If you have taken drawing classes or browsed through books about drawing, you have no doubt seen or experienced the drawing exercise requiring you to copy an inverted line drawing. This technique is practiced because it is thought that inverting a subject while drawing it enhances drawing accuracy (Edwards, 1999).
Researchers Dale J. Cohen and Holly Earls (2010) designed an experiment to investigate if drawing inverted images leads to improved accuracy or if it leads to drawing errors. They hypothesized that interfering with an artist’s spatial perception would not result in more accurate drawings. They based their hypothesis on the research of Cohen and Bennett (1997) who determined that the foundation of drawing errors is rooted in an artists’ perception of a stimulus. Cohen and Earls (2010) hypothesized that, if an artist’s perception of a stimulus is distorted, then this would be evident in their drawing of this stimulus.
In their study, Cohen and Earls (2010) used human faces as the drawing stimulus because of the extensive drawing research involving human faces. The investigators assigned a drawing task to 121 students. Their sample population was composed of non-artists and artists. Half were assigned the task of drawing inverted faces and half were assigned the task of drawing faces in their normal upright orientation. Participants’ drawings were evaluated for the accurate representation of spatial relationships between facial features, the accurate representation of selected facial features, and the accuracy of whole-face drawings. Four critics rated the drawings. Two of the critics were art history professors and two were studio art professors.
The independent ratings of each critic were analyzed statistically. Data revealed that drawing inverted subjects had a significant negative effect on the drawing of spatial relationships. Rating data also indicated that orientation had no significant effect on the drawings of specific facial features or on the accuracy of whole-face drawings (Cohen and Earls, 2010). Because orientation had a negative effect on the drawing of spatial details, Cohen and Earls (2010) concluded that drawing an inverted stimulus does not improve drawing accuracy.
That is to say, drawing accuracy when one is drawing faces.
Can the same be said about the drawings of inverted images of plants?
For more information about Cohen and Earls’ investigation of this popular art technique, see Inverting an Image Does Not Improve Drawing Accuracy.
Literature Cited
-
Cohen, Dale J. and Susan Bennett. 1997. why can’t most people draw what they see? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 23(3): 609-621. Read Review
Cohen, Dale J. and Holly Earls. 2010. Inverting an image does not improve drawing accuracy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. 4(3): 168-172. Web. http://people.uncw.edu/cohend/research/papers/cohen%20and%20earls%202010.pdf [accessed 11 October 2013]
Edwards, Betty. 1999. Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. See eBook
ArtPlantae Today 
First of all, I would posit that the challenge of accurately drawing a grayscale image (inverted or not) may well be different (both psychologically and technically) from that of drawing a black and white line drawing…which of course appears two-dimensional. Cohen and Earls did not consider this aspect of the issue, evidently. In my experience teaching “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” to adult beginners, using an inverted line drawing as the subject or “stimulus” (especially a line drawing that is executed abstractly, such as Edwards’s example, Picasso’s drawing of Igor Stravinsky), the results have usually appeared remarkably accurate. I haven’t tried using an inverted grayscale photo as the subject, but I would not expect the results to be as consistently “accurate.” I think that, for most people, drawing an accurate contour involves a less complicated mental process than drawing a shaded or three-dimensional form—and therefore psychology may more easily get in the way.