|
DAVID CORWIN watercolors past paintings notes on composition bio/reviews contact |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pictorial balance, a bottom-up neuro-aesthetic property mediating attention and eye movements, explains the feeling of unity and harmony in pictures. A primitive visual operating system determines balance and shows how the world was first visually organized using luminance and movemenAbstract .Pictorial
balance is used to explain why some paintings evoke the aesthetic feelings of
unity and harmony. The original concept of balance as a center of mass
effect, i.e. the feeling that somehow a person on the left seems to be
balanced by a tree on the right, originated at the beginning of the
20th century. Here, the study of balance starts with an elusive and
unnamed pictorial effect documented by painters since the 17th century
that evokes feelings of harmony and unity. In such pictures the image seems
to be perceived as a whole without the need to fixate on individually
depicted objects. It was thought that this indicated that the picture was in
a state of perfect balance. Computer modeling found that such a picture had
bilateral luminance symmetry with a slightly lighter lower half, and that
with respect to balance the eye could not distinguish the picture from its
white frame. An algorithm is proposed to calculate balance that could also be
conceived as a primitive visual operating system using only luminance to identify
and follow moving organisms. A study
was done in which observers viewed pairs of identical pictures in different
frames that alter their balance and were asked to say if they appeared
different. It was found that the extent to which a picture pair was seen as
different is inversely correlated with its average balance as determined by
the algorithm. The results are consistent with pictures being seen on a low
level as living organisms. The degree of balance determines if the organism
is approaching and whether careful attention should be devoted to successive
images. It is proposed that the luminance information used to determine
balance originates in peripheral vision and follows the retino-tectopulvinar
pathway. This is in competition for attention with information from central foveal vision and suppresses other peripheral information
from the magnocellular stream. In an unbalance picture the lack of peripheral
information inhibits saccadic movement giving rise to the 20th century
force-field theory of balance. Seeing a balanced picture as a whole in
peripheral vision rivets the attention which is the neuro-aesthetic
effect. Introduction Pictures
are flat, bounded images that correspond to nothing found in nature or mental
imagery, including the borderless images in prehistoric caves.1
They are a very recent invention requiring the technology to create flat
surfaces dating from perhaps the fourth millennium BC, and differ from images
without borders. Borders evoke the percept of balance: the parts relate to
both the center and the border.2 Balance is both a bottom-up percept and a
top-down aesthetic concept taught in schools. This paper is concerned with
the bottom-up aesthetic perception – the pre-emotional, pre-cognitive pathway
from the retina to the primary visual cortex as Molnar postulated 3.
‘ It has
been an article of faith that balance is calculated like a center of gravity,
a natural phenomenon, such that it could be written that “for centuries
artists and writers on Western art have asserted that balance is the primary
design principle for unifying structural elements of a composition into a
cohesive narrative statement.” A picture has been considered balanced “if all
its elements are arranged in such a way that their perceptual forces are in
equilibrium about a fulcrum and if the fulcrum coincides with the center of
the picture.”4 Objects, size, color, tone, brightness, contrast,
intrinsic interest, position, and apparent depth have been proposed as
contributing to balance evoking the aesthetic qualities of unity and harmony
if they are balanced around the geometric center as calculated by a
center-of-mass type of equation as if a picture evokes a force field.2,4-6 Rather than being a timeless observation, it
is an early 20th-century concept promoted initially by Henry
Rankin Poore, a painter. However, he was most
likely trying to explain the effect of low-level balance that I discuss in
this paper in that he wrote: “The whole of the pictorial interest may be on one side
of a picture and the other side be practically
useless as far as picturesqueness (sic) or
story-telling opportunity is concerned, but which finds its reason for
existing in the balance, and
that alone.” Nothing in this “useless”
side has the pictorial qualities described above, but for him they create in
a particular picture a feeling that he ascribes to being balanced.5
Several studies have attempted unsuccessfully to confirm this concept.7-9
Moreover, both Hubert Locher and Thomas Puttfarken give comprehensive historical discussions of
European theories of pictorial aesthetics and composition between the 14th
and the late 19th century in which balance is not mentioned.10,11
This judgment of balance is inherently a modern idea taught in schools. A
Google Ngram search for “pictorial balance” gives a
good idea of this. Including only books scanned by Google, it exemplifies the
above (see Figure 1). A theoretical explanation of how physiological
interactions of visual data streams competing for attention can create the
illusion of a force field in pictures is described in this paper. Figure 1. The frequency per
year that “pictorial balance” was mentioned in books as scanned by Google
Although
balance has been thought to direct the eye, it is salience that strongly
influences eye movements. The initial sequence of saccades on first viewing a
picture can be predicted and correlated with eye tracking through
calculations based on the most salient features of surrounding areas 12-14. For many years there
have been studies that tried to show the more subtle effect of balance on eye
movements. Langford could find no
difference in movements between pictures identified as either balanced or
unbalanced.15 Locher and Nodine, comparing pictures thought to be balanced with
variations of these pictures that were presumed less well balanced, found
that trained observers had more diverse and fewer specific exploratory
movements in the more balanced compositions than untrained observers.16,17
On the other hand, in his extensive study of eye tracking, Buswell could find no difference between the two groups.
