“Seeing is the perception of action”

“Seeing is the perception of action”

When we see a dark disk placed within a white square we do not see the disk and square separately, we see a whole object. We see objects immediately as having a certain size like smaller or larger than a bread box, and we see them in a location among other objects. “No object is perceived as unique or isolated.”

We see various qualities of an object as properties of a total visual field, and these properties are not static, “there is something restless about it”. “Visual experience is dynamic.”

The tensions we perceive in a visual field “are as inherent in any percept as size, shape, location, or color. Because they have magnitude and direction, these tensions can be described as psychological “forces”.

There are more things perceived within a visual field than those that strike the retina of the eye. Such things are called perceptual inductions. Occasionally these perceptual inductions result from previous experiences. “More typically, however, they are completions deriving spontaneously during perception from the given configuration of the pattern…For any special relations between objects there is a “correct” distance, established by the eye intuitively.”

The viewer perceives an “unpleasant” effect when the objects within the field seem to be ambiguous or to pull too strenuously on one another. “In ambiguous situations the visual pattern ceases to determine what is seen, and subjective factors in the observer…come into play.”

Just as living creatures cannot be adequately described only in terms of inches of distance and size, or angles of perception, so also these static measurements are insufficient for describing the meaning and expression of life forces.

Quotes from Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye by Rudolf Arnheim

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But what, in art, is really unplesant. Accoding to the article this abstract painting shouldn't be appealing and would be seen as "unpleasent" according to the article but to millions it is beautiful!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fine. But what do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I enjoy the picture myself!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think patterns, as a general rule, are pleasing enough to turn ugly into beautiful.

 

I think that the best way to learn is by studying the works of great thinkers such as Arnheim.

 

I agree, fractals can be beautiful. The question is why do we consider such works to be beautiful. I suspect that if we study such great thinkers as Arnheim we might develop an understanding of such questions.

 

I think the best way is to see something yourself and if you like it then that's just fine, why bother what other people think about an art object?Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So what have you learned from Arnheim?

 

perhaps the keyword lacking in the mumbo jumboish tp is "symmetry"
that is probably what Search & Destroy's "patterns" intend to reference
a preference for certain colors and hues could also be physiologically based

since tho we are a work in progress, none of this shit is set in stone
for instance....


Mod Note.. Image removed due to insulting nature of content.

consider that!
a work of art, ja?