Ship of Fools: Test as to whether you are really fussy about symmetry.

Thread: Test as to whether you are really fussy about symmetry. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026210

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

If you are not bothered by this, you are probably ok.

What does it say about the mentality of the paver?

Know any other such tests?

(Edited to change title)

[ 11. October 2013, 10:16: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I am not bothered by it at all.

I don't like conformity.

I used to paint spots on ladybirds (yes!) it was a summer job at at jewelery factory in Birmingham.

Occasionally I would paint one blue with yellow spots to relieve the boredom - then rush through to quality control and packing to beg them to let it through (they did!). I would buy that one every time.

What does it say about the paver? S/he was bored, bored, bored!

[Smile]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

There's nothing wrong with it. It's street art.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A truly OCD person would be bothered that the lines are not straight.

Just sayin' 'cause it did not bother me, nope.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Yeah, that bothers me. It's up there with finding "SOTP" painted on the road.

Posted by Hazey*Jane (# 8754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A truly OCD person would be bothered that the lines are not straight.

Just sayin' 'cause it did not bother me, nope.

I have actual OCD (I'm not an 'OCD person', I'm person first and foremost, who happens to have OCD) and that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'd be unimpressed with the carelessness of whoever laid the paving though. I mean, c'mon. Reminds me a bit of Breakout though.

[Worthy bit clarifying the perspective of people with mental health issues]
We're not all clones and it's not a comedy condition defined by getting pissed off by things that are a bit wonky. Just because someone prefers things neat and tidy doesn't make them 'a bit OCD'. They're just neat and tidy.
[/Worthy bit clarifying the perspective of people with mental health issues]

Do continue. And if the first image did bothers you, this may soothe.

[ETA - It's World Mental Health Day btw [Smile]

]

[ 10. October 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Hazey*Jane ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hazey*Jane:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A truly OCD person would be bothered that the lines are not straight.

Just sayin' 'cause it did not bother me, nope.
I have actual OCD (I'm not an 'OCD person', I'm person first and foremost, who happens to have OCD) and that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'd be unimpressed with the carelessness of whoever laid the paving though. I mean, c'mon. Reminds me a bit of Breakout though.

It actually does bother me. The misplaced paver does not as the image is too small to discern a pattern. Mightn't anyhow. But the poorly laid pavers do. It isn't the lines being crooked, but that they are not supposed to be crooked.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Yes it bothers me a lot.

It's not the crooked lines, nor is it the misplaces tile. I'm fine with both.

But the black blotches bother me, I'm fed up of having to remove someone else's chewing gum from my shoes.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Being on the opposite end from OCD, no issues with it. I prefer a little bit of mess, malalignment, creativity, invention and slop. it is in the differences that we may find God. In the uniformity and control we find the devil. And control freaks. Thus, I felt the pattern was far to organized even with the one obvious error.

If we are created in God's image, we are best to try to avoid the O/C direction because obviously a creator who made not one thing the same is not OCD at all.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, we are what we are, I suppose.

Me, I thought it was a hoot. But then anyone looking at my house would think that reaction entirely in character.

And I put Easter eggs in everything I can (I'm in writing and publishing). When people find them, it's [Yipee]

for me.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Don't know what this says about me,* but it makes me want to find some strong, metaphorical statement inherent in the image.

In short, if I saw that, I would be dying for a camera.

* Send in the clowns!

[ 11. October 2013, 02:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It's a linearized yin yang drawing, isn't it?

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Don't know what this says about me,* but it makes me want to find some strong, metaphorical statement inherent in the image.

Let me know when you discover the hidden message.

Posted by Hazey*Jane (# 8754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If we are created in God's image, we are best to try to avoid the O/C direction because obviously a creator who made not one thing the same is not OCD at all.

I'm hoping this is tongue in cheek?

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I know what you're getting at but I really really wish people would stop using the name of a debilitating mental illness to mean "a bit fussy about how things are organised".

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I know what you're getting at but I really really wish people would stop using the name of a debilitating mental illness to mean "a bit fussy about how things are organised".

I'm inclined to agree. Title edited.

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Like others, I've always loved asymmetry, so I like the tiles. I've always liked the story that rugs made by Muslim craftsmen always had a deliberate error in them, as only God is perfect. Perhaps it applied to tiles as well, don't know, or in fact, it may be an urban miss, I mean, myth.

Spot the flaw:

http://www.geometricdesign.co.uk/images/illumination1.jpg

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

I have heard that about Amish quilts too.

And apparently in cooking, food is best displayed in odd numbers, because the lack of symmetry is more pleasing to the eye. Hence all those 'sharing platters' which annoyingly have five of each thing on them!

Thanks for fixing the thread title. As someone who has family with OCD completely unrelated to symmetry, I too find the casual use of it annoying. It's almost up there with the use of 'schizophrenic' to mean 'split personality' in silly jokes, when it doesn't mean that at all.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Like others, I've always loved asymmetry, so I like the tiles. I've always liked the story that rugs made by Muslim craftsmen always had a deliberate error in them, as only God is perfect. Perhaps it applied to tiles as well, don't know, or in fact, it may be an urban miss, I mean, myth.

In the Washington Cathedral, many of the stained glass windows have little jokes in them. For example, the medicine window shows a doctor in an old-fashioned buggy with a stork flying overhead carrying a baby.