The duration of fixations and the length of saccades are usually discussed in
top-down cognitive terms of subject comprehension or artistic judgment
unrelated to balance.18 As will be discussed the effect of
balance is subtle and global in nature affecting the ease of movement within
the picture.19 While
this hypothesis of balance has been an intellectual interpretation, the
feeling of some sort of balance of visual forces requires an
explanation. To understand and measure
low level balance, one must start with a picture that exhibits the sensation
of perfect balance. Balance has been used to explain feelings of pictorial
unity and harmony, and there is an obscure effect observed by painters that
does just that. There is no name or metaphorical description for the percept
evoked by these pictures other than to say that they exhibit the aforementioned
unnamed effect. It is usually only discussed in art schools when standing
before such a picture and then in rather vague terms. The unexpected change
in a painting from being remarkably luminous and unified to something less so
or the reverse is quite striking. There is the feeling that the whole picture
can be seen at one time and that the gaze moves smoothly and seemingly
effortlessly without the apparent need to fixate on any pictorial element. A
qualitative difference exists between perfect balance where the gaze is
looking at the picture as an object and an unbalanced painting where we are
looking in the picture at the depicted forms. Because there has been no name for this effect, historical
discussion has been limited. Roger de Piles, an early 18th century
French critic and painter first described an
arrangement of “lights and darks” creating an effect that is
spontaneous and intense, riveting the attention and giving the impression
that the viewer could gaze at the entire painting without focusing on any
particular form. He thought this was the primary aesthetic effect of a
painting 11. Similarly, Eugene Delacroix in the 19th century
wrote that "there is a kind of emotion which is entirely particular to
painting: nothing [in a work of literature] gives an idea of it. There is an
impression which results from the arrangement of colours,
of lights, of shadows, etc. This is what one might call the music of the
picture...you find yourself at too great a distance from it to know what it
represents; and you are often caught by this magic accord 11,20.” Wassily Kandinsky
in the 20th century describes an similar
experience: “It was the hour of approaching dusk. As I was returning home …
when suddenly I saw an indescribably beautiful picture, imbibed by an inner
glow. First I hesitated, then I quickly approached
this mysterious picture, on which I saw nothing but shapes and colors, and
the contents of which I could not understand. I immediately found the key to
the puzzle: it was a picture painted by me, leaning against the wall,
standing on its side. The next day, when there was daylight, I tried to get
yesterday's impression of the painting. However, I only succeeded half-ways:
even on its side, I constantly recognized the objects and the fine finish of
dusk was lacking 21 p.68.”A contemporary description
is provided by Brock: "some of [the photographers'] best work seemed to
radiate a combined sense of balance, order, harmony and energy. The viewer's
eye seems to be held in the image in an almost hypnotic way, dancing around
the picture." 22 To study this effect, I created computer models that evoke
it using experience from many years of painting. Image analysis indicated
that it was perceived when a picture, centered at eye level and parallel to
the plane of vision, has bilateral quadrant luminance symmetry with the lower
half being slightly more luminous by a factor of 1.07 ± ~0.03. With respect
to balance it was discovered by accident that the visual system cannot
distinguish a picture from its white frame. I was printing black and white pictures that
exhibited the effect on white paper. Due to the relative size of the picture
and the paper the effect would appear whether framed or unframed unless there
was error of alignment, and one time this happened. I derived from this that with respect to
balance, pictures are defined only by luminosity and not borders. For
example, this is not true for an LED picture framed in black on a white
ground where black marks the end of the picture. With respect to balance this
is consistent with Arnheim’s postulate that objects
in the upper part of a picture had more weight (p.30) and Niekamp who
found that the upper half of a picture was seen as darker (heavier).2,23 There is a theoretical formula for balance which explains
observations of a center-of-mass like effect. If a rectangular picture with
bilateral quadrant luminance symmetry and a darker upper half is said to be
perfectly balanced around the geometric center, then the formula for the center
of mass of four connected objects can be used. In this formula quadrant luminance LxxQ replaces the mass of each object and is
located at the geometric center of its respective quadrant. In the following
formula, the picture’s geometric center is located at (0,0). LTOTAL is the average total
luminance.
