iandol on mon 9 apr 01
I think the arguments about "good" and "bad" form are irrelevant. For =
the most part evidence which has been put forward is subjective. =
Furthermore, and those who wish may castigate me for playing semantics, =
without defining your terms of reference opinions put forward so far =
seem to skirt around the basic point. So what are we supposed to be =
discussing? Because if we cannot answer that question can we ever =
evaluate our works.
So, following on from my essay about Audacious Aesthetics versus =
Functional Efficiency (CM Comments) where I discussed the unity of Art, =
Design, Craft, Evaluation and Judgement as a holistic cyclic process =
here is my stab at saying what "Form" is.
Given that the visual appearance of every three dimensional and two =
dimensional object can vary depending on the viewpoint of each =
spectator, then each object is experienced as visual and tactile =
sensations which give us a subjective appreciation of the intention of =
the maker.
When analysed, Form is the sum total of the conceptual, structural and =
visual elements and their relationships. Form is responsible for the =
visual appearance of every object. With a three dimensional object, form =
is often appreciated through the shape of the apparent contour or visual =
edge which separates the object from its surroundings or background.
As a general example to illustrate this point, I see six sides of a =
hexagon but can feel and count twelve edges. Is the hexagon a shape or a =
form in this instance?
Best regards to those who are contributing to this discussion.
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia=20
| |
|
