that we look for/at details with only a narrow center part of our vision, and gather the total detailed picture by scanning over it with our eyes.

So, for this type of artwork, whenever we're looking for details, we rest our eyes at a single separate photograph that covers those details fully just as if we'd be looking at a normal real image; but this contrasts with the wider view captured by our peripheral vision, which is obviously artificial.

Hockney was fully aware of this mechanism when he made these works, which motivated him to make them in the first place:

> For his part, critics often got Hockney all wrong as well, misinterpreting the intensity of the ways he would presently be engaging photography—taking literally hundreds of thousands of photos, coming to feel that the Old Masters themselves had been in thrall to a similar optical aesthetic—as a celebration of the photographic over the painterly, and specifically the post-optical painterly, when in fact all along he’d been engaged in a rigorous critique of photography and the optical as “all right,” in his words, “if you don’t mind looking at the world from the point of view of a paralyzed cyclops, for a split second, but that’s not how the world really is.”

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200811/?read=article_wesch...

I don't see what this has to do with being able to make real-world accurate measurements and predictions based on CV algorithms.

And from first glance, I actually find his stuff pretty cool.

Ah, I misinterpreted this as you saying that you dislike the fuzzy geometry of the human mind in general - not specifically for measurement purposes:

> My problem with our brains (...) is exactly this "fuzzy geometry"