Brad Sondahl on sun 12 dec 99
I've been thinking about symmetry and asymmetry in
decoration. I use both, and there are strong patterns
favoring both in nature.
It is a point of sadness with me that the evil thing in many
stories/movies is asymmetrical--lacking a hand, foot, eye,
hunchbacked, etc. I think it is built in to us to react
against asymmetry in people's physiques, but that we should
rationally overcome this objection. (I've had two friends
with half paralyzed faces)...
How does this apply to pottery?
First symmetry does subconsciously appeal to us. (My
dementia burdened mother-in-law's favorite plate is totally
symmetrical, and she spends a lot of time making symmetrical
patterns of silverware, bottle caps, etc.
On the other hand, at a higher rational level, most art is
asymmetrical (though occasionally with elements of symmetry,
such as "American Gothic." So a lot of my decorations are
just splashes of color carefully off center on a bowl or
plate. In fact when I've carefully applied them to produce
a pattern such as a star, they are less popular.
This reminds me of the photographer's rule of thirds: to
break the composition into thirds instead of having the
subject smack dab in the middle.
I'm just tossing this out because I don't think it's been
discussed much, and one way or the other it figures
prominently in our craft...
--
Brad Sondahl
Sondahl homepage http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl/
Brad's Index
http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl/bradindex.html
Contributing to the potluck of the WWW
Rick Hugel on mon 13 dec 99
Like you, I do both and like you, the carefully patterned pieces don't go
very fast. But I also do asymmetrical pieces. the best buyers for either
are men. Rarely does a woman purchase something asymmetrical,
asymmetrically decorated, or both. It has always puzzled me.
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I've been thinking about symmetry and asymmetry in
>decoration. I use both, and there are strong patterns
>favoring both in nature.
>It is a point of sadness with me that the evil thing in many
>stories/movies is asymmetrical--lacking a hand, foot, eye,
>hunchbacked, etc. I think it is built in to us to react
>against asymmetry in people's physiques, but that we should
>rationally overcome this objection. (I've had two friends
>with half paralyzed faces)...
>How does this apply to pottery?
>First symmetry does subconsciously appeal to us. (My
>dementia burdened mother-in-law's favorite plate is totally
>symmetrical, and she spends a lot of time making symmetrical
>patterns of silverware, bottle caps, etc.
>On the other hand, at a higher rational level, most art is
>asymmetrical (though occasionally with elements of symmetry,
>such as "American Gothic." So a lot of my decorations are
>just splashes of color carefully off center on a bowl or
>plate. In fact when I've carefully applied them to produce
>a pattern such as a star, they are less popular.
>This reminds me of the photographer's rule of thirds: to
>break the composition into thirds instead of having the
>subject smack dab in the middle.
>
>I'm just tossing this out because I don't think it's been
>discussed much, and one way or the other it figures
>prominently in our craft...
>--
>Brad Sondahl
>Sondahl homepage http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl/
>Brad's Index
>http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl/bradindex.html
>Contributing to the potluck of the WWW
CNW on mon 13 dec 99
Brad your post reminded me of when I was making fabric dolls. I was making
some 'fairy' dolls and a female pirate. It occurred to me that accidents
could happen to fairies too and that we always depicted them as perfect.
So...I made a fairy doll with a peg leg carved from a cherry twig complete
with lichen and the pirate had a hook and a patch over one eye. Most people
seemed to think they were kinda neat. But a few people totally freaked. One
woman wouldn't even touch them. Funny thing was that the pirate was right
out of the original 'Raggedy Ann' book series. I had always wanted to be a
pirate after reading those books.
Then I started making clay faces and made them as if they were coming
through the wall. It gave a friend of mine the creeps. He called them
'decapitations'.
And I think that a lot of times that why we are uncomfortable with physical
differences in people is that it's unexpected-we have an idea or framework
in our head of how a face should look and when it doesn't we want to look
again to understand why it doesn't match but the desire not to offend keeps
us from looking again. But that tends to make us visibly uncomfortable which
often does offend.....
