Omnivoyance: The Use of Optical
the direction of the eyes and the head’s
Illusion in the Depiction of the
Face of God in Medieval Art
by Lasse Hodne
Department of Art and Media Studies
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU)
lasse.hodne@ntnu.no
Abstract: The illusion of omnivoyance (also called
the Mona Lisa effect) as an embodiment of
mysterious powers is suited for the
representation of the Supreme Being in any
religion, but its central position in Christian art
may be due to the fact that the Christian god is
defined as all-seeing. The conscious use of this
effect throughout the Middle Ages is testified to
not only by the systematic use of the full-face
view in representations of divinity but also by the
inclusion of inscriptions that emphasise God’s
absolute nature in the same way as omnivoyance
does.
Scientifically speaking, the illusion of
omnivoyance, the feeling that the eyes of a
person depicted in a painting follow you, is a
well-known optical illusion that only works
with flat images. In order for the effect to be
achieved, the face must be painted or drawn
on a flat surface with the eyes directed out of
the picture at an angle of 90 degrees with
respect to the picture plane (Fig. 1). It may be
turned to us en face but not necessarily so. In
the psychological literature, the phenomenon
is most commonly referred to as ‘the Mona
Lisa effect’ named after Leonardo da Vinci’s
famous painting in the Louvre in Paris.
Cognitive psychologists have dedicated
some attention to the omnivoyance effect,
trying to find out whether or not the optical
illusion also works along the vertical axis as
well as the horizontal. 1 Others have
1
Boyarskaya and Hecht, p. 31.
experimented to determine to which degree
orientation work together to define the
direction of the gaze. 2
Standing on Meyer Schapiro’s brief
historical survey from 1973, 3 one of the first
who brought attention to the phenomenon
was Pliny the Elder (AD 23–AD 79). In his
Naturalis Historia, he described a painting by
the artist Famulus of the goddess Athena
‘whose eyes are turned to the spectator from
whatever side he may be looking.’ 4
In the following century, Lucian (AD 125–
AD 180) observed about an image of the
goddess Hera in the Temple at Hierapolis: ‘. . .
if you stand over against it, it looks you in the
face, and as you pass it the gaze still follows
you, and if another approaching from a
different quarter looks at it, he is similarly
affected.’ 5
The first who attempted to give this optical
illusion a scientific explanation was Ptolemy
(AD 90–AD 168), who, more than a thousand
years before the introduction of central
perspective, described the phenomenon by
means of terms normally associated with
Renaissance perspective, like ‘visual cone’ and
‘visual axis.’ 6
2
Todorović, pp. 3549–3562.
3
Schapiro, p. 39, n. 80. See also Barasch, p. 41;
Koerner, p. 127.
4
Quoted through Schapiro, p. 39, n. 80; Pliny,
Naturalis Historia 35, p. 149.
5
Lucian, p. 73.
6
Emphasising that the omnivoyance effect is
limited to images painted on panel and not to
sculpture, Ptolemy concluded that: ‘. . . the reason
is that the true direction of the painted face’s gaze
is perceived by means only of the stationary
disposition of the visual cone that strikes the
painted face. The visual faculty does not recognize
this, but the gaze remains fixed solely along the
visual axis. . . . Thus, as the observer moves away,
he supposes that the image’s gaze follows him.’
Ptolemy, p. 124.
Hodne – Omnivoyance / 1
Fig. 1

1-1-A

Demonstration of
omnivoyance effect based
on photos of busts on the
Gianicolo Hill in Rome. [1-1-
A] Photo of a bust seen
frontally. [1-1-B] Photo of
the same bust turned
approximately 45° to the
left.

1-1-B
Fig. 1

1-2-A

[1-2-A] Photo of a
photocopy of 1-1-A. [1-2-B]
The photocopy (not the
original) turned approx-
imately 45° to the left.

1-2-B
Fig. 1

1-3-A

[1-3-A and B] Figures 1-2-A and B

cropped to eliminate the frames.
Although 1-3-B is actually turned
away from us, our impression is
that he is looking directly at us.