Y
values of the upper quadrants are modified by 1.07 to account for the
increased visual weight of the upper half. XXXQ and YXXQ
are the coordinates of the center of their respective quadrants, and LxxQ is each quadrant’s luminance. The
equation can be expressed as the sum of four vectors and will be called the
geometric method of determining balance. This equation may account for
perfect balance, but there is no reason to believe it is a correct answer to
an unbalanced painting. Although much simpler than center-of–luminance mass
calculations, this method presents a similar difficulty in calculation for
the visual system. In this case, how can a picture be
divided into precise quadrants? In evolving a solution to this problem I used
the idea that balance, based on only luminance, must have had a very ancient
evolutionary origin. Our visual system views the world in color and yet
balance sees it has pure light. At the earliest state of the phylogenic
development of vision an organism must have been responding to luminance and
not color. The first use of vision, not just light receptivity, must have
been to identify and follow moving organisms. A moving organism would be
defined as a collection of luminous points that move together with respect to
a ground. This can be divided into two equally luminous parts by a virtual
vertical line. The ability of the
visual system to create virtual lines and illusory contours has been shown
through the study of the kanizsa illusion. Early
vertebrates such as sharks have been shown to see this and even insects can
see it. 24-26 Virtual parallel and perpendicular lines are drawn
around the organism to create a ”picture” while
other diagonal lines determine the geometric center and divide it into four
quadrants. In this theory the luminance of the upper half would be
arbitrarily decreased to render an object as asymmetrical when it appears to
have uniform luminance so that its movements can be evaluated. The light
energy or the amount of light within a quadrant is then averaged over the
area of the quadrant and treated as if it were located at the geometric
center of the respective quadrant or the exterior corner of each quadrant.
This permits calculations using the formula of the geometric method. Since there are two vertical lines dividing
the organism, one into geometric halves and the other into two equally
luminous parts, this algorithm provides two ways to calculate balance: the
geometric and the visual. The property of balance indicates that a picture is
seen in two different ways: as a possible moving organism seen through
luminance by a primitive part of the visual system and as a colored object
that we know as a picture. A
perfectly balanced picture will be called coherent. There are two effects
conveyed by such a picture: the intangible effort for the eye to move across
the picture and the feeling that one can see the picture as a whole that
rivets the attention. Both contribute to feelings of unity and harmony, and
when seen by reflected light, seem inseparable. However, it was observed that
an LED picture is a poor conveyer of the attention-riveting effect while
maintaining the effect on eye movements. This correlates with the study of Bertamini
et al. who noted that observers preferred a print reproduction to the
same picture as seen in a mirror or on a monitor, and that they preferred the
correct mirror view of the actual image to the monitor image.26 Locher et al. made
similar observations.28 The only difference between these three
situations is that the light emitted from an LED screen is polarized. Misson and Anderson showed that polarized light increases
luminance perception in the fovea and parafovea
through macula pigmented structures that transmit polarized light and thus
increase the sensitivity of central vision relative to peripheral vision.29
As a result, observer preference could not be used to show that the “global
view” effect, the primary aesthetic effect, was seen in LEDs. However
feelings evoked by the ease of movement in a coherent picture remain. An
explanation for this effect of polarized light will be provided below. This
allowed a performance-based study to show that the effect was perceived in
that two identical pictures differing only by balance might be seen as
different. LED images had to be used to permit precise luminance
determination and reproducibility under the conditions that were feasible.
Perfect balance or pictorial coherence are used as absolute terms whereas
balanced or unbalanced will be relative terms The
first object of this study is to show that some people are able to see this
state of pictorial coherence by showing that they perceive a difference in
two identical pictures differing only in that one is perfectly balanced. The
second later objective is to show that the calculations of pictorial balance
are valid by showing that the study group’s ability to distinguish
differences correlates with balance as calculated by these definitions. Materials and Methods Since a
white-framed picture is seen by the low-level (primitive) visual system as a
luminous object in contrast to the top-down view which sees it as a picture
in an uninteresting frame, the comparison of a perfectly balanced picture
with the identical but unbalanced picture can be done by a slight change of frame.
