AMY E. HERMAN:
Thank you very much
for that lovely introduction.
I have to say, visually, this
rug up here is beautiful.
Thank you for having me.
It's a pleasure to be at Google.
And I'm going to try to
condense my three-hour training
session into about 45 minutes,
because I'd like to leave time
for Q&A. But I'd like
to review some rules
that I have for every
session where I present.
The first rule is that
you need to interrupt me
with any questions, comments, or
feedback you have at the time.
I have no train of thought.
I will go right
back to where I was.
Don't worry about
interrupting me.
The second rule is you don't
need to write anything down.
I prefer that you engage
in the conversation
and looking at the works of art.
And the last rule is
the hardest to follow--
that I ask you that for the
next 45 minutes to an hour
that we're together to
refrain from using two
words-- obviously and clearly.
Try to do that for
the rest of the day,
and even for the
rest of the week,
and when you go
back to your work,
for the very simple reason
that we live and work
in a very complex world.
Very little is obvious,
and even less is clear.
So rather than saying,
obviously, it's a case of X,
I would prefer that you
say, it appears to me
to be a case of X
because of Y and Z. OK?
Those are my only rules.
So if you look at
the first slide
that I've put up
on the screen, I
try to put thought
into my opening slide.
How am I going to ease people
into thinking differently
about works of art that we
see and how we communicate
about those works?
And I'm showing you
the largest equestrian
sculpture in the country.
You don't have to
worry about that.
It's in Irving, Texas.
But what I love
about this sculpture,
it's counterintuitive.
The horses are
completely stationary
and the water is moving.
The water moves 24/7
and the horses don't.
And so I want to
orient your brain
to thinking differently
about works of art
and communicating what we see.
So I'm going to put
you to work now.
It's the post-lunch coma.
Can you please put your
right hand up in the air?
Right hand up in the air.
And you can only
put your hand down
when you see
something definitive
and unequivocal in the
slide that I've put up,
that you could describe
to somebody who
was not looking at the slide.
If you see something
definitive and unequivocal
you can put your hand down.
Now, the majority of you
still have your hands up.
So I'm going to tell you
that what you're looking at
is a mammal.
If you see a mammal
definit-- now it's funny.
Some hands are going up.
They're coming down.
They're going up
and coming down.
Now, if you see this mammal
you can put your hand down.
Now for those of you that
still have your hands up,
the mammal has four legs.
I'm going to tell you that the
mammal that you're looking at
has four legs.
If you see a four-legged mammal,
you can put your hand down.
You can all put
your hands down now.
I'm going to show you
an overexposed version
of this photograph and show
you what you were looking at.
You were looking at a cow.
Now, go back to this slide.
Do you see it now?
Sure you do.
It's very hard to unsee
what I've just shown you.
Now this is not a trick
photograph in any way.
It was designed by a man
named Dr. Samuel Renshaw.
It's familiarly known
as the "Renshaw Cow".
And he trained Navy
pilots in World War II
to discern enemy warfare.
And he designed a series
of visual exercises.
And I begin with this exercise
not to disarm you in any way,
but to share an experience
that I had about two years ago,
when I went to hear a man
named Apollo Robbins speak.
Now, for those of you who don't
know who Apollo Robbins is,
he's a professional
con man, for lack
of a better term, who now works
on the right side of the law.
I had heard about him.
I wanted to hear
what he had to say.
He was standing at the
door of the auditorium
where I went to hear him speak.
And he shook everyone's
hand who came in the door.
And I got to the door and
my bracelets were gone.
And he took people's watches.
And he took the
glasses off their head.
And no one had any idea
that their stuff was gone.
So after he returned our things,
he started with this exercise.
I attended the evening
with a colleague of mine.
And when he put this
slide up and asked
us to do what I asked you to
do-- to put our right hand up
in the air and put it down when
we see something definitive
and unequivocal-- my colleague
put her hand down right away.
And I'm looking.
And I'm thinking, is
that a flying platypus?
And I'm thinking
is that a kitten?
Is that an owl?
I didn't know what
I was looking at.
And I kept my hand raised
in the air the entire time.
Robin leans over and
whispers in my ear.
"I can't believe you
don't see this," she says.
And it makes me nervous.
And then I start to sweat
profusely, because this
is what I do for a living.
I help people enhance
their observation skills.
And I could have looked at
this slide the rest of the day
and never seen a cow.
So I begin with the
premise that no two people
see anything the same way.
Did anyone in the room
see the cow, initially?
One,
AUDIENCE: I still
don't see the cow.
AMY E. HERMAN: You
still don't see the cow?
OK.
That's OK.
[LAUGHTER]
It's there.
So there were two
of you in the room
that saw the cow initially.
AUDIENCE: Oh, OK, now I see it.
AMY E. HERMAN: Now you get it.
OK, good.
Good, because the
outline's there.
AUDIENCE: The face of the cow.
AMY E. HERMAN:
Yeah, there you go.
So no two people see
anything the same way.
So I show you a painting
now, a 16th century painting
by Giuseppe Arcimboldo.
And the painting on the left is
called "The Vegetable Gardner".
And if you look at
it, it's a black bowl
with chestnuts and onions
and leeks and turnips.
And when you turn it
upside down, it's a head.
And it reminded me of the
line Dr. Wayne Dyer said,
that the reason for his success
was that he teaches people--
"If you change the way you
look at things, the things
you look at change."
I say that twice. "If
you change the way
you look at things, the
things you look at change."
I see my role, in teaching
the art of perception,
as helping people to
change the way they
look at things by using
art as the data to do that.
My course is called The Art
of Perception-- Rethinking
How We See.
I started it in 2000.
I am a recovering attorney
and an art historian.
And I like to think that I've
taken the practical aspects
of each of those disciplines
and melded them together
into this program
that I started when
I was the Head of Education
at the Frick Collection in New
York City.
It started as a program
for medical students only.
The idea was let's take
medical students out
of the clinical setting,
out of the hospital,
bring them to an art
museum, teach them
how to look at works of
art so when they go back
into the hospital and back
into the clinical setting,
they'll be better observers
of their patients.
It wasn't rocket science,
and it wasn't my idea.
It came from the Yale
Center for British Art.
And with their
gracious permission,
I started a version
of it at the Frick.
Everything was wonderful.
I was working with seven
different medical schools
at the Frick.
And then one evening in
2004, I went out to dinner
with friends.
And I was telling them
that my medical students
had unbelievable myopia.
It was diagnosis in physiology
and anatomy and pathology
all the time.
And they knew nothing
about art-- which is fine.
But they didn't know
anything except medicine.