The desire to look again is great in art though. And the unexpected draws
us back to a piece, where too much symmetry makes us think 'oh, I recognize
that, it's a vase, bowl, etc.' and not look any further.
Celia in NC--peculiar as usual.
cwike@conninc.com
george koller on mon 13 dec 99
Brad,
I'm convinced that our brains function largely as
extraordinary "pattern recognition engines". I
see our appreciation for music, humor, poetry,
architecture and so many things as tied to our ability
to discern and recognize patterns. And the patterns
that please us, that we feel comfortable with, that
we like to wrap and hang around us - often seem to be simple
and symmetrical. I think we take pleasure, we reward
ourselves somehow for recognizing patterns.
My second career is about decorating and design, but
my first 20 plus years has been about information
processing. A programmer works from the inside out -
that is to say we often have to come up with precise rules
for things that may not appear to have any. It has been fun
for me to tear relatively simple rule systems apart and
put them back together to model something real, but not
too very complex.
Now, if the world is ready for me or not, I am in the
decorating business and clay is my chosen medium. My
best thought is that I want to harmonize with, use the
natural variability of clay, not to cover it, but to somehow
work within the "rule set" of clay - to have control, but
not exercise more control than is "natural" to this wonderful
"unruly" material.
Here is a thought for you: If you can "see symmetry" it
is because you are recognizing a pattern. Patterns come
from applying rules i.e. trees "growing to light" and waves
"reacting" to wind and so on. We achieve something when
we recognize, even partially, some set of "rules" that can
predict an outcome - we are safer in our world than if we
didn't. So I have to think that being an artist is a lot about
recognizing, discerning, and learning the "language" of
materials.
Yes, it is all making sense to me on this dreary foggy cold
Monday morning with my Kurt Wild decorated Coffee Mug
next to me to help me face the world.
George
Sturgeon Bay, WI - Door County
Brad Sondahl wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I've been thinking about symmetry and asymmetry in
> decoration. I use both, and there are strong patterns
> favoring both in nature.
> It is a point of sadness with me that the evil thing in many
> stories/movies is asymmetrical--lacking a hand, foot, eye,
> hunchbacked, etc. I think it is built in to us to react
> against asymmetry in people's physiques, but that we should
> rationally overcome this objection. (I've had two friends
> with half paralyzed faces)...
> How does this apply to pottery?
> First symmetry does subconsciously appeal to us. (My
> dementia burdened mother-in-law's favorite plate is totally
> symmetrical, and she spends a lot of time making symmetrical
> patterns of silverware, bottle caps, etc.
> On the other hand, at a higher rational level, most art is
> asymmetrical (though occasionally with elements of symmetry,
> such as "American Gothic." So a lot of my decorations are
> just splashes of color carefully off center on a bowl or
> plate. In fact when I've carefully applied them to produce
> a pattern such as a star, they are less popular.
> This reminds me of the photographer's rule of thirds: to
> break the composition into thirds instead of having the
> subject smack dab in the middle.
>
> I'm just tossing this out because I don't think it's been
> discussed much, and one way or the other it figures
> prominently in our craft...
> --
> Brad Sondahl
> Sondahl homepage http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl/
> Brad's Index
> http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl/bradindex.html
> Contributing to the potluck of the WWW
Dorothy Weber on tue 14 dec 99
We just got back from Joyce Michaud's master throwing class where she
lectures on a segment relating to design. I know after that lecture some
formal design education will be in the near future. Anyway, she talked about
exactly the issues you raise regarding symmetry and how their are lines or
facets to a pot that either lead you around the pot or just move you off or
to the bottom of the pot. Moving around being the better choice. Since I just
now have really been introduced to this I can't discuss it with any depth of
understanding but I would be interested in others comments and any
suggestions on good design books that cover some these principles.
Vince Pitelka on tue 14 dec 99
>I've been thinking about symmetry and asymmetry in
>decoration. I use both, and there are strong patterns
>favoring both in nature.