If an observer compares carefully the two images and is able to disregard the
frame change, any perceived difference would be ascribed to the effect on
balance. It was presumed that pairs of unbalanced pictures would be
indistinguishable because I did not think that observers could see degrees of
relative imbalance within the pairs. Two studies
were conducted consisting of the same ten pairs of images: five in which one
of the images was perfectly balanced (balanced pairs), and five in which both
were unbalanced (unbalanced pairs). Images were selected for their
predominantly neutral content. They were prepared using Photoshop CS2©
in the following manner: quadrant
image luminance is changed in an unobtrusive and precise manner using the
lasso tool to create an irregular form within a quadrant and changing the
luminance within this area with the level command. This form is then moved
around and the operation repeated until the desired quadrant luminance value
is reached. The two studies differed only in their use of different sets of
white borders. The pairs all had different black borders which could not be
seen during the study but enabled the images to be superimposed so that no
point of an image was different as the images were changed. If looking carefully,
one only saw minor changes in the white borders. The three possible image
and border combinations are in Figure. 2. Study I compared Figure 2a with
either 2b or 2c. Study 2 compared Figures 2b with 2c. Pair 7 of the first
study was a slight modification of this. The observer
viewed sequentially a picture with different frames on a color-calibrated
iPad3 using the ColorTrue™ app (which is no longer
available) and a Colorite™ calibration device. The
observer viewed the iPad centered and parallel to the plane of vision at
arm’s length. The images on the iPad were approximately 5 x 6.75 inches. The
pictures used for the studies are shown in Fig. 3, and this is the order in
which they were seen. Images 1,3,5,7, 8 were the balanced pairs. (all images are in the supplemental files labeled with
quadrant luminance data).
Fig. 2 The three possible image and border combinations: the
wide black lines would not be seen on a black ground. Figure 3 Pictures used in the study pairs The
observers gave their verbal consent to participate anonymously in a study
that they were told was about how people look at pictures. They were told
that it would consist of looking carefully at ten pairs of pictures and being
asked whether the central image appeared to be the same or different while
disregarding the frames. They were also told that it was intended for some
pairs to be seen as the same while others as different. No identifying
information or medical history was obtained, and there was no attempt to eliminate
observers who were color deficient, had cataracts or impaired binocular
vision. 45 observers were included in the first study and 39 observers in the
second study. Many observers were excluded from the study because they did
not pay full attention to the pairs. They would glance at the pictures
rapidly and decide that there were no differences. Observers were included if
they carefully inspected the pictures, whether they saw any difference or
not. Painters and those interested in looking at pictures were found to do
this careful inspection. For
the unbalanced pairs it was presumed that because of only slight differences
of imbalance, observers would find the pictures to be identical so that the
response of “same” was considered correct. With the balanced pairs a response
of “different” would be labeled correct indicating they had seen the effect.
Observers viewed the pictures sequentially on an iPad at arm’s length while I
sat slightly behind them. They were permitted, indeed encouraged, to hold the
iPad themselves as long as it was maintained correctly centered and parallel
to the plane of vision. There were no restrictions on the length of
observation, and they could return to a previous image as much as they
wanted. However, subjects were told that the difference if any was more in
the way of a feeling and were discouraged from making point by point
comparisons. The difference was described as analogous to that between
monophonic and stereophonic music: same music but seems different. Results Four
observers could identify all the balanced pairs correctly, and 5 observers
made one error (Table 1). Some
subjects thought they saw differences in color while one thought the depth of
field was different; many felt there were differences but could not describe
them. A simple analysis does not prove that observers perceived the percept
of perfect balance. However, a second analysis which includes the
calculations of balance (table 2) shows that either the observers saw the
effect of perfect balance and/or the effect of relative balance. Table 1
shows the results for intra-pair differences and table 2 shows that they can
see inter-pair difference. Table 1 The number of observers correctly answering the same/different question with the 10 pairs
It was
noticed to my surprise that subjects saw differences in the unbalanced pairs.
At first I thought this was due to guessing, but on further examination it
was found that there is an inverse correlation between the percent of pairs
seen as different and the pair’s average distance (average imbalance) as
calculated with the two methods. This can be appreciated if the pairs are
divided into groups based on their degree of average balance where there is
clearly a group in which the average state of imbalance is small (the
balanced pairs), and another where the average imbalance is large (see table 2). Table
2 Pair average distance and percent of observers who identified the pairs as
different using both methods of balance. The MATLAB™ code used to determine
visual balance and files of the corresponding pictures with and without black
borders are in the supplemental files.