A friend of mine said,
why are you just doing
this for medical students?
Why aren't you doing
this for people
who really need good
observation skills?
I said, like whom?
He said, like cops.
Why are you doing this
for homicide detectives?
And I thought, that's
a really good idea.
So Monday morning, I
picked up the phone
and I called the NYPD.
I start very big.
Picked up the phone.
And I want you to
picture the guy
at the switchboard at the NYPD.
And I said, hello, my
name is Amy Herman.
I'm the Head of Education
at the Frick Collection.
I have a great idea.
I said, I train medical students
to enhance their observation
skills.
And I think you should
send homicide detectives.
Dead silence on the
other end of the phone.
I was transferred
seven times until I
got to a Deputy
Commissioner who I knew
he heard what I was saying.
Because he said, Ms. Herman,
if this is such a visual thing,
why are we on the phone?
Six months later, every
newly-promoted captain
in the NYPD had to come
to the Frick Collection,
learn to look at
objects with me.
And it was a wonderful program.
Eventually, just to fast forward
to explain how I got here,
"The Wall Street
Journal" called.
They wanted to know what I was
doing with cops at the Frick
Collection, like something
illicit was going on.
And I invited the
Wall Street Journal
to come see the classes.
Nine months later,
an article came out
on the front page of "The
Wall Street Journal".
And it said, to master the art
of solving crime, cops study
Vermeer at the Frick.
And what I didn't know was
that the reporter not only came
to my classes, but she
went out onto the streets
and the precincts of New
York City, asking these cops,
how are you doing your jobs
differently after learning
to look at works of art?
So after "The Wall
Street Journal" article,
every inbox in my life exploded.
And I got calls from
all over the world.
From the FBI and the CIA and the
military and first responders,
and lawyers and doctors
and social workers.
And they all said
the same thing--
come teach us how to see like
you did those cops in New York.
I can't teach anyone how to see.
You either know how to see--
as Leonardo da Vinci called
it, "Saper Vedere",
to know how to see.
Can't teach it.
But what I can do and
what I'm going to do today
is give you an
overview of the program
that I run for all
surveillance agents of the FBI
and all new analysts at the CIA.
I train the Navy SEALs.
I work with first
responders, military.
I do all of that.
And I don't tell you
about all the places
where I teach to tell
you how busy I am.
But rather, it's
to tell you what
I've noticed is that
everyone in my sessions
already has good observation
and perception skills.
That's not the problem.
The problem I've seen is
in the consistent breakdown
of effective communication
between what we see
and what we say.
Something gets lost from here
to here, to here, and to here.
Something gets lost.
So I try to remedy that.
That's my goal in the
art of perception,
using art as the data.
And I tell my participants
they have to do four things.
Every new situation, every new
problem, every new witness,
every new patient,
you do four things.
You assess your situation.
You analyze it.
You decide what's important.
What do I need?
What don't I need?
You articulate it.
You write a report.
You tell someone.
You send an e-mail,
you write a text.
And then you act.
Then you make a decision.
You adapt your behavior based
on the other three things
that you do.
So now I travel the world.
I quit my full-time job.
And I now teach The
Art of Perception,
my three-hour course for
CEOs, philanthropy, education.
And I still work very much
in the intelligence community
and law enforcement.
Why art?
Well, first of all, I love it.
That's what I'm trained in.
But as Jonathan and I were
just speaking about this,
art gives us a
tremendous opportunity
to look at the innovative, the
creative, the new, the exigent,
the chaotic.
Like the painting
on the left-- you
have men and women,
and children and dogs,
and birds and sunlight,
and alcohol and babies.
You have all kinds
of things going on.
You could talk about
that painting forever.
But the painting on the right
is much simpler, much simpler.
It's a black bowl
with a red vase.
And it has five quinces in it.
No, they're not pears.
They're not apples.
Who cares what they are?
But they're quinces.
Art gives us the
opportunity to talk
about very complicated
situations,
very simple situations,
and everything in between.
So that's why I use art.
This is not about
Picasso versus Pollock.
OK?
I if you know anything
about art, that's wonderful.
But you need to leave it
at the door for today.
Except you.
You don't have to leave
your knowledge at the door.
I ask that you leave your
substantive knowledge
at the door because
we're using art as data,
as a fresh set of
data to rethink skills
that we use every day in
our professional context.
Now you can groan if you
want when you see this.
But I can sum up
my entire course
in these two
non-artistic images.
For those of you who don't know
what the slide on the right
is, about a year
and a half ago--
AUDIENCE: It's blue!
[LAUGHTER]
AMY E. HERMAN: Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm in total agreement.
A year and a half ago,
this woman in the UK
purchased this dress
to wear in a wedding.
And for reasons still
unbeknownst to me,
she posted on Facebook and
said, what color is my dress?
And my initial response was who
cares what color your dress is?
But the question
and the responses
went viral to the tone
of hundreds of millions
of people chimed in.
Raise your hand if you see this
photograph as white and gold.
Look at that.
Now, put your hands down.
If you're sane like I am, and
you see it as blue and black,
put your hand up.
So in this room,
we're about 50-50.
In my classes,
it's usually 60-40.
60% see it as white and
gold, 39%, blue and black.
And 1% sees it purple,
gray, green and brown,
and I don't want
to know about that.
That just complicates
everything.
So half of my class
addresses the issue
that no two people see
anything the same way.
That's half the class.
The other half the class is
addressed by the Domino's Pizza
box.
|n May of 2015, there was a
particularly heinous crime
committed in Washington DC.
A CEO, his wife,
their 10-year-old boy
and their housekeeper were
held hostage in their home.
They were killed and then
the house was set on fire.
You may remember
hearing about this.
And the morning after the fire,
the Crime Scene Investigation
team came from the Washington
Metropolitan Police Department.
And one of those investigators
had the wherewithal
not only to see the Domino's
Pizza box on the floor
in the kitchen, but to say,
out loud to his colleagues,
do you think this is
the kind of family that
would order a Domino's Pizza?
This family, in this house
here, in this neighborhood?
Do you think they'd
order a Domino's Pizza?
And with a gloved hand,
he lifted the box.
And there were two
discarded crusts in the box.
He took one of them.
He sent it for DNA analysis.
They had a suspect
within 48 hours
based on the DNA and the
saliva on the pizza crust.
Now, in my world, we say
that's excellent police work.
But it's something
more than that.
And you have to forgive
me for the terrible pun.
It's thinking outside the box.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
And I even hate that phrase.
But it's so appropriate here.
So my class is about the
idea that no two people
see anything the same way.
And you know what, who
cares about a dumb dress?
