Measurable Qualities in Art
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Associating a shape or color with a mood is about as subjective as you
> can get. Is there *nothing* you don't think can be detemrined
> objectively?
I believe for every effect, there is a cause.
> It is true that in the cases where people are included in a painting,
> facial expressions and body language represent mood in a relatively
> objective way, within a given culture. But what of the vast number of
> paintings that do not include people?
Colors, line movement, shapes, textures,... they all have associated moods.
> > By "interesting," I mean: Could the background stand as an independent
> > piece of art? A blank background certainly could not. These things can
> be
> > measured.
>
> How? Do you honestly believe that any two people would agree on which
> backgrounds are interesting and which are not?
There is nothing interesting about a blank piece of paper. And of course two
people may agree on something.
> > > What you find in balance, someone else might
> > > not. What you find harmonious, someone else might not. And so on.
> >
> > Finding balance is a simple matter of counting. Rhythm can be found by
> > counting. Harmony can be found by counting shared hues.
>
> Those give you numbers, but who said those provide the definition of
> balance, rhythm, or harmony?
Composition, or, Design 101
> What numbers constitute good balance, good
> rhythm, or good harmony?
Equal amounts.
> Certainly no dictionary in the world has ever
> provided an answer; what makes you think you can?
Composition, or, Design 101
> > *Many* of these qualities can be successfully applied to non-realistic
> > art.
>
> Sure, you *can* apply them, but doing so to art that is admittedlty not
> realistic is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing.
That's interesting. That's exactly what Cezanne did.
> If it is
> representational but not particularly realistic, it is usually going to
> be because it has violated some of those principles. I would readuly
> agree that realism can be measured fairly objectively (but by no means
> completely so). But if realism = quality, I am not interested in
> quality. Only beauty.
I don't think I've ever said realism = quality.
> > Dominant color lends to the picture's harmony.
>
> It can. if you have happen to respond to it in that particular way. Not
> everyone does.
Color harmony is a fact, not a feeling.
> > Harmony is very important,
> > and the lack of it is one reason why Cezanne's Olympia is horrible.
>
> And the fact that many find it beautiful is more evidence that this
> stuff is *not* objective.
But it is not beautiful. A bit, later, I'll define beauty. (Lol)
> > Non-realistic paintings can most certainly contain depth.
>
> They can, but must they? Why? Because *you* prefer it that way?
Composition, or, Design 101
> --------------
> Marc Sabatella
> ma...@outsideshore.com
>
> The Outside Shore
> Music, art, & educational materials:
> http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>
>
>
>
Marc Sabatella
> > Associating a shape or color with a mood is about as subjective as
you
> > can get. Is there *nothing* you don't think can be detemrined
> > objectively?
>
> I believe for every effect, there is a cause.
This has nothing to do with subjectivity and objectivity, though.
> > It is true that in the cases where people are included in a
painting,
> > facial expressions and body language represent mood in a relatively
> > objective way, within a given culture. But what of the vast number
of
> > paintings that do not include people?
>
> Colors, line movement, shapes, textures,... they all have associated
moods.
You mean, *you* associate certain moods with certain colors or shapes or
lines or textures. Others may do so differenly. This is precisely what
it means for something to be subjective.
> > How? Do you honestly believe that any two people would agree on
which
> > backgrounds are interesting and which are not?
>
> There is nothing interesting about a blank piece of paper.
I suspect a large numnber would agree with this (although probably not
everyone), but this is but the most extreme case. How about for a
non-blank background - what kind of correlation do you expect you'd get
if you asked a group of people to rate it for interest?
> And of course two
> people may agree on something.
Of course they may sometimes agree. But if you honestly beleive that as
a rule, two randomly chosen people will agree to any significant extent
on something like this, I cxan only surmise that you have never met any
actual people. A few seconds experience with humans would convince
anyone otherwise.
> > Those give you numbers, but who said those provide the definition of
> > balance, rhythm, or harmony?
