elizabeth priddy on thu 6 jan 00
ok, so if this is a primal urge to find things
that are geneticly successful...
if that idea is distasteful on a human level,
look at it from a hunter gatherer level:
if you are looking for the most optimal fruit
or animal to eat, you would select for ones
that are uniform in shape consistent with the
normative form of the selected item, and you
would weed out things that don't 'look right'.
If we have learned to evaluate living consumable
things that way, we might normally select things
non edible for similar reasons, just to keep our
brains simple enough to evolve smoothly.
And now we are at an 'easier subsistance'
plateau where our brains are more open to
assymmetry because we buy our meat instead
of selecting it.
OR
we have always found consumibles to be better
if they are symmetrical, and nonconsumibles to
be more beautiful and natural if they are not,
like rocks, mountains and other things you
cannot eat.
Maybe it comes straight down to this
primal premis:
If you are going to eat it, it should be unifrom
and symmetrical on some appropriate axis, and if
you are not going to eat it, it can look any way
at all and be pleasing. And If we are making it
ourselves instead of finding it, we like to make
it look like something we would like to eat.
So your taste in art depends on how hungry you
are.
It would be kind of sad and perfect at the same
time if that is what philosophy of aesthetics
boils down to.
I am treating this lightly, but I think there
might be some truth in this.
In fact, I hereby copyright this idea so that
I will be able to use it as my thesis when I
finally go for that graduate degree by mail!
(I am actually thinking about this...)
-Millenially yours
Elizabeth Priddy
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:08:27 I.Lewis wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Subject: Re: Symmetry, Asymmetry-Decoding
>
>george koller asks,
>
>So what is the relationship between =22Decoding=22 and Symmetry/
>
>Asymmetry?
>
>Not an easy question to answer. A solution is probably buried deep in the annal
>of social psychology.
>
>The decoding algorithm is possibly associated with sensing and interpretation a
>a subliminal level and depends a lot on prior experience, even race memories.
>And experience depends on societal influences. As they used to say, some things
>give you a warm fuzzy and others a cold prickly.
>
>Walking down a Mall or street which is new to me? Depends on the architecture.
>If it mimics a dark forest of dense trees, possibly fear and apprehension
>override the idea of feeding or making love, hence I prepare for flight or a
>fight. Light and open with few corners, then relaxation. In one of those new
>flashy, loud, raucous indoor towers of commercial Babel, confusion. But
>inquisitiveness always gets the better of my instincts once I quell the panic
>and makes me look for things that are unfamiliar in any environment. Faces whic
>are different, patterns of clothing which denote clans, even if they are
>informal ones. And I work to a pattern. My activity has symmetry. I have ways o
>patrolling, of scanning and searching to reach an objective. But I like to know
>there is a tree to dodge behind if I need one. I have regressed back to being a
>Hunter Gatherer.
>
>Now, it could be that when people go to craft fairs and other similar exhibitio
>events they also revert to being Hunter Gatherers. Which might explain why
>images of fruit and food are so attractive and why what is acceptable as
>interior decoration avoids those trees behind which something nasty could be
>lurking. And please, where is your comfort room?
>
>Yes, an interesting thread.
>
>Ivor Lewis. Who is even more convinced than ever that he throws asymmetric pots
>All based on a helical spiral.
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
george koller on sat 8 jan 00
Elisabeth,
What may be valuable to think about is that
our FIRST IMPRESSIONS may come from
a low/primal level of our brains over which we
have little control. Let's call it "Priddy's
pre-programmed Primal Processing Premis"....
So how many times do you hear "I'll know what
I like when I see it" ?
"Recognize" is from Latin, looked it up, for
"Know Again". Recognizing is an absolutely
essential and nominally low level function.
Worms, birds, fish, and the bees have to do.
Our pets do it. Believe what you will, I don't
think our species got a completely fresh slate
on this.
It is clear that our brains must do a lot of
processing at low levels so we can function
without being overwhelmed with the quantities
of details. Our conscienceness surely functions
as a general over- viewing the battle field from afar,
receiving and sending messangers but not concerned
so much with the details as much as the overall goals.
The deviations from expected.
Since we must recognize the class of object before
we can possibly be thinking about the significance
of this-or-that deviation from our "norm" for that
class of object we likely also get those important
FIRST IMPRESSIONS
from that "primal" processing algorithm that we
have inherited for recognition. We can bias how
we interpret the Higher Level, but I don't think we
have much control over the rules used for "recognition"
processing.
I recently spent several hours looking at the images of
Pompeii
| |
|