1-3-B
 Amongst medieval sources can be
mentioned the early-13th-century Ekphrasis
on the Church of the Holy Apostles of Nicholas
Mesarites, where the eyes of the image of the
Pantocrator were described as being ‘Wholly
directed toward all at once and at the same
time toward each individually.’ 7 Mesarites’
formulation, similar to those of his
predecessors and almost identical to that of
Nicholas of Cusa, bore only a slight trace of
medieval mysticism, only in that the context
concerned judgement. For the eyes that fall
upon the righteous are mild and gentle, he
said, whereas to ‘. . . those . . . who are
condemned by their own judgment they are
scornful and hostile.’ 8
The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine
(Varazze), written later in the same century,
repeated the theme of judgement between
good and evil. He told the story of a young
notary in Constantinople who discovered that
the eyes of the image of the Saviour in Hagia
Sophia appeared to follow him as he moved in
front of the image. 9 Known as the guarding
glance of the Lord, it is clearly connected with
the question of Divine Providence since the
beneficial protection of the Lord’s eyes was a
reward for having rejected an offer from the
Devil at an earlier stage. However, there was
no mention that the same would happen to
7
Mesarites, p. 870. See also Shearman, p. 158;
Koerner, p. 127.
8
Mesarites, p. 870.
9
The 15th-century English translation of the
Golden Legend by William Caxton said that the
notary kneels in front of a crucifix. Caxton made
many additions to the original text on his own
account, and it is unlikely that the notary stood in
front of a crucifix. I have consulted the 1995 Italian
edition by Alessandro and Lucetta Vitale Brovarone
(p. 388), which reads ‘l’immagine del Salvatore’
(the image of the Saviour), which very well could
be taken to mean Pantocrator as in Mesarites’
version.
anyone, implying that it was a miracle of God
and not an optical effect caused by the image.
Cusa began the first chapter of his De
visione Dei–On the Vision of God (1453) with a
description of an image that he called ‘the
Icon of God,’ writing that ‘regardless of the
place from which each of you looks at it, each
will have the impression that he alone is being
looked at by it. To the brother who is situated
in the east it will seem that the face is looking
toward the east; to the brother in the south,
that the face is looking toward the south; to
the brother in the west, that it is looking
westward.’ 10
With the exception of Cusa, who included
self-portraits as well as religious icons
amongst his examples, all the above are
images of gods. Not surprisingly, in antiquity
as well as in the Middle Ages, the
omnivoyance effect was seen as something
mysterious, well suited for the representation
of divinities. The problem is that whereas the
frontal view of the face is almost compulsory
for certain representations of the Lord in
medieval tradition, it is not quite as common
in antiquity. Take, for instance, the fifth-
century pediment sculptures on the Temple of
Zeus in Olympia, Greece (Fig. 2). The figures
on each side are arranged in such a way that a
chariot group on one side is counterbalanced
by a similar group on the other, thus, making
an almost perfect symmetry. As one would
expect, the main character, the god, occupies
the central position; strangely (and differently
from the Christ in Majesty, as will be seen
below), though, he is not turned towards the
spectator.
10
Cusa, pp. 680–681.
Hodne – Omnivoyance / 2
 Fig. 2 Temple of Zeus in Olympia, Greece, east and west pediments.

Fig. 3 Temple of Artemis on the island of Corfu in Greece, pediment.

In contrast, going even further back to the
archaic sculptures on the pediment of the
Temple of Artemis on the island of Corfu in
Greece, the face of the central figure is turned
towards us (Fig. 3). Can the choice of pose in
this case be related to the fact that the central
figure here is Medusa, a Gorgon, and hence a
kind of demon? The power of Medusa resided
in her glance, which could petrify. Her head,
which is almost always turned frontally
towards the spectator, was attached to the
aegis of Athena and depicted on shields to
ward off evil. No wonder, if the powerful
effect of the staring eyes was associated with
the gaze of a demon, the Greeks were careful
to represent their gods in the same way.
Concentrating on the use of this optical
effect in European medieval art, especially in
relation to the image of Christ in Majesty, the
omnivoyance effect as an embodiment of