>
> Composition, or, Design 101
That isn't a definition. It's a name similar to that of a college
course that teaches some principles that, when followed, are likely to
*produce* balance, rhythm, and harmony in the eyes of a certain set of
observers. But if you've got an actual definiton in terms of any of
those numbers, you have yet to demonstrate it. And given that people
disagree on their perceptions of these things, any definition you
proposed would be worthless. You can define balance any way you want, I
suppose - although you'd be in contradiction with how dictinary defines
the term. You can't make anyone actually *perceive* balance - what
everyone else in the world means by this, and what the dictionary says
about it - in terms of these numbers. The dictionary defines balance in
art in terms of what is "pleasing" - a completely subjective quality.
> > What numbers constitute good balance, good
> > rhythm, or good harmony?
>
> Equal amounts.
Equal amounts of what?
> > > *Many* of these qualities can be successfully applied to
non-realistic
> > > art.
> >
> > Sure, you *can* apply them, but doing so to art that is admittedlty
not
> > realistic is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing.
>
> That's interesting. That's exactly what Cezanne did.
You mean, he create art that is not realistic, and trying to apply
measures of realism produces a poor rating, despite the fact that many
people find his work exquisitely beautiful. Absolute proof that these
measure are *not* measuring anything remotely like beauty.
> I don't think I've ever said realism = quality.
No. You have merely suggested measures of quality that are heavily
biased in favor of realistic works.
> > > Dominant color lends to the picture's harmony.
> >
> > It can. if you have happen to respond to it in that particular way.
Not
> > everyone does.
>
> Color harmony is a fact, not a feeling.
Not to me, and not to how the dictionary defines harmony. My dictinary
speaks of "pleasing" arrangements - a feeling. Subjective.
> > > Harmony is very important,
> > > and the lack of it is one reason why Cezanne's Olympia is
horrible.
> >
> > And the fact that many find it beautiful is more evidence that this
> > stuff is *not* objective.
>
> But it is not beautiful.
To you. To me, and to many others, it is.
> > > Non-realistic paintings can most certainly contain depth.
> >
> > They can, but must they? Why? Because *you* prefer it that way?
>
> Composition, or, Design 101
This is again not an answer. S particular college course may intruct
regarding how to achive depth, and why in some cases some people mght
find it important to do so, but this does not mean it must be so, and I
don't think anyone who teaches such a course would be follish enough to
claim otherwise.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> > I believe for every effect, there is a cause.
>
> This has nothing to do with subjectivity and objectivity, though.
Objectivity is judgment based on observable phenomena (read, reasons)
uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. If there is an effect
(objective), there is a cause (objective). There is nothing subjective
about a cause having an effect.
> > Colors, line movement, shapes, textures,... they all have associated
> moods.
>
> You mean, *you* associate certain moods with certain colors or shapes or
> lines or textures. Others may do so differenly. This is precisely what
> it means for something to be subjective.
I haven't invented these associations - they are the result of
psychological studies. Not only that, they are described in almost every
book on art available. The fact that someone may respond differently does
not discard the fact that an art element *has* an association. This is an
observable (objective) effect from an observable (objective) cause.
Should a "line" elicit different emotions from a group of people, so be
it. The (new) emotions are appended to a (previous) list and associated
with the qualities of that line.
What's the problem?
> > There is nothing interesting about a blank piece of paper.
>
> I suspect a large numnber would agree with this (although probably not
> everyone), but this is but the most extreme case. How about for a
> non-blank background - what kind of correlation do you expect you'd get
> if you asked a group of people to rate it for interest?
None, esp. if you're stuck in a group of people who insist on arguing
that a blank background, or a red or blue or polk-a-dot background is as
interesting a painting's foreground matter.
> > And of course two
> > people may agree on something.
>
> Of course they may sometimes agree. But if you honestly beleive that as
> a rule, two randomly chosen people will agree to any significant extent
> on something like this, I cxan only surmise that you have never met any
> actual people. A few seconds experience with humans would convince
> anyone otherwise.
