Paul Taylor on sat 14 apr 01
Dear Ivor
I would have preferred to give a visual indications but since we are
restricted to writing only I have used the mathematical number for accuracy
sake . I did not give my usual style of explanation- which as you know I try
to be as simple as possible - because the points I am making are too
complicated for simple explanation and the thoughts are speculative enough
without trying to be too broad in my definitions.
I am discussing my thoughts which are not as yet clear in my head hoping
that others would like to discuss these things in a creative way in an
atmosphere of searching as opposed expressing an unwavering point of view .
I have learned that I learn more myself when I have the possibility to be
wrong .
I am discussing the golden mean in its broadest sense not just visual but
compositionally in general -- a bit like the guitar solo always comes aprox
two thirds near the end of the song . A play or film contains a plot and a
sub plot etc.
I was using the language of criticism because I presumed to be talking with
people who have an art education that included some formal definition. I
could not be bothered to wade through the mire of explanation to someone
with out a command of terms used in art criticism.
The geologists give it to me straight so why should I patronize my fellow
artists by not giving my points on esthetics straight .
I am proposing the golden mean as one of the major tools for understanding a
form . My ideas were; that the golden mean also exists on an abstract level
as well as a visual level and the intellectual relationship with the visual
was also subject to the abstract understanding of the mean .
So I am proposing the golden mean as both linear and figurative. I know the
relationship between the two are impossible to measure scientifically but I
feel that culturally we do measure the two together - concept and form - in
our minds. And it's the differences in fashion, culture, age, understanding
and acceptance that individualizes our personal measurements which add to
the fun.
What further interests me is "How long after the revolution do we appreciate
the past? Are there fundamental understandings or is one mans parthenon
always an others marble quarry".
-- Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Those that live by rhetoric will lie by it
..
From: "iandol"
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:51:12 +0930
To: "ACS"
Cc: ,
Subject: Golden Mean. Just one small element for....
Dear Paul and Matt,
I am wondering when either of you drew a "Golden Mean" either as a linear
element or as a figure. It seems to me that you are both regarding it as an
esoteric abstraction which is constructed in the imagination of a critic
rather than as a real tool to be used by any artist. We do, and have done
since the Human Race evolved to the form it now is, carry the measure of the
Golden Mean with us everywhere. The numerical value which has been given is
inexact. Phi is said to be half of one plus the square root of five. It is
something I keep at my fingertips.
Best regards,
Ivor.
Paul Taylor on sat 14 apr 01
Dear Peter
The original Proposition was what made good or bad form.
I mentioned that the golden mean (section) was one of the considerations
when judging form.
My most important point was that the golden mean may exist on an abstract
philosophical level as well as a pictorial level.
So although a form may not obey the rules of the golden section the
strength of the creative concept t- be it image ,functional , political,
interpretation , message, or what ever, might bring the form into a balance
that is expressed better by the golden mean than symmetry. So I am saying
for criticism and not for creativity that the understanding of the golden
section could be used in a conceptual level and at the same time the visual
level. Thus expanding its use as a compositional tool for explaining and
judging what is going on in a piece - form.
A practical example: if one is making a strong image on a pot one might
balance the form of the pot not in relation to its self but to the image so
a form that does not look right because it digresses from the mean may be
right given the context of the image. So the golden mean is still true but
since the essence of the piece is conceptual. The strength of the concept
must be included in the measurements. So one can give an indication to the
student in what way he could make changes and tell him why !! So far no one
has disagreed so I shall take it that I am right.
Every body knows that the mathematical explanation is not a lot of use for
creativity but when I am teaching a statement like "that does not look
right to me" sounds inadequate - to me personally . To earn my money I would
like to explain why. Just out of interest I would like to know why - with
out a load of inverted intellectual snobs reminding me of the obvious- that
it does not play a part in the creative process.
I am sorry that building intellectual models makes some people nervous and
feel that he magic has been removed. Determinism is a difficult model for us
liberals to come to terms with.
Take heart caeouse (spell???) theory has its roots in determinism - so
do not panic - machines are not creating yet.
-- Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Those that live by rhetoric will lie by it
> From: "Peter T. Wang"
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:21:32 -0700
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Golden Mean. Just one small element for....
>
> Do we need
> mathematics to quanitfy these things? Not really. All we have to do is
> look at something beautiful to understand it; everything else, math
> included, only clouds the picture.
| |
|