Hodne – Omnivoyance / 3
mysterious powers is suited for the
representation of the Supreme Being in any
religion. Interestingly, the reason why it is
particularly exploited in Christianity may be
due to the fact that the Christian god is
defined as, precisely, all-seeing. Just as God is
called ‘the Almighty’ or ‘the Eternal,’ he also
can be called ‘the All-Seeing’ because to the
faithful his eyes follow everyone wherever
they go.
In the Christian artistic tradition there is an
intrinsic relationship between doctrine and
image. This can be seen in two ways. One has
to do with inscriptions, or, more precisely,
words in the book that Christ holds in many of
these works, that constitute a textual parallel
to the omnivoyance effect. The other is
related to the opposition between God’s
human and divine aspects.
Most of the works, such as frescoes and
mosaics, that will be analysed belong to a
cycle, which means that they are part of a
whole of scenes decorating the interior of a
church. In the medieval basilica building
stories from the Genesis and the Gospels
usually were located on the longitudinal walls
of the nave whereas Christ in Majesty or
related subjects such as the so-called Traditio
legis, often with elements from the
Apocalypse, are in the apse. 11 Analysing these
scenes more closely, it can be found that in
the stories from the Gospels, which represent
the past, Christ’s face is almost never seen
frontally. It is mainly when he is represented
in the way humans often believe that he will
appear in the future on Judgement Day or in
the Beatific vision that he turns to us frontally.
In the Beatific vision, the union with God is
conceived as a process enacted by a kind of
‘seeing.’ One of the sources that the church
11
This relationship (and difference) between
narrative and symbolical is analysed in Hodne
2004, especially pp. 176–184.
authorities took as a support of this view was
Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians: ‘. . . now
we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face’
(1 Corinthians 13:12; my italics). They
imagined that after death they would stand in
front of him and that their view would be full
face, exactly as in the mosaics and paintings
currently being discussed.
What is interesting here is whether or not
the frontal scheme was chosen because of its
inherent effect since the omnivoyance effect
was considered a fitting way to represent a
god who was believed to be, precisely,
omnipotent, omniscient, and all-seeing. The
fact that in scenes related to his infancy, his
miracles, or his passion Jesus is almost never
seen frontally whereas in scenes showing his
Second Coming he usually is certainly points in
this direction. One more important argument
in favour of this view is that in representations
of Christ in Majesty in apses, above doors, or
even in miniatures and book covers, Jesus
often is seen with a book in his hand,
sometimes closed and showing only the cover
but usually open with the text legible. 12
The text phrases found here constitute a
coherent group, referring mainly to the same
passages in the Bible. For example, in the
11th-century apse of Sant’Angelo in Formis
near Capua, Italy, the image of the enthroned
Saviour turns towards the spectator with a
staring gaze, holding a book in his left hand.
This shows the Latin text ego sum alfa et
o[mega] prim: et novisims from Revelation
22:13: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
First and the Last . . .’ (Fig. 4).
12
The Christ in Majesty must be distinguished from
the Traditio legis, where Christ hands over a scroll
to Saint Peter.
Hodne – Omnivoyance / 4

