A good case can be made for a 
more radical view of the 
relation between line drawings 
and the objects or scenes they 
represent. It has often been 
presumed that, because line 
pictures leave out surface 
texture, color, shading, and 
detail, they are impoverished 
representations. But sometimes 
simple line drawings or sparse 
paintings may actually be 
better representations than 
more complex renderings or 
photographs. Line figures are 
simple and uncluttered 
compared to photographs or 
other kinds of drawings. They 
tend to bring out the essence of 
the thing represented. In fact, 
caricature drawings that distort 
the object depicted can bring 
out the object’s essence even 
better than more accurate line 
drawings. Experiments have 
shown that caricatures or 
cartoons require less time for 
correct recognition than do 
more "realistic" pictures.

    On empirical grounds, the 
convention explanation can be 
faulted in a number of respects. 
Consider, for instance, the 
result of a bold experiment 
done by Julian Hochberg and 
Virginia Brooks at Cornell 
University. They raised their 
son for the first two years 
without allowing him to see 
pictures, even advertisements 
on food containers or 
billboards. In situations where 
the child might have seen a 
picture inadvertently, they 
provided no interpretation of or 
label for it. When the boy was 
about 2 years old, he was asked 
to identify pictures of various 
kinds, including simple line 
drawings of shoes and other 
familiar objects. He had no 
difficulty identifying the 
pictures. If we assume that this 
finding can be generalized, 
therefore, it can hardly be 
argued that the perception and 
recognition of line drawings is 
a matter of learned convention.