I don't.
I don't care who sees
it as white and gold
and who sees it
as blue and black.
But what happens in the
real world, when two of you
are at the same
meeting, or two of you
are in the operating
room, or two of you
are interviewing
the same witness,
and you walk away
with fundamentally
different perceptions
of what you just saw?
What do you do then?
That's what I'm
trying to address.
And the other half
of the class, having
to do with the
Domino's Pizza boxes,
we need to solve
problems creatively.
We can't just do the
same thing all the time.
It worked last time,
let's do it this time.
It doesn't work that way.
So I ask you to shift
your perspective with me
this afternoon, to
think differently
about what we're looking at.
Because my goal is, as much
fun as I want this to be,
when you walk out the door, I
want you thinking differently
about your work.
So I'm going to ask you to shift
your perspective like JR did.
For those of you who don't
know JR, he's a photographer.
He takes pictures of
people, mostly women,
blows them up to billboard
size and puts them
all over the world.
Runways, buildings,
public places.
And there were
some countries that
hated his work so much
that they thought he
was defacing public property.
So they issued warrants
for his arrest.
And while these warrants were
pending-- he's very famous now.
There are no warrants
pending anymore.
But when they were,
he was commissioned
to do this self-portrait.
And I think it's brilliant.
It's called "Self-Portrait in
a Woman's Eye, Kenya, 2009".
What did he do?
He shifted his perspective
on what a self-portrait is.
And he took a picture of
himself in a woman's eye
without revealing
his facial identity.
Why?
Because it would
facilitate his arrest.
Who wants to get arrested?
So he created this by
shifting his perspective.
Why do you need to
shift your perspective?
Because this is the complicated
world we live in now.
I work with people
that are dealing
with mass shootings,
civil rights
issues, terrorist bombings, and
the ongoing problem of ISIS.
But before we can wrap our heads
around all the complex problems
we're facing in
our world today, we
have to realize that they're
matters of perception.
And how we communicate, what
we perceive those issues to be,
is of critical importance.
So we need to shift
our perspective
to think about the
world we live in.
Now, I'm showing you an
icon in art history, again,
shifting your perspective.
It's called "Luncheon on
the Grass", by Manet, 1863.
What do you have here?
It's very modern, two
fully-clothed men,
a completely naked woman.
Her clothes, her
food are over here.
There's a woman back here,
playing in the water,
oblivious to everything.
It's just one of those
paintings everyone
who studies art history knows.
100 years later, look
what Picasso did with it.
He turned it on its head.
You still sort of have
the two fully-clothed men.
You definitely have
the naked woman.
Her food is over here.
There's another naked
woman in the back.
And he just turned the
entire icon of art history,
he turned it upside down.
Because the premise is
that no two people see
anything the same way.
Now when we talk
about problem solving,
the same artist, Manet, entered
into a contractual relationship
in 1880 with a collector,
Charles Ephrussi.
Manet was going to paint this
little painting of asparagus--
it's about this big-- for
the sum of 800 francs.
When Ephrussi sent
him the check,
the check was for 1,000
francs instead of 800.
And Manet was perplexed.
He didn't know what to do.
You don't issue refunds
in the 19th century.
What do you do with
the extra 200 francs?
So this is what Manet did.
He painted a single asparagus
and sent it to the collector
with a note that said, one
fell out of your bunch.
This is about solving
problems creatively.
Don't just fall into a pattern
of doing the same thing all
the time.
So how do I do this?
How, when I have
audiences, 99.9% of whom
have not studied
art in any way, they
don't have a trained
eye in art history.
And a very high
percentage of them
have never been
to an art museum.
How do I make art
relevant for them,
and help them change the
way they do their work?
The book, "Visual
Intelligence" that you
have is a natural
outgrowth of this course.
But what I've tried to
do is take works of art--
like you see on the screen--
ask my participants to step
in really closely to these
works of art, and ask questions.
Ask such precise
questions that they
will ascertain that
this work of art
is a wooden board with
10,000 galvanized nails
and one unbroken
piece of thread.
The whole thing is made from
one unbroken piece of thread.
And I know what you're
probably thinking.
So what?
Yeah, that's really cool.
That's visually compelling.
But so what?
What does it have
to do with my work?
It has everything to
do with your work,
and those of my participants.
Because I know that
you're not looking
at works of art for a living,
but you are asking questions.
Everyone I work with
has to ask questions.
And I want to make sure that
my program can help them frame
the questions to elicit the
information they need to do
their jobs more effectively.
So is it relevant, 10,000 nails,
one unbroken piece of thread?
Yes it is, because
how'd you get there?
So I show you now two portraits
of the lovely Mrs. Maud Dale.
Her husband, Chester,
was a philanthropist.
He gave his money and he gave
his art collections to museums
around the country.
And he commissioned Leger, on
the left, and George Bellows,
on the right, to paint his wife.
If I didn't tell you that
these were the same person,
would you necessarily know it?
Probably not.
No two people see
anyone the same way.
This goes for
situations as well.
Two paintings by Matisse, "The
Open Window at Coolioure".
The one on the
left is from 1905.
And the one on the
right is from 1914.
Matisse changed his
mind about how he
saw the scene out the window.
By 1914, the world
was a bleaker place.
It was on the eve of World
War I. His town in France
had been taken over
by the Germans.
His brother was a prisoner.
Things were darker.
No more pretty boats,
blues, greens, and pinks out
the window.
So Matisse changed his mind.
Now the fact that you're sitting
in the room with me today
tells me that you don't
paint for a living.
I don't think any of
you paint for a living.
You don't have this option.
You can't get away with this.
If somebody asks, why did
you make a certain decision?
You can't say, because
I felt like it.
We're accountable
for our decisions.
I saw this.
I noticed this.
I perceived this to
be the situation.
Therefore, I acted accordingly.
It would be nice if we could
all be Matisse, but we can't.
Now, I show you this
sculpture by Anish Kapoor.
It's many, many, many
pieces of stainless steel,
assembled in such a way that
when you stand in front of it,
you see 5,000
versions of yourself.
It's a reminder to us that
self perception is critical.
It's critical to professional
and personal growth.
You need to know
what you look like.
I have short hair.
I have very short hair.
I didn't always have short hair.
But I had to start a
chemotherapy regimen
a year and a half ago.
I was bald as an eagle.
I shaved my head so I wouldn't
lose my hair to chemotherapy.
And after I shaved my
head, my best friends
took me to this
sculpture and made
me see 5000 versions
of my bald self,
so I would know what I would
look like for the next year.
It wasn't pretty.
But I needed to know
what I look like.
