george koller on wed 11 apr 01
Hello Clayarters,
I recently read "Art and Visual Perception", perhaps the subtitle
described the book better: "A Psychology of the Creative Eye".
In it Rudulf Arnheim marches on logically enough from BALANCE,
to SHAPE, to FORM and then beyond to Growth, Space, Light, Color,
Movement, Dynamics, then finally to Expression. Some pot profiles
actual showed up under Dynamics. But something I related to the
most, something that struck me extremely instructional has not shown
up yet in this discussion - the basic effect of balance (gravity) on our
evaluations of form.
One interesting example the author gave was a test given to children
showing a "rhombus" (a rectangle with one edge horizontal) and a
"diamond" (the same rectangle but aligned with two points in a
vertical line). Kids under about age seven will generally deny that
the shape is the same (!). Clearly early on the same shape in different
positions were related profoundly to the balance/stability of the object
beyond simple shape. I find this fascinating! It reveals something about
our early learning. My thought is that we don't simply "unlearn" this
early distinction, but rather that we "build" over it as we are faced with
more abstract needs to discern. (Perhaps the natural artist tends stays
"in touch" with the earlier learning of this sort?)
Since reading this book, in fact, I keep "discovering" oblique references to
this basic notion in our language such as "topple", "fall", "rise", "top heavy",
"stumble", and so on that clearly relate to the effects of gravity. I guess I
put great weight on this (see?!) because I have convinced myself that
we must "decode" objects before we can recognize them, and somehow
we are getting important artistic impressions already during this basic
"decoding". In other words we can get a "warm and fuzzy" feeling for
a pot at a glance and only THEN proceed to figure out why.
I even suspect that the increased "comfort" that we seem to feel with
basic solid shapes might well do with the ease and certainty which
we can determine the center of gravity of these objects. Somewhere
on that basic human tick list of things we intuitively want to know about
an object is likely to be the balancing point, known in physics as the
center of gravity. As two legged creatures in a four legged world you
can bet that being able to automatically, and accurately determine this
critical point would often have been a matter of survival - this well
before the first art school was founded.
Anyway, I just "didn't get" the conjecturing about sex and form at all,
I don't see where that can come from or go to in the general case.
But this idea that we "decode" objects per some ancient, automatic,
survival tested "tick list", seems to me anyway, to have a logical basis
for explaining where our critical first impressions come from. '
Does anyone know where this has been critically explored?
george koller
sturgeon bay, wi - door county
craig clark on wed 11 apr 01
George, I can't say where a critically explored "tick list" is
to be found, though I'd look in the professional journals of
anthropologists, behaivoral psyhologists, cultural historians and
neurologists. Additionally, check out what the color theorists have to say.
I would, however, like to weigh in on the discussion as a confirmed
Monday
morning quarterback and an interested party in the great debate about why it
is, exactly, that we like, know, or relate to the things that we do. The
basic questions of nurture/nature loom over this discussion.
In direct reference to form it seems a bit axiomatic that there is
infact an
intrinsic relationship between the human animal and the forms that are
natural, the shape of nature. There is a commonsensical element to this line
of thought that is appealing due to the ease with which it can be
superficially argued.
The problem, as is often the case with anything that is
"commonsensical", is
that there really isn't any type of unbiased testing that would lead to an
objectively tested, empirically based (man-o-man.....I'm opening a can of
worms here) theory.
I'm not saying that because of this there is not any relationship. In my
belief structure I think that there is. I believe that the archetypes of
history have a common ground from a singular source. However, this doesn't
mean much
beyond just that, my personal belief structure.
I am continually fascinated by this question! Do you think that there
are
intrinsic qualities in the human animal that give rise to certain forms that
we would describe as being "good", "bad", "beautiful", or "ugly"? If so,
why. How does this relate to mud?
Mel posted, in a wonderfully poetic way, that his master in Japan would
tell
him to look at the old pots to see the form. In this there is the
implication that the "good" in this case is to be found in the masters of
the past. Where did they get it from?
I realize that this question is an academic one, the investigation of
which
doesn't really accomplish anything concrete, and that I'd probably be better
off investigating the development of my own form toward the "good" with my
butt firmly planted at my wheel rather than pecking away at this keyboard.
This still doesn't change anything though. These are questions and thoughts
that help me, not just with mud, but with life in general.
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 St.
Houston, Tx
(713) 861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: george koller
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 7:04 AM
Subject: Form and Balance?
>Hello Clayarters,
>
>I recently read "Art and Visual Perception", perhaps the subtitle
>described the book better: "A Psychology of the Creative Eye".
>In it Rudulf Arnheim marches on logically enough from BALANCE,
>to SHAPE, to FORM and then beyond to Growth, Space, Light, Color,
>Movement, Dynamics, then finally to Expression. Some pot profiles
>actual showed up under Dynamics. But something I related to the
>most, something that struck me extremely instructional has not shown
>up yet in this discussion - the basic effect of balance (gravity) on our
>evaluations of form.
>
>One interesting example the author gave was a test given to children
>showing a "rhombus" (a rectangle with one edge horizontal) and a
>"diamond" (the same rectangle but aligned with two points in a
>vertical line). Kids under about age seven will generally deny that
>the shape is the same (!). Clearly early on the same shape in different
>positions were related profoundly to the balance/stability of the object
>beyond simple shape. I find this fascinating! It reveals something about
>our early learning. My thought is that we don't simply "unlearn" this
>early distinction, but rather that we "build" over it as we are faced with
>more abstract needs to discern. (Perhaps the natural artist tends stays
>"in touch" with the earlier learning of this sort?)
>
>Since reading this book, in fact, I keep "discovering" oblique references
to
>this basic notion in our language such as "topple", "fall", "rise", "top
heavy",
>"stumble", and so on that clearly relate to the effects of gravity. I
guess I
>put great weight on this (see?!) because I have convinced myself that
>we must "decode" objects before we can recognize them, and somehow
>we are getting important artistic impressions already during this basic
>"decoding". In other words we can get a "warm and fuzzy" feeling for
>a pot at a glance and only THEN proceed to figure out why.
>
>I even suspect that the increased "comfort" that we seem to feel with
>basic solid shapes might well do with the ease and certainty which
>we can determine the center of gravity of these objects. Somewhere
>on that basic human tick list of things we intuitively want to know about
>an object is likely to be the balancing point, known in physics as the
>center of gravity. As two legged creatures in a four legged world you
>can bet that being able to automatically, and accurately determine this
>critical point would often have been a matter of survival - this well
>before the first art school was founded.
>
>Anyway, I just "didn't get" the conjecturing about sex and form at all,
>I don't see where that can come from or go to in the general case.
>But this idea that we "decode" objects per some ancient, automatic,
>survival tested "tick list", seems to me anyway, to have a logical basis
>for explaining where our critical first impressions come from. '
>
>Does anyone know where this has been critically explored?
>
>
>george koller
>sturgeon bay, wi - door county
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
| |
|