Ridiculous. What oh what will we do with all those books written on the
matter?
> > > Those give you numbers, but who said those provide the definition of
> > > balance, rhythm, or harmony?
> >
> > Composition, or, Design 101
>
> That isn't a definition.
I assumed you were asking where I got the information. Composition, or,
Design 101 is where I got it. That's my answer.
> It's a name similar to that of a college
> course that teaches some principles that, when followed, are likely to
> *produce* balance, rhythm, and harmony in the eyes of a certain set of
> observers.
And???
> But if you've got an actual definiton in terms of any of
> those numbers, you have yet to demonstrate it.
What *value* do you give *equal*? It's common sense! If I have two
objects on one size of a picture, I should have 2 on the other side! Or 1
big one! Or 3 - .66666 smaller ones! Or 4 itty bitty ones!
This is just ONE of the things you learn from the study of design. How
could anyone offer a legitimate arguement against that?!
(This is just getting dumb.)
> And given that people
> disagree on their perceptions of these things, any definition you
> proposed would be worthless.
No, given that people want to argue for arguements sake is worthless.
> You can define balance any way you want, I
> suppose - although you'd be in contradiction with how dictinary defines
> the term.
Oh really!
> You can't make anyone actually *perceive* balance - what
> everyone else in the world means by this, and what the dictionary says
> about it - in terms of these numbers. The dictionary defines balance in
> art in terms of what is "pleasing" - a completely subjective quality.
Get a new dictionary.
> > > What numbers constitute good balance, good
> > > rhythm, or good harmony?
> >
> > Equal amounts.
>
> Equal amounts of what?
ELEMENTS DAMMIT
> > > > *Many* of these qualities can be successfully applied to
> non-realistic
> > > > art.
> > >
> > > Sure, you *can* apply them, but doing so to art that is admittedlty
> not
> > > realistic is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing.
> >
> > That's interesting. That's exactly what Cezanne did.
>
> You mean, he create art that is not realistic, and trying to apply
> measures of realism produces a poor rating, despite the fact that many
> people find his work exquisitely beautiful.
That's EXACTLY what you said. Your words, not mine. There is nothing
exquisite about Cezanne's art - It doesn't even contain the basics. It is
not a masterpiece and is not suitable for viewing by aspiring artists
(except maybe as a horror show).
> Absolute proof that these
> measure are *not* measuring anything remotely like beauty.
So why did you write, "doing so to art that is admittedlty not realistic
is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing." What standards
(measurements) do YOU use to justify that statement???
> > I don't think I've ever said realism = quality.
>
> No. You have merely suggested measures of quality that are heavily
> biased in favor of realistic works.
When? Where?
> > Color harmony is a fact, not a feeling.
>
> Not to me, and not to how the dictionary defines harmony. My dictinary
> speaks of "pleasing" arrangements - a feeling. Subjective.
Harmony is based on math.
> > > > Harmony is very important,
> > > > and the lack of it is one reason why Cezanne's Olympia is
> horrible.
> > >
> > > And the fact that many find it beautiful is more evidence that this
> > > stuff is *not* objective.
> >
> > But it is not beautiful.
>
> To you. To me, and to many others, it is.
It doesn't match the definition of beauty.
> > > > Non-realistic paintings can most certainly contain depth.
> > >
> > > They can, but must they? Why? Because *you* prefer it that way?
> >
> > Composition, or, Design 101
>
> This is again not an answer. S particular college course may intruct
> regarding how to achive depth, and why in some cases some people mght
> find it important to do so, but this does not mean it must be so, and I
> don't think anyone who teaches such a course would be follish enough to
> claim otherwise.
Where did you learn that you could pick and choose any ol' "subjective"
part of an engine to build a car? Do you actually think it will run based
on "feelings?"
I'm stopping this conversation on my end, but I promise I'll pick it up
again when I'm inclined to express my subjective feelings about the
composition of fecal matter.