The
correlation for the geometric determination between average pair imbalance
and the percent identified as different is: r (18) = -0.676, p = 0.001. The
same correlation for the visual determination is r(18)
= -0.757, p <0.001. Figure 3 shows
the results graphically. Figure 3 Graph of pair balance in relation to pairs seen as different
These
finding suggest one or both of two interpretations: either the observers are
seeing the effect of coherence to distinguish the pictures within the pairs
demonstrating that they see the effect, or the observers are seeing pairs
according to their average state of balance. The second point is reinforced
by the following: if the average of the balanced pairs is used as one data
point so as to avoid the statistical effect of their large number and the ten
unbalanced pairs as other data points, the visual method has a correlation of
r (11) = −0.64, p = 0.046. Thus
subjects most likely perceived relative average balance across the pictures
and not just between pairs with low and high average balance. This
correlation of pair average balance with observations of same or difference
is not obviously logical. As stated above, I thought that observers would be
comparing intra-pair difference in which two unbalanced pictures would seem
identical, but I found a correlation between inter-pair average luminance and
the observations. An ecological
interpretation of the study discussed below explains this. The
results are true for the observers selected for their ability to follow the
rules who were mostly painters. This correlates with studies showing that
painters view pictures differently than untrained individuals.30-35
Antes showed that fixation patterns distinguish painters from non-painters,
and Koide et al. using a prediction model of a saliency map showed that
artists are less guided by local saliency than non-artists.36 It
was noted that painters become much more involved in the act of looking than
non-painters, and that subjects frequently complained that it was tiring to
do the study. It is hard work to look carefully at pictures. The reason for
this will also be discussed below. Although a
few non-painters were found to discriminate between the pictures, any study
is limited by the need to find large numbers of painters. Two non-painters
answered correctly to each pair, and they were found to be particularly
interested in looking at pictures. One would think that museum goers could be
used to do the study, but a large majority of these are tourists who are
going to renowned museums as a tourist experience and not to look at pictures
as such. The use of an iPad in different lighting environments was necessary
to bring the study to the observers as no laboratory was available.
Reflections from the iPad screen might have increased the number of false
negatives, i.e. coherent pictures being seen as unbalanced as the reflections
change quadrant luminance. It is
highly unlikely that there would be false positives. That observers saw
unbalanced pairs as being different was contrary to expectations, and
therefore could not have been influenced by the examiner. The methods for
calculating balance were determined after the study was done. It has been
suggested that they were created so as to determine the results disregarding
the logic of the formula and algorithm. Observations The characteristics of a picture that evokes the percept of pictorial coherence indicate that it is extremely sensitive to small differences of quadrant luminance. This explains its fugacity without precise viewing conditions. With pictures in a studio, the change in luminosity of drying paint following its creation is sufficient to to cause the effect to appear or disappear. Changing the illuminating spectrum or the painting’s position relative to the viewer destroys the effect. Given that many do not see the effect, and that it is normally created through chance and even then is fleeting and that there is no name for it, one can understand why it is not discussed in the 20th century literature. Although the formula for coherence has been defined for viewing a picture directly in front at eye level, a given picture could be seen as coherent from another set of conditions. Given the proper frame many pictures might be seen as coherent when viewed directly. Pictures
with many equally prominent forms have the same effect as poor balance. An
example of this is pair 2 where the eye is forced to go from form to form.