Fig. 4 Sant’Angelo in Formis
near Capua, Italy, apse (detail).
Another example of Christ holding the
book beginning with ‘I am’ is found in the
early-sixth-century Euphrasian Basilica in
Poreč, Croatia. Here are the words ego sum
lux vera, which must be an echo of the ego
sum lux mundi from John 8:12 (Fig. 5). 13
Strategically, in the Deesis above the west
door lunette of Saint Mark’s Cathedral in
Venice is found a text that refers precisely to
the door, reading ego sum ostium, which is
the ‘I am the door’ from John 10:9 (Fig. 6).
Yet another example is represented by the
12th-century murals in the Catacomb of Saint
Hermes on the old via Salaria in Rome, where
a Christ figure flanked by saints is seen above
the enthroned Virgin and Child (Fig. 7). 14 The
13
In his important article on ‘Frontal and Profile as
Symbolic Forms,’ Meyer Schapiro (p. 39) associated
the glance directed towards the observer with the
first person ‘I’ in speech: ‘It seems to exist both for
us and for itself in a space virtuously continuous
with our own. . . . That a figure of Christ holding a
book inscribed Ego sum lux mundi should be drawn
full-face is obvious and natural, since it is
addressing the viewer.’
14
Osborne, pp. 322-326.
letters in the book in his left hand, reading ego
sum pastor bonus et co[gnosco], are from John
10:14: ‘I am the good shepherd; and I know
[my sheep].’
A much later example is Rogier van der
Weyden’s Braque triptych in the Louvre, which
differs from the others in not being a Christ in
Majesty and the text not written in a book.
Instead, it can be seen in the midst of the rays
of light that issue from the head of Christ (Fig.
8). The text here reads ego sum panis vivus,
meaning ‘I am the living bread’ (John 6:51).
Despite the stylistic difference between this
example and the others, it has at least one
important thing in common with them: the
glance of the Lord turned directly towards the
spectator.
One final example, the impressive Christ
with benedictio greca from Saint Mark’s in
Rome, sums up much of this (Fig. 9). Here,
words from three different passages can be
found. In addition to the ego sum lux that we
found in Poreč, there are the phrases ego sum
vita, which should be ego sum via et veritas et
vita, meaning ‘I am the way, the truth, and the
life’ (John 14:6), as well as ego sum resurrectio,
meaning ‘I am the resurrection’ (John 11:25).
It would be possible to investigate the
origin and historical development of the book
in representations of Christ in Glory. Some
early examples, such as at Santa Pudenziana in
Rome, show different words, but the mosaics
from Poreč demonstrate that the ego sum
already was used in this context in late
antiquity. Without doubt, amongst the
examples where Christ’s book is open and text
is legible, these two words are the most
common. What is more, the various ego sum
utterances constitute a specific and well-
defined group. All the verses that have been
cited here and that are included in works of
art, except the alpha et omega, are from the
Gospel of John. If to the above series was
Hodne – Omnivoyance / 5
 Fig. 5 Mosaics from the Euphrasian Basilica in Poreč, Croatia., top left.
Fig. 6 Deesis from the Cathedral of San Marco in Venice, west door lunette, top right.

Fig. 7 Murals in the Catacomb of Saint Hermes in Rome.

Fig. 8 The Braque triptych by Rogier van der
Weyden, detail (Paris, Louvre), top left.

Fig. 9 Apse mosaics from the church of San

Marco, Rome, top right.