And knowing what we look like,
literally and figuratively,
is critical.
You need to know if
your colleagues can't
talk to you before your
third cup of coffee.
You need to know if you don't
like to talk on the phone.
I tell people that I had a new
boss at the Frick Collection
who sent me an email on his
first day in all capital
letters.
Did you ever get an email from
someone in all capital letters?
And I thought,
it's his first day.
Is he already mad at me?
Is he being emphatic?
Did the Caps Lock
button get stuck?
What's the problem here?
And I did what he
asked me to do.
But do you know, for
the next eight years,
every email from that man came
in in all capital letters.
And I really wish I'd
had the wherewithal,
by the end of my tenure
at the Frick Collection
to say to him, enough
with the all caps.
Your work isn't
getting done any faster
because you send people
emails in all capital letters.
You need to know
how you come across.
People always want to show
you how smart they are.
I'm sure here at Google,
that never happens.
But people often want to
show you how smart they are.
And when I put these
two works of art up,
and I say, OK who's
going to tell me
the similarities and differences
between these two works of art?
Oh, the hands go up.
That's easy, they say.
You have two people on the
left, a man and a woman.
You have two people
on the right.
It's two men.
They have hair on the left,
they're bald on the right.
They're white on the
left, one's white
and one's black on the right.
I've had people
even say, oh they're
straight on the left
and gay on the right.
How would you know that, by
looking at a work of art?
What I really want the astute
observer to say though,
lay the foundation.
Lay the groundwork.
Tell me that you're
looking at two works of art
and the one on the
left is a painting,
and the one on the
right is a photograph.
Because if I'm on the
receiving end of your e-mail,
I can't see what you see.
And people are always in a hurry
to show you how smart they are.
And they forget to lay that
very critical foundation.
And then I want the
astute observer to really
be more astute
and say, you know,
I'm looking at two works of art.
The one on the
left is a painting.
The one on the right
is a photograph.
Each one has two people, and
I'm looking at them in profile.
Because your brain sees it.
Your eyes see it.
And yet, we think it's so
blatantly obvious, hence
my prohibition on using
the word obviously.
We need to say what
we see before deciding
to show how smart we are.
There's plenty of
time and opportunity
to show how smart you are.
Like, look at these
two paintings.
The one of the left is by
Lucas Cranach, the Elder, 1630.
And one of the right
is 2015, called
"Intestines and Tassels".
Isn't that wonderful?
"Intestines and Tassels".
So here, we begin
to contextualize.
This is where you say, I
have a headless female figure
on the right and I
have a headless figure
somewhere on the left.
Viscera in both
pictures, a gold chain
that's referenced
in both paintings.
This is where you contextualize.
This is where you can
talk about how smart you
are, how many patterns
you recognize,
how many common threads
you can pull together.
But don't forget to
lay the groundwork
and lay the foundation.
My theme-- I have a
theme in my program
called handsome women
of the 18th century.
And this is one of them.
Her name is lovely Mrs.
Hannah Winthrop, 1773.
She's probably the
most important slide
in the whole presentation.
If you remember just one
thing, the lovely Mrs. Hannah
Winthrop.
Why?
She has a red-and-white
bow in her bonnet.
She's brunette.
She has dimples, multiple chins,
multiple pearls, blue silk
dress, blue-and-white bow,
sitting in a upholstered chair,
holding two nectarines.
And you say, well, what does
that have to do with my work?
Why could she possibly
be so important?
If you see along the bottom
one quarter of the painting,
this mahogany table.
And you see this incredible
reflection in the mahogany
table of her lace and her skin
of her forearm and her fingers,
and even the stem
of the nectarine.
You say, well so what?
If I were to ask any of you
to describe this painting,
more than 50% of you would
probably omit the table
from your description.
And you think well, so what?
Who cares?
Here's the problem.
It's hiding in plain sight.
There are things
that you are not
seeing that are right
in front of your eyes.
Have you ever said to a
colleague or a friend,
how did I miss that?
How did I miss that?
It was right there.
So the way to get
around mahogany tables
is to ask other
people to collaborate.
Say, here's my issue.
Here's the problem.
This is how I hope
to resolve it.
Is there something here
I might be missing?
Do you see something
that I don't?
It's critical.
So now I'm going to get
you to start working.
Look at these two works of art.
And I want you to tell me how
they're similar or different
in any way.
And don't say
obviously or clearly.
How are they similar
or different?
I'll give you a hint.
They're both paintings.
Yes?
AUDIENCE: There's
one figure holding
a thing in each of them.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes.
Each of the women in these
pictures is holding something.
The woman on the left is
holding a picture of a nude man.
And the woman on the
right is knitting.
What else?
I saw another hand.
AUDIENCE: They're both
in sort of a 3/4 profile.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes, they're
both in a 3/4 profile.
They're oriented to the left.
What else?
AUDIENCE: They're
both wearing hats.
AMY E. HERMAN: They're
both wearing hats.
I'm going to tweak
that a little.
I'm going to say, they both
have things on their heads.
The woman on the left has a
headband, pearl and feathers.
The woman on the
right has a cloth.
Hat isn't wrong, but if
we're looking for precision
in language-- what else?
Similarities and differences?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: One is smiling.
One is not.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes, the
woman on the left is smiling.
Not only is she smiling,
we can see her teeth.
We don't know the tooth
situation on the right.
And we have a closed mouth.
Yes?
AUDIENCE: One is
young and one's older.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yeah.
One seems to be
younger than the other.
The woman on the right
appears to be older.
Anything else.
Yes?
AUDIENCE: One's attention
is one what is in her hand.
And the other's attention is
on what looks like the viewer.
AMY E. HERMAN: Absolutely.
The woman on the right appears
to be looking down and absorbed
by her knitting.
And the woman on the left is
looking out at us and smiling.
I don't mean to
rush things along.
I don't have a lot of time.
But is anybody going
to notice this?
Is anybody going
to talk about this?
People say, oh yeah, I
was going to get to it.
I know what you're
thinking, maybe
somebody else will say it.
She's showing a lot of
cleavage on the left.
Her neckline is so low.
And the woman on the right,
her neckline is so high.
There are lots of
ways to say it.
You know, my cops will say,
oh, her neckline is so low,
her breasts are spilling
out of her dress.
That's OK.
Because you're never going to
get in trouble for saying what
you see.
Saying what you think
is a whole other story.
But you need to
say what you see.
And you don't have the
professional option
to look away from what makes
you uncomfortable, what
you don't like, and what
you don't understand.
As someone said to
me not too long ago,
do not ignore the
elephant in the room.
It will stomp on
you and kill you.