Marc Sabatella
> > > I believe for every effect, there is a cause.
> >
> > This has nothing to do with subjectivity and objectivity, though.
>
> Objectivity is judgment based on observable phenomena (read, reasons)
> uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. If there is an effect
> (objective), there is a cause (objective). There is nothing subjective
> about a cause having an effect.
Some cause and effect relationships are objective, others are
subjective. I eat mushroom (cause), I grimace in disgust (effect).
Whether or not you can point to an underlying biochemical reason for
this is irrelevant - I don't like mushrooms, other people do. And the
same is going to be true of anything having to do with pleasure - and
that includes, by definition, anything having to do with aesthetics.
You can redefine the terms all you want to have objective measures, but
these are *not* the definitions in use by the rest of the world. I am
more interested in using words the way they are supposed to used.
> > You mean, *you* associate certain moods with certain colors or
shapes or
> > lines or textures. Others may do so differenly. This is precisely
what
> > it means for something to be subjective.
>
> I haven't invented these associations - they are the result of
> psychological studies.
They aren't the *result* of studies. There may be studies that have
measured a correlation, but the studies didn't cause the correlation.
And you can bet the correlation is not 100%. If it were, we'd all agree
on Cezanne. This is so obvious, I don't see how you can possibly deny
it.
> Not only that, they are described in almost every
> book on art available.
Described indeed - but I've read dozens of such books, and none make the
mistake of pretending there is anything the least but objective about
any of this.
> The fact that someone may respond differently does
> not discard the fact that an art element *has* an association.
Of course it does. What does it mean for an element to have an
association if that association exists only in some minds but not
others?
> Should a "line" elicit different emotions from a group of people, so
be
> it. The (new) emotions are appended to a (previous) list and
associated
> with the qualities of that line.
>
> What's the problem?
No problem at all. Yopu;ve described subjectivity well - different
people may react to the same stimuli in different ways.
> None, esp. if you're stuck in a group of people who insist on arguing
> that a blank background, or a red or blue or polk-a-dot background is
as
> interesting a painting's foreground matter.
Precisely. Different people, different tastes.
> > But if you honestly beleive that as
> > a rule, two randomly chosen people will agree to any significant
extent
> > on something like this, I cxan only surmise that you have never met
any
> > actual people. A few seconds experience with humans would convince
> > anyone otherwise.
>
> Ridiculous. What oh what will we do with all those books written on
the
> matter?
Read and understand them. You will find none pretend there is anything
objective about any of this.
> I assumed you were asking where I got the information. Composition,
or,
> Design 101 is where I got it. That's my answer.
What college did you take this course in, what was the textbook, and who
was the instructor? I will bet if I check the sources, I will find you
learned nothing of the sort there.
> > It's a name similar to that of a college
> > course that teaches some principles that, when followed, are likely
to
> > *produce* balance, rhythm, and harmony in the eyes of a certain set
of
> > observers.
>
> And???
And nothing. I've just described subjectivity.
> What *value* do you give *equal*? It's common sense! If I have two
> objects on one size of a picture, I should have 2 on the other side!
Or 1
> big one! Or 3 - .66666 smaller ones! Or 4 itty bitty ones!
Is this balance, rhythm, or harmony? You said all were definable using
numbers.
So, you count "objects"? How do decide which objects to count? In a
landscape, do you apply it to trees - same total mass of trees on both
sides? How about mountains? Grass? Or just the things that interest
you?
> This is just ONE of the things you learn from the study of design. How
> could anyone offer a legitimate arguement against that?!
Because choosing the objectis to count is a subjective matter, as is
deciding when one large object is enough to balance two smaller ones, or
whether or not it is far enough to the right to balance what is on the
left, or if the painting benefits from the amount of imbalance
perceived. *This* is what one learns from any legitimate book on
design.
> > You can define balance any way you want, I
> > suppose - although you'd be in contradiction with how dictinary
defines
> > the term.