Prominent geometric forms enclosed by definite lines and flat color will
prevent the painting from appearing coherent. However, if the circumscribing
line is blurred and the interior surface is variegated, they may be part of a
coherent painting. For example, the paintings of Mark Rothko often present
rectangles laid on a ground. In general, all the borders are blurred and the
surfaces are variegated so that those of his paintings keeping closely to
this style could be seen as coherent if correctly balanced. Another situation
is that of a flat surface with no marks, i.e. one coated with an opaque layer
of paint gradually modified so that the upper half is slightly darker. This
will not be seen as coherent. As noted above with the variegated surfaces of
the Rothko’s there has to be some surface quality for an object to be
balanced. It has been shown that forms in nature have a fractal quality, that
visual systems have evolved to respond to conditions of nature that are
fractal, and that fractal images have an aesthetic quality 37-39.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the part of the visual system that
calculates balance is also most sensitive to fractal forms. The visual system
is designed to work best in this fractal environment and not the world of
manmade objects that are linear and uniform, causing the eye to jump from one
form to another. In addition, it has been noted that binocular vision is
necessary to view the percept. Evaluating
an organism in terms of balance means that it is always viewed as a two
dimensional object directly in front of the viewer. This explains the
phenomenon sometimes called the Mona Lisa effect: the gaze of a depicted
person looking straight at the viewer positioned before the picture seems to
follow them as they walk to the side. The painting, The Mona Lisa, only imperfectly exhibits
this effect, but there is no other name.40,41 Viewing a picture from an angle creates a
distortion due to foreshortening such that it should appear to be a trapezoid
with the inter-pupillary distance of Lisa appearing
slightly diminished. However, the low level view fills in the spaces to
create a rectangle so that this foreshortened picture with the virtual
borders appears like a picture directly in front of us. As I
described in the introduction the visual method of calculating balance can be
understood as a visual operating system to detect and follow moving
organisms. A moving organism, a delimited collection of luminous points, is
identified by the calculation of a vector of balance derived from its virtual
rectangle. Once the measurement of balance is done, the organism can be
followed so that a complex object of whatever size is reduced to an ever
changing vector and a rectangular halo. Even if it stops moving, the vector
and halo would remain visible where it might otherwise blend in with the
ground. Many
different organisms can be followed simultaneously with minimal computing
power, and it guarantees that at any moment either the prey or predator is
located within its boundaries. This visual definition would explain why the
study that appears to measure intra-pair difference produces results
correlating inversely with inter-pair average balance. If the pictures are
seen as the equivalent of living organisms, a bilateral symmetric animal or
its fairly balanced pictorial equivalent would be seen as possibly approaching
so that it would require particular attention be directed at the two
different but similar images to evaluate what might be threatening. However,
as the pairs become unbalanced, they would be interpreted as the same
organism moving somewhat orthogonally with no threatening or other
implications. This
paper began with a discussion of the 20th century concept of balance,
starting with Poore’s observation that “…every item
of a picture has a certain positive power, as though each object were a
magnet of a given potency 5.” Fifty years later Arnheim described similar perceptual forces in a picture
that he attributed to their location in the picture 2. I also
describe the effort I experienced moving my eye around the picture without
discussing pictorial forces. In addition to the visual system placing more
visual weight on the upper half of a picture and bilateral balance, the
following is a theoretical account of these perceptual forces as well as the
perception of unity and harmony. Information concerning balance originates in
peripheral vision using the same RGB composite spectrum as central vision
follows the retino-tectopulvinar pathway. When this
pathway is strongly stimulated, it suppresses the information from the
magnocellular pathway and is in competition for attention with central vision
using the parvocellular stream so that when a picture is balanced, a unified,
harmonious luminous image in peripheral vision attracts the attention. In an
unbalanced picture, central vision dominates, peripheral vision is suppressed
and attention is directed to that which is most salient in the picture. Since peripheral information is needed to
make saccades, the eye is somewhat inhibited as it moves through the picture.42
This resistance has been interpreted as pictorial objects or regions having
“force fields.” The idea of
magnocellular stream suppression is only theoretical, but since it and the
information concerning balance respond to the same movement in peripheral
vision, it might be disastrous if attention were divided between two
different simultaneous events. The use of a luminous pathway to determine
balance, an RGB composite indicates that this dates from before the
differentiation of the opsins in the retinal cones
to different wavelength sensitivities. A confirmation of this theory of competition for attention is
seen in the response to polarized light. Because only the fovia
is sensitive to it, central vision is stimulated relatively more and asserts
itself over peripheral vision even in a perfectly balanced picture. While the
picture is not easily seen as a whole and so is of less aesthetic interest,
the comparative difficulty of central vision to make saccades remains.27 This inhibition of
saccadic movement while looking carefully at pictures causes fatigue by
making the muscles work harder. In general we don’t think of eye movements as
requiring any effort whatsoever. Since
it is hypothesized that an object would never be seen as perfectly balanced,
a balanced picture might seem incomparable and unique to the higher visual
system. The attention-riveting effect of a perfectly balanced picture is an
artistic peak effect, different but similar to the peak effects in other art
forms which can be riveting in their own way.43,44 A “peak artistic experience” in this context
is characterized by the work commanding total attention, and as such it can
reach the level of a dissociative experience such as described by Brantley in
his review of Uncle Vanya.45 Such an experience is always felt as an
intense surprise, and a surprise can only be described using an equivalent
surprise as an analogy. No one is so highly sensitive to every art form. Clive
Bell in his book Art describes his marked aesthetic sensitivity to painting
and compares this to his relative lack of sensitivity to music.46 He
can enjoy and intellectually understand why a musical composition or
performance is excellent, but it is not the same as his response to painting.