Don't do it.
Now, I'm going to make an
assumption that you all
know who these gentlemen are.
Now for purposes of my
session this afternoon,
the one on the left is number
1, and the one on the right
is number 16, just
to make it easy.
And I want to expand your model
of inquiry from who, what,
where, when, to include body
language, facial expression,
nonverbal communication,
and eye contact.
Thinking about those
aspects, how are these images
similar or different?
And don't tell me they're
both dead white men
who were President
of the United States.
We know that.
How are the images similar
or different, thinking
about body language,
facial expression,
nonverbal communication
and eye contact?
Yes?
Yeah, you
AUDIENCE: The one on the left
is demonstrating the things.
The one on the right,
his body language is in.
He's not demonstrating anything.
AMY E. HERMAN: I like
the way you said it.
But rather than say that number
one is demonstrating things,
let's stick to observation.
His hand is extended.
How's that?
And you said that number
16's hands are internal,
or turned in.
Good.
What else?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: One is
a formal meeting,
showing him in the
height of his grandeur,
it was probably
painted after the fact.
And the other one
is a photograph,
taken now in the moment.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yeah.
95% of my classes, nobody ever
says, number 1's a painting
and number 16's a photograph.
They think it's so blatantly
obvious, who needs to say it?
Guess what?
If I'm getting
your email, I have
no idea what you're looking at.
You need to tell me one's a
painting, one's a photograph.
My homicide detectives a
couple weeks ago yelled out,
number one's wearing a dress!
Number 16's wearing a suit.
That's a difference too.
But I'm not trying
to Where's Waldo you.
But did anybody
notice the rainbow
in the upper right-hand
corner of number 1?
I'm not trying to
trick you here.
But it is a critical to looking
at the portrait of number 1?
No.
Is it important?
Absolutely.
Because there are
probably 25,000 portraits
of George Washington in the
history of American art.
Wait a second.
The one we saw that Art
of Perception session
had a rainbow in it.
By remembering one detail,
you've narrowed it down
from 25,000 to 3.
Imagine how that can work
in your professional life,
if you remember one small detail
about one client, about one
transaction, about one problem,
one patient, one crime scene.
And if you ever wondered about
the power of facial expression,
nonverbal communication, eye
contact, and body language,
did you ever see this picture?
Sure you have.
And if I asked you for
your visual analysis of it,
I don't want to hear
Osama bin Laden.
Because he's not in the picture.
It's 12 to 14 people looking
fraught and anxious and
nervous.
And they're looking at
something we can't see.
Intellectually, we may know
what they're looking at.
But we don't know what
they're looking at.
We can't see what
they're looking at.
And to show you different
perspectives, when
I train officers who are
about to deploy to Afghanistan
and I say, what do you
see in this picture?
They'll say, you know, the
only guy doing any work
in that picture is in uniform.
Because that's what they see.
That's where their eyes go.
Now, I'm going to ask you to
compare and contrast these.
And please don't say what
my NYPD officers say,
every time without exception,
don't say before marriage
and after.
That's not the comparison
I'm looking for.
It's not what I'm looking for.
How are these pictures similar
or different in any way?
AUDIENCE: The upper
figure has her hands out.
And the bottom figure
has her hand underneath--
AMY E. HERMAN: Under
her right breast.
AUDIENCE: Yes,
that is what it is.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes, that's it.
I'll say anything.
So the woman in the top picture
has her hands behind her head.
And the woman in
the bottom picture
has one hand on the couch
and one hand cupping
her right breast.
Although in my detective class
in the NYPD, a couple weeks
ago, someone said-- this is
why I wrote a book, because I
couldn't make this
stuff up-- he said,
how do you know someone's
not trapped under there?
And I thought, I would
have never thought
of that in a million years.
This is why I write a
book, because people
say incredible things.
What else?
Similarities and differences?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: One has the
eyes open, eyes closed.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes, women in
top picture has her eyes open.
The woman in the bottom
picture has her eyes closed.
What else?
AUDIENCE: There's no
background drapery.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes, no
background and drapery.
Yes, what else?
AUDIENCE: They're leaning
on different sides.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes,
they're reclining
in different directions.
What else?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: They're
both naked women.
AMY E. HERMAN: They're
both naked white women
who are brunettes.
What else?
AUDIENCE: One is
slim and one is not.
AMY E. HERMAN: Thank you.
He just said, one is
slim and one is not.
That's all we have to say.
But that's not even the
reason I juxtaposed them
for your comparison.
I was going to stand here
until somebody mentioned
the difference in
their girth, because it
is a sizable difference.
Eight years ago I
put these pictures up
at a psychiatric conference.
And a very senior
psychiatrist stood up.
And he said, with the
most beautiful accent
I've ever heard-- he
gave me permission
not only to repeat his comments,
but to imitate his accent
because I did a good job of it.
He said, (WITH ACCENT) the
woman in the bottom picture
is morbidly obese.
He was from South Africa
beautiful, beautiful accent.
He said, (WITH ACCENT) The
woman in the bottom picture's
morbidly obese.
The woman in the top
picture's perfectly healthy.
And I said, you know doctor,
with all due respect,
can you really tell me the
woman in the top picture
is perfectly healthy?
I said, how do you know
she's not schizophrenic?
How do you know she doesn't
have a blood disorder?
How do you know she's not deaf?
And he said, oh I'm so sorry.
I can't believe how wrong I was.
I said, you know what?
You weren't wrong.
Your choice of words was poor.
And this is my
opportunity to tell
my sessions there are
very, very few things that
are 100% in your control.
Choice of words is one of them.
Both in speaking and in writing,
choice of words is up to you.
And I implore my classes,
don't make poor word choices.
I hear people do
it all the time.
I want you to tell me what you
see here, not what you think.
What do you see in this picture?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: It's a photograph
of a middle-aged looking--
AMY E. HERMAN: Ah, I'm very
sensitive to the term middle
age.
Give me a ballpark here.
AUDIENCE: Oh, of her age?
AMY E. HERMAN: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: Over 30?
AMY E. HERMAN: OK.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
Because middle aged
to me is 35 to 70.
So over 30 is good.
So you see a picture of two
people, a woman who's over 30
and what else?
AUDIENCE: I see a
boy, a small one.
AMY E. HERMAN: Good.
Good.
She's a woman, and she's wearing
a low-cut round scoop dress.
And she appears to be
holding a child who is a boy
and has blond hair
and blue eyes.
What else?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: Her teeth
seem wrong to me.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes, she has
a gap in her front teeth,
absolutely.
She has a gap in
her front teeth.