>
> Oh really!
Yes. At least, Webster's New World Dictionary, which is the one I have
handy. It defines balance in art not in terms of any actual numbers of
anything, but like this: "the pleasing harmony of various elements in a
design, painting, musical composition, etc; harmonious proportion". Not
the prominence and significance of the word *pleasing* - you can't get
any more subjective than that.
> Get a new dictionary.
OK, recommend one that provides an objective definition of balance in
art.
> > > > What numbers constitute good balance, good
> > > > rhythm, or good harmony?
> > >
> > > Equal amounts.
> >
> > Equal amounts of what?
>
> ELEMENTS DAMMIT
So those three terms are defined in exactly the same way - equal amounts
of elements on both sides of a painting? Or is there more to it than
that?
> > > > Sure, you *can* apply them, but doing so to art that is
admittedlty
> > not
> > > > realistic is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing.
> > >
> > > That's interesting. That's exactly what Cezanne did.
> >
> > You mean, he create art that is not realistic, and trying to apply
> > measures of realism produces a poor rating, despite the fact that
many
> > people find his work exquisitely beautiful.
>
> That's EXACTLY what you said. Your words, not mine.
When I said the principles could be applied, I didn't mean during the
process of painting. I meant, during the process of analysis of the
painting. Cezanne may or may not have tried to analyze his paintings
this way; I certainly never claimed he was.
> There is nothing
> exquisite about Cezanne's art
To you. Not to others. That, once again, is why this is subjective.
> > Absolute proof that these
> > measure are *not* measuring anything remotely like beauty.
>
> So why did you write, "doing so to art that is admittedlty not
realistic
> is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing." What standards
> (measurements) do YOU use to justify that statement???
I mean, if you insist on rating non-realistic art according to measures
that value realism, you are likely to conclude the work is poor. You
have demonstrated that quite nicely.
> > No. You have merely suggested measures of quality that are heavily
> > biased in favor of realistic works.
>
> When? Where?
Your list of allegedly measurable qualities, hardly any of which are
actually measurable in any real objective sense, and the majority of
which not only make sense only with respect to representation art, but
are designed to produce a higher rating to representational art that in
fact is especially realistic.
> > Not to me, and not to how the dictionary defines harmony. My
dictinary
> > speaks of "pleasing" arrangements - a feeling. Subjective.
>
> Harmony is based on math.
Not to me it isn't, not to Webster.
> It doesn't match the definition of beauty.
Webster: "the quality attributed to whatever pleases the senses or mind,
as by line, color, form, texture, proprotyion, rhythmic motion, tone,
etc.". Cezanne pleases my senses and mind. Not yours - yes, you've
made that clear. And that, once again, is precisely how anyone can see
there is no possible objective measure of beauty.
> Where did you learn that you could pick and choose any ol'
"subjective"
> part of an engine to build a car? Do you actually think it will run
based
> on "feelings?"
Who said anything about cars? I am talking about aesthetics.
Lauri Levanto
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> >
> > Colors, line movement, shapes, textures,... they all have associated
> moods.
>
> You mean, *you* associate certain moods with certain colors or shapes or
> lines or textures. Others may do so differenly. This is precisely what
> it means for something to be subjective.
Don't forget that some theorists assign certain mood the certain colors.
These are not subjective, then, as they are part of learning.
To graduate, one must believe in them.
The validity of these claims remains subjective.
-lauri
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3EFFD074...@netti.fi...
>
>
> Don't forget that some theorists assign certain mood the certain colors.
> These are not subjective, then, as they are part of learning.
> To graduate, one must believe in them.
> The validity of these claims remains subjective.
>
colour, suggestive of violence and blood. To the Chinese, it is the colour
of good luck. That is a very well known example, but other culturally
determined, or environmentally determined, reactions to the moods of colours
are known.