He can make this distinction only because he has this acute sensitivity to
painting and its aesthetic percept, to which he can compare his responses to
other art forms. Without that he might have expected that any aesthetic
response is an intellectual one. The distinction between a low level
aesthetic percept and higher level intellectual aesthetic responses is
fundamental to the understanding of art and a source of much confusion. It
should be an important neuropsychological objective in the study of other
genres to understand other low level responses in which an ordered collection
of lights sounds and/or animate movement can retain the attention to the
extent that it is capable of inducing a dissociative state characteristic of
an intense aesthetic experience. This might not only enable us to understand
our experience of and judgments about a work of art but provide greater
understanding of how the mind processes sensory experiences. The Matlab code for calculating the visual method of
balance was largely provided by the Matlab Mathworks
Help community. This has been verified with a script from CHATgpt. Supplemental Information is available for this paper
including all documents and information necessary to repeat the study and
confirm the results using a color calibrated monitor. Additional picture pairs will be provided
on request. Correspondence should be addressed to David Corwin dcorwinmd@gmail.com References 1. Schapiro M On Some Problems in the Semiotics of Visual Art Semiotica 1969; 1: 225-242 2. Arnheim, R. Art and Visual Perception, University of California Press; 1974. 3. Molnar FA. (1997) Science of Vision for Visual Art. Leonardo 30(3): 225-232. 4. Locher P, Martindale C, Dorfman, L. New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts. In Foundations and Frontiers in Aesthetic. Routledge: 2006 5. Poore, H.R. Pictorial Composition and the Critical Judgment of Pictures. G.P Putnam Sons: 1903 6. Ross, D.A. Theory of Pure Design. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co: 1907 7. Gershoni S, (2011) Measuring pictorial balance perception at first glance using Japanese calligraphy i-Perception 2, 508 – 527 doi.org/10.1068/i0472 8. Hübner R, Thömmes K. (2019) Symmetry and Balance as Factors of Aesthetic Appreciation: Ethel Puffer’s (1903) “Studies in Symmetry,” Symmetry. 11(12); 1468 9. McManus IC, Stöver K, Kim D. (2011) Arnheim's Gestalt theory of visual balance: Examining the compositional structure of art photographs and abstract images. iPerception. 2(6), 615-47. doi: 10.1068/i0445aap. 10. Locher H. Towards a Science of art: the Concept of ’Pure Composition’ in Nineteen and Twentieth century Art Theory. in Pictorial Composition from Medieval to Modern Art, Warburg Institute, London 2000 p. 323 11. Puttfarken, T. The Discovery of Pictorial Composition, New Haven: Yale University; Press; 2000 12. Itti L Koch C Niebur E. (1998) A Model of Saliency-Based Visual Attention for Rapid Scene Analysis IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 20(11):9 doi:10.1109/34.730558 13. Kowler E (2011) Review of Eye movements: The past 25 years Vision Research. 51(13): 1457-1483 doi. org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.014 14. Krasovskaya S MacInnes WJ (2019) Salience Models A Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Review Vision 3(4):56. doi: 10.3390/vision3040056. 15. Langford RC (1936) Ocular Behavior and the Principle of Pictorial Balance, J Gen Psych. 15:2: 293-325, doi: 10.1080/00221309.1936.9917924 16. Locher P Gray S Nodine CF (1996) The structural framework of pictorial balance Perception 25: 1419-1436 doi: 10.1068/i0472aap 17. Nodine CF Locher P Krupinski EA (1993) The Role of Formal Training on Perception and Aesthetic Judgment of Art Composition Leonardo 26(3): 219-227 doi: 10.2307/1575815 18. GT Buswell, How People Look at Pictures: A Study of The Psychology of Perception in Art, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1935. 19. Molnar F “About the role of visual exploration in aesthetics,” in Advances in Intrinsic Motivation and Aesthetics, H.I. Day, , New York, Plenum Press, 1981. pp. 385-413 20.