We don't know the
child's tooth situation
at all from this picture.
What else?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: That they're
different races.
AMY E. HERMAN: They are
different races, yes.
The child appears to be white.
And the woman has darker skin
than the child, has brown skin.
Now let's go someplace
that's not so safe.
What do you think the
relationship between these two
people could be?
What could it be?
AUDIENCE: Adopted mother.
AMY E. HERMAN: Could
be adopted mother.
Could be foster mother.
Could be biological mother.
AUDIENCE: Nanny?
AMY E. HERMAN: Nanny?
What else?
AUDIENCE: Friend's kid.
AMY E. HERMAN:
Friend's kid, neighbor.
AUDIENCE: Teacher.
AMY E. HERMAN: Teacher,
health care worker,
it could be almost anyone.
The only answer I don't allow--
I train hostage negotiators.
And they say, maybe
she kidnapped him.
She did not kidnap him.
That's the only
answer I don't allow.
She could be anybody.
So years ago, I
put this slide up.
And I said to the group--
it was in New Orleans-- what
do you think the relationship
between these two people
could be?
And a woman in the back of
the room raised her hand.
She said, it's the
baby's biological mother.
And I said, that's a conclusion.
That's an inference.
How'd you get there?
What are your observations?
She said, look at their noses.
They're exactly the same.
I looked at their noses.
This is exactly what
I said-- I happen
to have information it's not
the baby's biological mother.
Now in the book, I talk about
seeing versus observing.
What's analogous is
hearing versus listening.
We all hear, but
we don't listen.
So I said, I happen to
have information it's not
the baby's biological mother.
And from the back of the room,
she pointed to me and said,
you're a racist.
And I said, you know,
we just met today.
I said, you've known
me about two hours.
I talk about a lot of subjects,
but I don't understand.
What have I said that warrants
you calling me a racist?
Hearing versus listening.
She said, you just
said, that can't be
the baby's biological mother.
I said, I didn't
say that at all.
I said, I happen to have
information it's not
the baby's biological mother.
I live in Manhattan.
It would never come
out of my mouth
that a brown-skinned
woman couldn't
have a white child, because
I've seen it many times.
I said, I happen
to know it's not
the baby's biological mother.
Because after nine
months of pregnancy,
27 hours of hard labor and
a c-section scar this big,
I know who the baby's mother is.
It's me.
It's my son.
And the woman in the
picture is 52 years old.
She's from Trinidad.
She's the center
of my household.
That child, whitest baby
you're ever going to see.
There is no biological tie
between those two people.
But they are combined.
They are tied at the
heart and the hip.
12 years later, they
are still together.
Notice that he grew
up and she didn't.
But you see, this
is a conversation
that we need to have.
We need to talk about race
and assumptions and biases
and relationships based on
visual images that we see.
But here's the conversation
I don't want to have,
and I'm forced to
have it all the time.
When I do grand
rounds in hospitals,
I put this picture up and
I say, OK, what do you see?
I've had the chief of
emergency medicine department
at a major urban
hospital tell me
that child has Down syndrome.
And I say, really?
What evidence of the
condition do you see?
And he said, oh no,
I don't see any.
I know it when I see it.
I've been told my
child is an albino.
But my favorite is that he
has a thyroid condition.
I said, why do you think this
child has a thyroid condition?
And he said, because he
has a compressed neck
from multiple surgeries.
I said, you know, my kid was
so fat till he was three,
there was no neck.
And I said, guess what?
He has a neck now.
How about that?
So all of these
people came rushing
to the podium to
apologize for saying
these things about my family.
And I'm going to tell
you what I said to them.
I said, you put a picture
of your kid up there,
you have to have a thick skin.
You can say anything you want
about my kid-- almost-- I said.
But don't reach for
what you want to see.
Don't try to get to
a conclusion that you
think you need to get to.
Because the ends do
not justify the means.
You are accountable for your
observations along the way.
If you jump to a
conclusion, you better
be able to say
how you get there.
Now I'm going to give you
an exercise that I give
to my FBI surveillance agents.
I'd like you to find
a partner right now.
It can be the person
sitting next to you,
the person sitting behind you.
But they need to be close by.
Find a partner.
Now I'm going to put a slide up.
You're going to have 45 seconds.
One of you in the partnership
is going to close your eyes.
And the other person is
going to have 45 seconds
to describe the slide that
I put up on the screen.
And why am I asking
you to do this?
How often does someone
say, picture this.
And you're like, what
do you want me to do?
So the listener is
going to have 45 seconds
to form a mental image of what
is being described to them.
At the end of 45 seconds,
I'm going to call time.
When I call time, listeners open
their eyes, all talking ceases,
and I direct my questions
to the listeners.
You got it?
Decide who's going
to close their eyes.
Half the room,
shut your eyes now.
All right, 45 seconds to
describe not this slide.
Ready?
Go.
[AUDIENCE CHATTING]
Open your eyes.
Don't say another word.
Listeners, look at the screen.
One of these images was
being described to you.
And I want you to raise your
hand when I point to the one
that you think was
being described to you.
There is no kicking,
pinching, or hitting
on the part of the
describers when
I point to the correct image.
No cheating.
OK?
Just out of curiosity,
did any of the describers
tell their partners
it's a Monet painting?
Too bad.
They're all Monet.
That's not going to help you.
All right?
So listeners, how
many of you think
it's the upper
left painting that
was being described to you?
Raise your hand.
Upper left?
Hands up.
OK.
Hands down.
Who thinks it was the
painting on the bottom?
Hands up.
OK, hands down.
And who thinks it
was upper right?
Raise your hands.
Good for you.
Most of you got it right.
Now, shout out how you knew
what your partner said,
to pick the right one.
What'd your partner say?
AUDIENCE: She said it
was a black bridge.
AMY E. HERMAN: She said
it was a black bridge.
Good.
What else?
AUDIENCE: The red reflection.
AMY E. HERMAN: Red reflection.
AUDIENCE: Different colored
trees and water lilies.
AMY E. HERMAN: Different
colored trees and water lilies.
Those are all good
descriptions, but none
are completely dispositive.
Let me show you something.
Each of these paintings had
bridge, foliage, lily pads,
and water.
You can only talk
about that for so long.
I even gave you 50
seconds instead of 45.
Now if any of you had been
truly observant and said,
I'm looking at this slide
because my instruction was
to describe the image,
not the picture, and said,
there's this weird white
border on the right side
in the bottom of her
slide, your game is over.
Now, I know what
you're thinking.
You're thinking
that's just stupid.
You gave me 45 seconds to
describe this painting,
why would I waste precious
few seconds to talk
about a dumb white
matting on the right side
in the bottom of the painting?