Brad -
Good post, with sound wisdom about symmetry and asymmetry. It is no wonder
that humans often prefer symmetry and shun asymmetry, since the
stereotypical "perfect" human is symmetrical. Of course the entire notion
of a "perfect" human is absurd. Makes a lot more sense to celebrate the
differences rather than the similarities.
The following is no doubt familiar to you, but I thought I'd toss it out
there for everyone to think about. I don't get to teach to teach 2-D and
3-D design much anymore (other than in my clay classes), so periodically I
have to subject the Clayart audience to my theories.
In my experience, the most exciting, experiential artwork is usually
asymmetrical. The key concept here is the distinction between balance and
imbalance, and between symmetrical and asymmetrical balance. It used to be
that most artwork was carefully balanced visually, but that is no longer
true, and it is up to the individual artist to choose balance or imbalance
and the variations of balance depending on content and narrative.
Symmetrical balance means just what it says - one half of the image or
object (divided vertically) is a mirror image of the other. Asymmetrical
balance simply implies that the image or object is balanced in terms of
visual activity and focus. In other words, an area of busy pattern on one
side of an image or object can balance a point of bright color or high
graphic contrast on the other. To evaluate asymmetrical balance, watch
where your eye is drawn when looking at an image or object.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Home - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Jeff Lawrence on thu 16 dec 99
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> It is no wonder
>that humans often prefer symmetry and shun asymmetry, since the
>stereotypical "perfect" human is symmetrical. Of course the entire notion
>of a "perfect" human is absurd. Makes a lot more sense to celebrate the
>differences rather than the similarities.
>
Hello Vince,
Studies show that people around the globe will consistently assign the same
ranking on a beauty scale to the same groups of portrait photos. When many
average featured faces are morphed together, the result is very
symmetrical, and univerally elected very beautiful.
>From a philosophical point of view, too, I'd much rather align myself with
something that brings together in common respect than exalt the building of
gulfs. This seems more reasonable when you consider the persistently
powerful effect beauty has exerted on human history. Where are the paeons
to "the hideous prince" or "the skanky queen?" Personally, I'm glad
Shakespeare wrote his Sonnets and that Homer sang the Iliad. Dismissal
these and other artworks' reason for being - a common standard of beauty -
is in my view not a well-thought-out position.
grieving my large nose, which keeps me off the runway and in the audience
on this one,
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
Sun Dagger Design - great-looking ceramic wall and ceiling lights!
Route 3 Box 220
Espanola, NM 87532 ph: 505-753-5913 fax: 505-753-8074
http://www.sundagger.com
Suzanne Wolfe on fri 17 dec 99
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Jeff Lawrence wrote:
>
> Studies show that people around the globe will consistently assign the same
> ranking on a beauty scale to the same groups of portrait photos. When many
> average featured faces are morphed together, the result is very
> symmetrical, and univerally elected very beautiful.
>
Jeff,
I am quite curious about this, and would be interested in the source of
these studies, since it has always seemed to me that different cultures
around the world have quite different concepts of beauty. Would you cite
your references so, if necessary, I can put to rest one of the long
standing beliefs I have held. My most recent experience of this was when
I was in China about two years ago, and someone remarked to me about a
young woman who was carving the calligraphy done by her father onto an
Yixing teapot. The person said that she had the face of the classical
Chinese beauty. For me, she seemed somewhat plain, although she did have
a wonderfully full and oval face. On the other hand, my Chinese friend
with fully chiselled features was not considered good-looking at all!
Anyway, I am hoping you will be able to remember where you read the
information you cited -- thanks.
Bruce Girrell on mon 20 dec 99
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
>Studies show that people around the globe will consistently assign the same
>ranking on a beauty scale to the same groups of portrait photos. When many
>average featured faces are morphed together, the result is very
>symmetrical, and univerally elected very beautiful.