Delacroix E. Œvres Littéraires. Études
Esthétiques 4th ed Paris :G. Crés & Cie ;1923
p.63 21. Kandinsky W “Rückblicke” in Weiss, P. Kandinsky in Munich. Princeton University Press; Princeton, 1979 p.68 22. Brock J The Art of Composition - Dynamic Balance Updated: Jun 11, 2023 https://www.jonbrockphoto.com/post/the-art-of-composition-part-i-dynamic-balance 23. Niekamp, W. An exploratory investigation into factors affecting visual balance. ECTJ 29, 37–48 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765191 24. Nieder A. (2002) “Seeing more than meets the eye: processing of illusory contours in animals” J Comp Physiol. 188: 249–260 doi 10.1007/s00359-002-0306-x 25. Fuss T, Bleckmann H, Schluessel V. (2014) “The brain creates illusions not just for us: sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum) can ‘see the magic’ as well” Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 8. doi:10.3389/fncir.2014.00024 26. Rosa Salva O, Sovrano VA, Vallortigara G. (2014) “What can fish brains tell us about visual perception?” Front Neural Circuits. 8:119. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2014.00119 27. Bertamini M Blakemore C. 2019. “Seeing a Work of Art Indirectly: When a Reproduction Is Better Than an Indirect View, and a Mirror Better Than a Live Monitor” Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 1-12. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02033 28. Locher P Smith JK Smith LF. 2011. “The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings,” Perception 30: 449-465. doi: 10.1068/p3008. 29. Mission GP, Anderson DJ. (2017) “The spectral, spatial and contrast sensitivity of human polarization pattern perception,” Scientific Reports 7: 16571. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16873-6 30. Chen K, Jin Z Yao L. (2011) “Neural substrates in color processing: A comparison between painting majors and non-majors,” Neurosci Lett 487: 191-195. 31.
Antes,
JR Kristjanson, AF (1991) “Discriminating
Artists from Nonartists by Their Eye-Fixation
Patterns,” Percept Mot Skills. 73(3): 893-4.
doi.org/10.2466/pms.1991.73.3.893
32.
Antes
JR Kristjanson, A.F (1996) “The impact of
level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic
paintings,” Acta Psychologica 94(2):117-13. doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
33. Zangemeister WH Sherman K Stark L. 1995. “Evidence for a global scan path strategy in viewing abstract compared with realistic images,” Neuropsych 33(8):1009-1025. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00014-t 34. Park S Williams L Chamberlain R. 2022. Global Saccadic Eye Movements Characterise Artists’ Visual Attention While Drawing. Empirical Studies of the Arts,; 40(2) 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374211001811 35. Nodine CF, Locher P, Krupinski EA 1993 “The Role of formal Training on Perception and Aesthetic Judgement of Art Composition” Leonardo 26(3): 219-227. 36. Koide N Kubo T Nishida S Shibata T Ikeda K. 2015. “Art Expertise Reduces Influence of Visual Salience on Fixation in Viewing Abstract-Paintings,” PONE 10(2): e0117696. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117696
doi:10.2307/1575815 37. Mandelbrot, B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature; W. H. Freeman and Co: San Francisco, 1982 38. Spehar B Clifford C Newell B Taylor RP. 2003. “Universal aesthetic of fractals,” Comput. Graph 37: 813–820. doi:10.1016/s0097-8493(03) 00154-7 39. Gibaldi A, Banks MS. 2019. Binocular Eye Movements Are Adapted to the Natural Environment J Neurosci; 39 (15) 2877-2888 doi:10.1523/ JNeurosci .2591-18.2018 40. Schott, G.D. (2018). Gombrich and 'Pictures That Follow with Their Eyes'. The Journal of Art Historiography, https://arthistoriography.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/schott.pdf 41. Boyarskaya E Sebastian A Bauermann T Hecht H Tüscher O. 2015. “The Mona Lisa effect: neural correlates of centered and off-centered gaze,” Hum Brain Mapp 36(2):619-32. doi:10.1002/hbm.22651. 42. Casimir LJH Rhys Davies J Eckstein MP. 2014. “Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling.” PNAS 111 (2): E291-E299. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313553111 43. Grewe O Nagel F Kopiez R Altenmüller E 2005 “How does music arouse "chills"? Investigating strong emotions, combining psychological, physiological, and psychoacoustical methods.” Ann NY Acad Sci. 1060:446-9. doi: 10.1196/annals.1360.041. 44. Wassiliwizky E Koelsch S Wagner V Jacobsen T Menninghaus W. 2017. “The emotional power of poetry: neural circuitry, psychophysiology and compositional principles.” Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 12(8):1229-1240. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx069. 45. Brantley B. (2018 Sept 16). Review: Listening to ‘Uncle Vanya’ With Virgin Ears, New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/theater/review-uncle-vanya-richard-nelson.html 46. Bell C ART New York Frederick Stokes and Co. 1913 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