Here's why.
Because in 12 years of
doing this exercise,
six pairs of people
have identified to me
that they have included
the white border.
Three of those six have been
United States Navy SEALs.
And when I asked
them why they include
the border in their
description they said,
it's because we're
trained to use
all the information we have.
It's a matter of life and death.
So my takeaway for you from
this exercise is to say,
you know what?
I'm going to use all
the information I have.
There's always time to
get rid of it later.
Because you never know when
it's going to change your game.
Had you mentioned
the border, there
is no question which painting
you were talking about.
Blah, blah, blah.
I've been talking
for 45 minutes.
What are my takeaways?
What do I want you to leave
this session thinking?
Number one-- everything
deserves a second look.
What you see the first time
isn't necessarily what's there.
Think about the problems we
have with eyewitness testimony.
People swear they saw
someone, and then they
identify them in a lineup,
that person wasn't even there.
What you're looking at is a
painting by Gerhard Richter,
not a photograph.
You need to look
twice at everything.
Number two-- big picture
and small details
are equally important.
We have a barmaid here,
behind a cold white marble
bar, champagne Bass Ale, is
that a mirror behind her?
Is that the barmaid's backside?
Is that another barmaid?
Who's the client over here?
That's all the big picture.
But don't forget
the small detail.
In the far upper-left-hand
corner of this painting
is a trapeze artist's feet.
Right here and right here.
That's the whole
reason the people
are gathered in the first
place, for entertainment.
Big picture and small details
are equally important.
You know what I mean
when I say, no matter
how similar two situations,
two transactions, two problems,
remember to say that
one's a painting
and one's a photograph?
Lay the groundwork before
you want to show people
how smart you are.
Tell people that I'm looking
at two scenes by the water.
Each one has people in it.
In the black-and-white
photograph above
we're seeing them from the back.
And in the color
painting in the bottom,
we're seeing them from
angles from the side.
I talk about what you see, what
you notice, what you perceive.
Don't forget about
the mahogany table.
What are you missing?
Here's the artist, right
here and right here.
His name is Liu Bolin.
He takes pictures of
things, iconic things
all over the world,
everyday things,
and he paints himself
into his photographs.
Step back from every
difficult issue and say,
what might I be missing?
This is brilliant.
Easter Sunday of
this year in the UK,
these children were
on an Easter egg hunt
in a rural part of the country.
Two men robbed homes and were
escaping across the same field.
And the police helicopter
above was trying to chase them.
The children saw what
direction they went in,
and they did what I ask
every single class to do.
They thought clearly
and precisely
in exigent circumstances.
They collaborated.
And they communicated with
clarity and precision.
They told the helicopter which
direction the robbers ran,
and they got them.
Someone said to me, are
kids in the UK just smarter?
Is that it?
But I thought the visual image
was incredibly compelling.
A reminder to be creative
and resourceful in every job,
whether you are neurosurgeon,
Navy SEAL, police officer,
nurse, social worker,
library, we all
need to be creative
and resourceful.
After the events
of 9/11 happened,
the federal government
convened the 9/11 Commission
and said, how did this
happen on our watches
and under our noses?
And the 9/11 Commission
came back and said,
the intelligence community
of the United States
lacks creativity
and imagination.
They couldn't envision
that those atrocities
would take place.
So I started working with
the intelligence community
post 9/11, to try to bring
the idea of creativity
in intelligence analysis
back into the fore.
And I show you the
work of El Anatsui.
He's a contemporary
African sculptor.
And he makes these
incredible sculptures
that I'm showing you, by going
to distilleries in Ghana,
picking up metal bottle
caps from discarded alcohol
bottles and beer bottles.
He flattens them,
he hammers them,
and he sews them
together to make this.
The reminder to be
creative and resourceful,
no matter what your profession.
You need to look in the mirror
at the end of every day.
You're not going to see this.
But you need to
look in the mirror.
Self-perception is critical
to professional growth.
You need to know what you did
right, what you did wrong,
how to replicate
what you did right,
and how to avoid
what you did wrong.
And I leave you
with my last slide,
Artful Perception is my website.
You can read more
about this training.
You can contact me.
"Visual Intelligence"
is the book that I
have just written.
It was published on May 3rd.
I think we're out of
copies on the table.
But the book is a natural
extension and expansion
of this program.
But most importantly,
I wanted to give you
two visual images, of looking
at the world before the Art
of Perception and after.
And I show you
two self-portraits
of the artist, Chuck Close.
For those of you who don't
know who Chuck Close is,
he's a 20th and 21st
century portrait painter,
world renowned, paralyzed
from the shoulders down.
And he paints with a
brush in his mouth.
And he has very limited
use of his hands.
The self-portrait
on the left is how
you saw the world before
this, a white bald man
with green eyes, round
glasses and a goatee,
looking right out at
you, wearing a t-shirt.
Nothing wrong with seeing
the world this way.
But after taking the
Art of Perception,
I would prefer that
you see the world more
like the self-portrait
of Close done
five years later on the right.
He's broken down every
quadrant of information.
He's made it more colorful, more
compelling, more interesting.
He's lowered his glasses
to see the big picture
and not miss the small details.
And I believe,
from my experience,
that if you do all
the things that I've
written about in the book
and that I talk about
in this course, you think
about your observations
and perceptions, you keep
your inferences, biases,
and assumptions in check,
you're careful about your choice
of words.
You ask what you know,
what you don't know,
and what do you need to know.
If you think about
all those concepts,
I think it makes you a
sharper professional, I think,
a more interesting person.
And I leave you with
this last anecdote.
When my son was in
elementary school,
we lived on the east
side of New York.
And he went to school
in the West Village.
So I would drop
him in the morning
and try to jog home to get
some exercise because I'm never
in the city.
And I'm jogging
across 12th Street.
And a man in a
wheelchair came out
of a building with a rope
tied around his midsection.
He was walking the cutest little
Labrador puppy I'd ever seen.
New Yorkers are fussy, you know.
You have to ask permission
to pet their dog.
So I said to the man,
may I pet your dog?
He said, of course.
I got down on the ground.
I rolled around.
I had my long hair then.
I got puppy kiss and
drool and fur all over me.
Stood up, cleaned myself off,
thanked the man very much.
He wheeled toward Sixth Avenue.
And I continued towards Fifth.
I looked down the street.
The man in the wheelchair
was Chuck Close.
I was so focused
on his puppy dog,
that I didn't realize that
one of my favorite artists
of all time, whose work that
I had been using for years
was sitting right
in front of me.