Physiologically, green appears to be the most restful of colours (hence the
theatrical 'green room'), but a particular shade of green might be
unpleasant if it reminded somebody of the colours in an orphanage in which
they were brought up. James Joyce coined the lovely expression, 'the
snotgreen sea, the scrotum tightening sea', something that an inhabitant of
a warm pacific island would have some difficulty responding to
sympathetically.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Erik A. Mattila
James Joyce coined the lovely expression, 'the
> snotgreen sea, the scrotum tightening sea', something that an inhabitant of
> a warm pacific island would have some difficulty responding to
> sympathetically.
I was just trying to imagine how the research team would measure the
responses as they investigating whether of not that was a universal
effect of green.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F0077D8...@oco.net...
a bore only to consider the obvious ones!
It would naturally have to be an all male research team as well, which might
cause other questions relating to their objectivity.
Marc Sabatella
> Not completely subjective. To the Western eye, red is an agressive,
angry
> colour, suggestive of violence and blood. To the Chinese, it is the
colour
> of good luck. That is a very well known example, but other culturally
> determined, or environmentally determined, reactions to the moods of
colours
> are known.
But even this is a gross oversimplification. Is *every* use of red in
Western art meant to convey anger or aggression? Or does it depend on
how the color is used - and how the viewer perceives it?
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:Tq%La.33$bj7....@news.uswest.net...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Not completely subjective. To the Western eye, red is an agressive,
> angry
> > colour, suggestive of violence and blood. To the Chinese, it is the
> colour
> > of good luck. That is a very well known example, but other culturally
> > determined, or environmentally determined, reactions to the moods of
> colours
> > are known.
>
> But even this is a gross oversimplification. Is *every* use of red in
> Western art meant to convey anger or aggression? Or does it depend on
> how the color is used - and how the viewer perceives it?
>
poison pen letters.
--
The decades-long debate over the consistency of personality and the
existense of character traits has now been settled. - Race, Evolution and
Behavour p22 J. Phillippe Rushton 1995
Seagull Manager
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:bdoohd$lps$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
> news:3EFFD074...@netti.fi...
> >
> >
> > Don't forget that some theorists assign certain mood the certain colors.
> > These are not subjective, then, as they are part of learning.
> > To graduate, one must believe in them.
> > The validity of these claims remains subjective.
Not so much subjective, as open to doubt.
> Not completely subjective. To the Western eye, red is an agressive, angry
> colour, suggestive of violence and blood.
I don't think most people think of red this way most of the time, even if
they were taught this association in school. With the exception that "blue
is for boys, pink is for girls", I don't think there's any rigid colour
symbolism that holds sway in the West at all. Instead I notice shifting
patterns of association, which are very context-dependent.
> To the Chinese, it is the colour
> of good luck.
One can always think of examples when the sight of red will not suggest good
luck ("Aargh, I'm bleeding!").
I think that whatever conventional symbolic meanings may attach to
particular colours in particular cultures, the actual meaning of a
particular sighting of a colour is going to depend on the context.
In art, that context matters a lot. A field of colour on its own is not a
work of art (despite what some abstractionists might claim), but rather
paintings will comprise colours in shapes against other colours in other
shapes, patterns and lines, and the relationships between these, and perhaps
what they depict, are what will determine the aesthetic response to the
work.
> Physiologically, green appears to be the most restful of colours (hence
the
> theatrical 'green room'), but a particular shade of green might be
> unpleasant if it reminded somebody of the colours in an orphanage in which
> they were brought up.
Leaving aside associations, most people wouldn't find a room with bright
lime green walls particularly restful. Brightness and saturation matter more
than hue.
> James Joyce coined the lovely expression, 'the
> snotgreen sea, the scrotum tightening sea', something that an inhabitant
of
> a warm pacific island would have some difficulty responding to
> sympathetically.
...unless the person had actually seen the sort of sea Joyce was talking
about (or a picture of it), in which case, they could understand implicitly,
as the description is very apt. (And, in any case, the question of whether
someone's experience allows them to make sense of the description really has
nothing to do with colour symbolism.)