I saw the results of one of these morphs at a computer graphics convention
(back when morphing was a term unknown to most). Although the face should
have been androgynous, most felt that it had a definite female quality. It
was a little like seeing someone in a crowd whom you think you recognize,
but you're not sure who, or where, or... And, yes, it was beautiful, but not
in the Hollywood star kind of beauty, more in the "person of infinite
wisdom" kind of beauty.
Bruce Girrell
in Northern Michigan, where after months and months of remodeling, we
uncovered the pugmill and reworked all of our bagged raku clay. Hopefully,
Lynne is throwing now as I type this.
BTW, Michael Jackson's "Black and White" video is still one of my favorite
morphs.
Polly Goldman on wed 22 dec 99
I just had to put my two cents in aboutt his topic. Several years ago,
when the amazingly creative and funny musician Lyle Lovett married the
boring, bland movie star Julia Roberts, I saw many newspaper & magazine
articles in which the author wondered what she (Ms. Roberts) could ever see
in him. One article discussed how in humans, beauty is in symmetry. They
cut a picture of Lyle's face in two, put two left sides together, and
compared this to a picture of his real face, to show how asymmetric and
"ugly" his real face was. Well, the whole thing surprised me, because I
get bored of Julia's face in two seconds - to me, she always looks underfed
and like someone has been beating her, with those collagen-implanted
swollen lips and sunken eyes. Lyle's unsymmetrical face, on the other
hand, is forever interesting to me, kind looking, funny, and like there's
"someone home there".
What's this have to do with pottery? lots, I think. It doesn't take much
to get people to see past the superficial symmetry, and once they do, they
will bond a lot more with a piece with which they are familiar in complex
ways. What's to bond with in that "perfect" morphed human face? Maybe I'm
different from most, but those morphed human faces do not impress me. I
think many people, including myself, are attached to art and crafts as much
because of who made it, why they made it, and little individual touches it
may have, as because of how it appears superficially.
That said, I had a friend once who claimed that some of my vases were far
superior to others because of the presence of multiple "golden rectangles"
in them. Are any of you familiar with this? It was some ancient Greek
idea or something, that if you drew rectangles around forms, and the width
was 0.6 (I think) that of the height (or vice versa), that was a Good
Thing, and the more golden rectangles the better. I have since lost touch
with the friend, but am curious about this idea, and haven't seen it
mentioned anywhere else.
Sorry for the rambling post. I'm on a ton of prednisone and codine right
now to combat a nasty case of poison oak and the flu, fortunately neither
are contageous over the web,
Polly
John K Dellow on fri 24 dec 99
elizabeth priddy wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> a golden rectangle is a rectangle of the
> proportion 1:0.6. it looks roughly like this:
Elizabeth ,
I have used the Greek Golden mean ,Golden rectangle,
Whirling square etc. ,for the last 20 years to design my
terra-cotta , and have been using the proportion 1 : 1.618 .
I came by this in a book on pottery design by an American , i
think published in the 1960's
Merry Christmas to all.
John Dellow "the flower pot man"
Home Page http://www.welcome.to/jkdellow
http://digitalfire.com/education/people/dellow/
elizabeth priddy on sun 26 dec 99
I don't regurg numbers well, you are probably
right about the number...
isn't (.6 : 1), roughly the same thing?
If my vague algebra-dyslexia is in true form,
that is what happened...
---
Elizabeth Priddy
email: epriddy@usa.net
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/clayworkshop
Clay: 12,000 yrs and still fresh!
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:35:32 John K Dellow wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
>elizabeth priddy wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> a golden rectangle is a rectangle of the
>> proportion 1:0.6. it looks roughly like this:
>
>
>Elizabeth ,
> I have used the Greek Golden mean ,Golden rectangle,
>Whirling square etc. ,for the last 20 years to design my
>terra-cotta , and have been using the proportion 1 : 1.618 .
>
> I came by this in a book on pottery design by an American , i
>think published in the 1960's
>
>Merry Christmas to all.
>
> John Dellow "the flower pot man"
>Home Page http://www.welcome.to/jkdellow
>http://digitalfire.com/education/people/dellow/
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
| |
|
