search  current discussion  categories  philosophy 

the perfect pot and the human form

updated mon 16 apr 01

 

Bret Hinsch on sat 14 apr 01




Is the perfect pot based on the proportions of the human form?  When I think of the relation between geometric ideals and the human form, I automatically think of that famous drawing by daVinci of a man with outstretched arms inscribed within a circle and square.  DaVinci was trying to show that a human being's proportions are geometrically perfect - the human body's proportions converge with squares and circles.  DaVinci was probably inspired to do this by the writings of the ancient architect Vitruvius, who argued that the ideal architectural shapes are based on the geometric perfection of the human body.  However, I read somewhere that DaVinci's drawing isn't realistic - the average person's body doesn't have these perfect geometric proportions.  It seems that Vitruvius was overstating his case.  Following these ancient theories, Renaissance artists exaggerated human proportions to make them artifici
ally conform to geometric ideals. 


 I know that Greek sculpture was definitely guilty of over-geometricizing the human form.  Sculptors added extra muscles, such as a back muscle similar to the iliac crest [i.e. washboard stomach], that just doesn't exist in real life.   No matter how much an athlete works out, it is impossible to develop these back muscles - they simply don't exist.  But this fake back muscle had an important aesthetic function - it divided the sculpture into distinct and perfect  geometric shapes.  So ancient sculptors also distorted the human body to conform to theories about the geometric perfection of the human form. 


I think that arguments that ideal aesthetic forms are extrapolated from the perfect shape of the human body over-simplify the matter.  The human body isn't based on perfect geometric forms - it's shaped the way it is because this is what happens to work.  Having a body this shape lets us walk, jump, and throw pots.  The human form is simply the result of pragmatism, not sacred geometry. 


Even though we might use these sorts of idealized proportions, like the shape of the human body, as reference points for our potting, we can never view them as hard and fast rules.  The human body isn't as geometrically perfect as we might like to think.


Bret in Taipei  





Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com