Fig. 10 Enamel plaque of the Majestas Domini

from the Tortosa Cathedral
added only one more example–‘I am the true
vine’ (John 15:1)–we would have all of the so-
called ‘I am sayings’ or ‘seven declarations of
Grace’ from the Gospel of John, 15 which
differs from the other Gospels in that Jesus at
length speaks about himself and his divine
role. Indeed, some passages can be
interpreted as statements about his divinity,
as if he wanted to tell one and all that he
himself was God. This is the case in chapter
8:58, where he says, ‘before Abraham was, I
AM.’ 16 Putting the present of the verb ‘to be’
before the past ‘was,’ he turns the tenses
upside down. Moments in time are thus
circumscribed by an eternal presence that
confirms God as ‘the Eternal.’
Before returning to Christ’s statement of
‘ever presence’ and its relation to
omnivoyance, lets first look at the words ‘I am,’
which are the same in this passage as in the
‘seven declarations,’ only here they are not
qualified by a specific noun, such as ‘door,’
‘bread,’ or ‘light.’ In fact, the words ‘I am,’ ego
sum in Latin or ego eimi in Greek, are of vital
importance here. God is twice hidden in this
passage, not only in the play with ‘I
am/Abraham was’ but even in the words ‘I am’
alone. In the Old Testament, Moses, upon
hearing the voice of God in the burning bush,
asked what he should say when he returned
to the people of Israel. If he said that he met
the god of their fathers, surely, they would ask
what is his name. God’s reply was ‘I am who I
am’ and ‘Thus you shall say to the children of
Israel, “I AM has sent me to you”’ (Exodus
3:14).
Instead of giving a proper name, God said
that he existed and that existence (‘I am’) was
his name. It is not strange that God prohibited
15
Packer, p. 106.
16
The King James translators capitalised ‘I AM’
whenever they interpreted these words as a claim
to divinity.
the mentioning of his name since the divine
name in Jewish tradition often was regarded
as too sacred to be uttered. What is important
here is that as a substitute of a proper name,
he accepted the use of a descriptive name, a
name that, in absence of a real name, enabled
man to recognize him by means of an
appellation that revealed his true nature. His
name is what he is, and what he is is pure
existence; ‘I am’ means that he existed always.
He existed before, he exists now, and he will
still exist in the future. 17
The ego sum in so many representations of
Christ’s majesty is not an incidental quotation
from the Bible. The artist was not free to
choose any biblical verse that he might like.
The consistent use of verses beginning with
ego sum must be understood as deliberate
statements about Christ’s divine nature.
There are possible objections to this. Can it
be certain that the ‘I am’ in the phrase ‘I am
the door’ has the same meaning as ‘I am’ in
‘before Abraham was, I am’? According to
Kruse, the words ego eimi are used in three
different ways in the Gospel of John: with a
predicate (‘I am the light of the world’); with
an implied predicate (‘I am he . . .’); and as an
absolute (‘Before Abraham was, I am’). 18 Most
agree that the latter, the absolute sense, must
be interpreted as a claim to divinity. Whether
the same can be said of the ‘seven I am’s’ is an
open question. However, Coetzee suggested
this when, pointing to the fact that Jesus’
absolute ego eimi utterances in John 8
deliberately refer to the prophecies of Isaiah
17
According to Saint Augustine, the past and the
future are both derivative of the present. Past
things are present in our memory while future
things are present in our expectations. Saint
Augustine, p. 253. See also Hodne 2008, p. 80.
18
Kruse, p. 138.
Hodne – Omnivoyance / 6
42–43, he concluded that the same probably
may be said of his ‘I am the light’ sayings. 19
In any case, scholars are not really
interested in what Jesus actually meant but in
what medieval authorities thought about this
question. It is they who transmitted their
ideas to the painters and mosaicists of the
period. One indication that the words ego sum
in depictions of Christ’s majesty were
supposed to be taken in its absolute sense is
given by an enamel plaque showing the
Majestas Domini in mandorla, accompanied
by the four tetramorphs, from the Tortosa
Cathedral in Spain (Fig. 10). The writing in the
Lord’s book in this case is not one of the
‘seven sayings’ but, precisely, the absolute
statement from Exodus: Ego sum qui sum–‘I
am who I am.’
The reason for stressing the importance of
text phrases in a discussion concerning an
optical illusion has to do with the two ways of
representing Christ mentioned in the
beginning. Only in some very specific
situations is his head seen frontally: not in the
‘stories’ from the Gospels but only when he
‘appears’ after death will mankind see him full
face. Christ was said to be both true God and
true man, meaning that he had two aspects.
The Christ in Majesty is a representation of
one of these aspects: the divine one. This idea
of divinity can be expressed visually as well as
verbally when it is realized that the ego sum
phrase in the book (to the extent that scholars
are entitled to interpret it in its absolute sense)