There's a whole world out
there we're not seeing.
And I hope after
looking at works of art
and thinking about this
program and reading the book,
you'll expand your
"Visual Intelligence",
bring it into your professional
and personal worlds.
Thank you very
much for having me.
[APPLAUSE]
I'll be happy to
find books but does
anybody have any questions?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: More of
an observation.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes?
AUDIENCE: I didn't see the
cow until I gave up on it.
AMY E. HERMAN: Well, that's
an interesting observation.
That's a good one.
AUDIENCE: Like, my head
started to turn away,
and then I saw it.
AMY E. HERMAN: Sometimes
we try too hard.
Sometimes we try too hard.
And I think if we just
take in the information,
our brains take in much
more than we can possibly
see at one time.
And we need to think about
what it is that we're seeing.
Good.
Any other questions?
Anything?
I work for the
intelligence community.
My life is an open book.
AUDIENCE: So about
observing more,
it seems part of the problem
is cognitive limitations,
in terms of we actually can't
consciously process everything
that's coming in.
So how do you prioritize
what you pay attention to?
AMY E. HERMAN: It's true.
We're barraged with
information all the time,
especially because we
have digital technology.
And so what I ask people to do
is, you can't consciously say,
well I'm only going
to look this way,
or I'm not going to
be more observant.
But I ask the readers of my
book and the participants
in my class to become more aware
of their perceptual filters,
to become more aware of their
biases and their assumptions,
and to step back
and say, I see this.
But is this really
what I'm looking at?
And I practice.
I live in New York City.
I practice on the
subway all the time.
A cop once told me, when
people get on the subway
and off, you should
know who's coming in
and who's getting
off at all times.
Can you recite your-- I talk
about situational awareness--
where are you now?
How do you get out?
Are you comfortable?
Who's around you?
And think about long-term
situational awareness.
What are the problems
I'm aware of?
So yes, we're never going to
master observing everything
around us.
But if I can get people
to step back and think
about the perceptual filters
that they're operating on,
and you take some of
those filters off,
hopefully you'll have a
broader way to see the world.
AUDIENCE: Hey, thanks for coming
and giving this awesome talk.
AMY E. HERMAN: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: I have a
question about perception
as it relates to the development
and production of art.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes?
AUDIENCE: I started taking a
bunch of realist art classes
that are really intense, like
three-to-six-hour model poses
where you just go
crazy into detail.
And I was wondering if
you had any insights
about the development of
the ability to perceive?
Because I've noticed, coming
in knowing pretty much nothing,
that the first couple
poses that you do,
you'll draw the
head way over here
because you think that's
where it should be,
in your iconic
version of a person.
And then it's really totally
on the other side of the page,
and everything's totally
unrelated to where it really
is.
AMY E. HERMAN: Well, the
method for art creation
is actually
analogous to thinking
about strategic problems.
Observation and perception
are very different things.
And your observations
inform your perceptions.
So while you may be in
this very intense art
class for three to six hours,
drawing the heads and the hand
and the torso, I encourage
you, when you step away,
to think about the
image you are drawing,
and your overall perception
will come in differently.
Because observations
inform perceptions,
and perceptions
inform inferences.
You know how something comes to
you in the middle of the night?
You've been working
on something,
and you think about
it during the day,
and you can't solve it.
And in the middle of the
night, you have what you think
is an incredibly
brilliant perception.
I keep a notebook by the bed.
And I realize when
I wake up, it really
wasn't that brilliant after all.
But I do scratch it out in
the middle of the night.
And I think the same thing
comes with artistic creation.
Your perception
of your subject is
going to be separate
from your observations.
So I would take the time in
class, when you have access
to the model, focus totally
on your observations
and let the perception
come to you later.
And then go back and
revise your work of art.
Same thing with a problem.
Step away.
And I have a method in
the book for stepping away
from problems, thinking
about what's camouflaged,
am I looking at more
than one thing at a time?
Ask others.
Separate the observations
and perceptions.
And I think that's how art
works come together as well.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
AMY E. HERMAN: You're welcome.
Anything else?
Yes?
AUDIENCE: Since it's been
quiet, I have another question.
AMY E. HERMAN: Sure.
AUDIENCE: I think you're
very fortunate that you
get to interact
with so many people
from different fields who are
at the top of their field.
AMY E. HERMAN: Yes.
AUDIENCE: So what have you
found was surprising or learned
from them in how
they do their work
and the way that they think?
Because I imagine that
doctors think very differently
from CEOs.
AMY E. HERMAN: They do.
They do.
And I really feel very
privileged to see the world
through this professional lens
and meet all these people.
But I'll be very
candid with you.
I had a very, very
senior detective
in the NYPD,
Detective [INAUDIBLE].
And I noticed him coming to
my class for the third time,
because I remember faces.
And I said, Detective, why are
you here for the third time?
And I'll share with you
his very candid response.
He said, because I suck at this.
And he said, I'm
really bad at this.
I'm not good at listening.
I'm not good at describing.
I've been on the
job for 25 years,
and your class made
me realize that when
I get called to a
crime scene, I already
have a vision in my head of what
the crime scene's going to look
like before I even get there.
And it's not the
way to do your job.
So I find that when I
work at very high levels
in the intelligence community
and in law enforcement,
in medicine, we have to get over
this initial skepticism of what
is this art lady
going to teach me?
And what I try to get past
is I'm not one of you.
I say, I'm not law enforcement.
I'm not in the
intelligence community.
I can't tell you
how to do your job.
But I can help you do
it more effectively.
And if they'll let down that
initial barrier of skepticism
and realize that
the works of art
that we're looking at, those
skills transfer directly
over to what they're
doing, I think
they make drastic improvements.
And it's been applicable
at different levels.
And it really is an
honor for me to work
across the
professional spectrum.
But I do see initial resistance.
And then I see
them embracing it.
Gets to them.
AUDIENCE: And if I can
ask, is there something
you've learned from them?
AMY E. HERMAN: Oh, I've
learned a lot from them.
I've learned a lot from them.
Especially when I'm
working with people
who do not have a
trained eye in art,
they will come up with
insights and observations
that I would have
never considered
because I'm trained
in art history,
and I'm looking at
everything contextualized.
And they will show me things
that I would have never
considered in a work of art.
So they've broadened
my vision tremendously.
And believe it or not, one
of the strangest groups
I work with are
investment bankers.
I couldn't figure out what
they were going to get out
of this class, but they do.
And because they
have to communicate
across cultural
landscapes, and they
see things in
works of art, as do
the SEALS, that I would
never see beforehand.
Thank you again.
[APPLAUSE]