as an expression of God’s divinity is an exact
verbal counterpart of facial frontality.
Thinking of it, it is quite obvious that if
there are different schemes or types for the
representation of God’s human and divine
aspects, the divine must be represented by
the full-face view. It cannot be the other way
19
Coetzee, p. 171.
around. The dialogue with the spectator
suggested by the eye contact is incompatible
with the detachment required by a narrative
that, by necessity, must be confined to a
realm different from that of the spectator.
God’s divinity is thus his presence.
Taken in isolation, it is possible to
demonstrate that the full-face view of Christ
in representations of his majesty is equivalent
to a specific interpretation of the words ego
sum. The question remains as to whether or
not only the face but even the omnivoyance
effect associated with it can somehow be
related to the theological discussion of the
divine name. Is there a connection between
God’s divine gaze, his seeing everything, and
his eternity? The first is a spatial definition of
his powers, the second a temporal one. Both
of these faculties seem to converge in the idea
of God as an absolute being. In his Hortatory
Address to the Greeks, Justin Martyr explicitly
interpreted the ‘I am’ appellative of God in
Exodus as a confirmation of his eternal being
or, as he said, God’s ‘ever existence.’ 20 What
can this ‘ever existence’ be if not the
omnipresence of an omnivoyant God? Can it
be anything else than the absolute being of
monotheism, theologically and philosophically
defined by absolutist categories such as
omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience?
Rome, July 2012
© Lasse Hodne
20
Saint Justin, p. 282. See also Bull, p. 404.
Hodne – Omnivoyance / 7
Literature
Augustine, Saint. Confessions, 11, 20. Trans. W. Watts (Loeb Classical Library). London and Cambridge, Mass.:
Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1912.
Barasch, Moshe. ‘The Frontal Icon: A Genre in Christian Art.’ In Kippenberg et al.: Genres in Visual
Representations: Proceedings of a Conference Held in 1986 by Invitation of the Werner-Reimers-
Stiftung in Bad Homburg (Federal Republic of Germany). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.
Boyarskaya, Evgeniya, and Heiko Hecht. ‘The Mona Lisa effect: Is it confined to the horizontal plane?’
Perception 38 (2010).
Bull, George. Defensio fidei Nicaenae–A Defence of the Nicene Creed: Out of the Extant Writings of the
Catholick Doctors, who Flourished During the Three First Centuries of the Christian Church. Oxford: J.
H. Parker, 1851.
Coetzee, J. C. ‘Jesus’ Revelation in the Ego Eimi Sayings in Jn 8 and 9,’ in A South African Perspective on the New
Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars Presented to Bruce Manning Metzger
During His Visit to South Africa in 1985. Leiden: BRILL, 1986.
Cusa, Nicholas of. Nicholas of Cusa's Dialectical Mysticism. Text, Translation, and Interpretive Study of De
Visione Dei, Ed. Jasper Hopkins, Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Pr., 1985.
Hodne, Lasse. Images of the Church. Rhetorical and Typological Patterns in the Picture Cycle of the Basilica. PhD
dissertation. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen, 2004
Hodne, Lasse. ‘Faces of Time: Allegories of Change and Fortune in Petrach’s Trionfi and Their Illustrations.’ In
Rhetoric, Theatre and the Arts of Design. Essays Presented to Roy Eriksen. Ed. C. Guest. Oslo, Norway:
Novus, 2008.
Justin, Saint. Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks. Trans. Rev. M. Dods. Ante-Nicene Fathers 1 (1885).
Koerner, Joseph Leo. The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1997.
Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
Lucian. The Syrian Goddess. Trans. Herbert A. Strong and John Garstang (1913). Available at www. sacred-
texts.com.
Mesarites, Nicholas (Nicolaus). Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople. Greek text ed.
with translation, commentary, and introduction by G. Downey. Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society, 1957.
Osborne, John. ‘The Roman Catacombs in the Middle Ages.’ Papers of the British School in Rome. 53 (1985).
Ptolemy, Claudius. Ptolemy’s Theory of Visual Perception. An English Translation of the Optics (Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society 86 [1996]). Transl. A. Mark Smith.
Schapiro, Meyer. ‘Frontal and Profile as Symbolic Forms.’ In Words and Pictures. On the Literal and the Symbolic
in the Illustration of a Text (Approaches to Semiotics 11). The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973.
Shearman, John. Only Connect: Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1992.
Todorović, Dejan. ‘Geometrical Basis of Perception of Gaze Direction.’ Vision Research 46, 21 (October 2006).
Varazze (Voragine), Iacopo da. Legenda aurea (The Golden Legend). Ed. Alessandro and Lucetta Vitale
Brovarone. Turin, Italy: Einaudi, 1995.
Voragine, Jacobus, de. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Ed. William Granger Ryan, Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1993.

Hodne – Omnivoyance / 8