I was told that this is an acknowledgement that our worship of God is necessarily imperfect.

Moo

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Has anyone else noticed the arrogance implicit in putting a deliberate error into work?*

I don't need to, there's always at least one.

*And it has occurred to me that creation has a few, anyway, so what does that tell us about God?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
What does it say about the mentality of the paver?

It says they wanted to annoy people for years and years after they'd walked away from the job and couldn't be held to account.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Has anyone else noticed the arrogance implicit in putting a deliberate error into work?*

I don't need to, there's always at least one.

*And it has occurred to me that creation has a few, anyway, so what does that tell us about God?

That's he's not a YEC creationist type God!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Has anyone else noticed the arrogance implicit in putting a deliberate error into work?

I don't get it. How is it arrogant? The Shakers always put a deliberate error into their work because they thought only God had the right to be perfect. I'm not seeing how that's arrogant.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Because the artists is stating they are perfect. Conceited at the very least.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Gill H:

quote:
And apparently in cooking, food is best displayed in odd numbers, because the lack of symmetry is more pleasing to the eye.

In flower-arranging and gardening too. I don't think it's the odd numbers as such - but if you have an odd number of bushes or carnations or whatever it forces you to introduce some sort of asymmetry to the arrangement, and then it looks more natural.

True symmetry is hardly ever found in nature, but (most) people seem to have an inbuilt urge to impose it on everything... and look for patterns to make sense of things... and if you are doing an artistic imitation of nature you need a strategy to help you resist this inbuilt tendency.

That picture doesn't bother me much, but then all the pictures in my house hang crooked.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's interesting in gardening, that one technique for planting bulbs, is to take a handful and throw them onto the ground, and then plant them where they land.

The idea is that if you go round planting them one by one, the effect will be too regular and therefore unnatural, but I've never actually compared the two methods.

But then in England there is the 'military' style of gardening, where flowers are actually in stiff rows. Terrible.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because the artists is stating they are perfect. Conceited at the very least.

Not really. It's simply that art and artifice can give the illusion of regularity, especially from a distance. So you can introduce a deliberate error.

Thus, most people see this design as very regular, although there is an error in it.

http://www.geometricdesign.co.uk/images/illumination1.jpg

[ 11. October 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by quetzalcoatl
But then in England there is the 'military' style of gardening, where flowers are actually in stiff rows. Terrible.

Agreed - it is terrible.

Our village has an annual gardens competition, and every year the same garden gets second prize:

It is a hellish mixture of salvias, pelargoniums and other bedding plants, all planted in military rows. It also boasts a small ornamental wheelbarrow (usually filled with a mixture of clashing petunias) and several window boxes with trailing lobelia and more petunias.

And the grass! I've actually seen the guy tidying the grass with a pair of scissors [Eek!]

As I say, always second prize

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But then the traditional cottage style is much less tidy. I tend to follow that, and go out of my way to avoid symmetry. For example, when I prune trees and bushes, I usually leave in place some imbalance which has naturally occurred, for example, a tree or bush leaning over a bit. We also have loads of untidy corners, piles of wood, and so on, partly for wildlife, but also for my sanity. A corner full of nettles is very pleasing really, also full of butterflies. I have a brilliant dwarf silver birch, which has grown completely oddly and at strange angles, I call it a baroque tree.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

A person I know made art, where every piece consisted of two drawings made up of lines, with exactly one assymetry between the drawing on the left and the drawing on the right.

After drawing 100+ of these, they had to put him in an asylum.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Sounds like Bridget Riley, but she is not in an asylum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/cataract-3-177152

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There was a birthday card - we gave it to my Dad - of a chap standing like a sergeant-major (possibly in uniform) shouting at his row of tulips.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because the artists is stating they are perfect. Conceited at the very least.
Not really. It's simply that art and artifice can give the illusion of regularity, especially from a distance. So you can introduce a deliberate error.

This might be why deliberate errors are actually introduced, but this does not apply to the myth of creating a flaw so not to offend God.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But then in England there is the 'military' style of gardening, where flowers are actually in stiff rows. Terrible.

We like to think of those as French-style gardens.

Seriously though the pseudo-natural style of planting and also the "cottage garden" were popularised in Europe from England in the 18th century. Other countries tended to have more formal symmetrical designs.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

What LB said! It's arrogant to ever think that your own quilt, rug or asphalt design might be so perfect as to rival God.

Yes, faults like the one in the picture bothered me, and I understand and use the odd number principle in things like flower arrangements but, tiles aren't flowers. Being a neat and tidy person I also like my table settings with the silver edges all lined up and I find that things like equal numbers of objects on each side of the fireplace mantle are more pleasing to my eye.

I once watched an Oprah show about home decorating, after which I angled my sofa and threw my accent pillows at different angles. A few weeks later I realized that I wasn't sleeping well and Oprah hadn't stopped by anyway so I straightened everything out.

I say, do what makes you happy.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

The image annoys me, but not due to asymmetry. More because a worker appears to have deliberately abused their position at public expense.

That said, I dislike asymmetry such as in the placement of some Italian car front number plates, which suggest a lack of forethought rather than creativity. Or the WW2 Blohm & Voss aircraft, which Hitler refused the Luftwaffe to own due fly due to its asymmetrical appearance.

In my working life, architect colleagues regard me as a philistine for preferring symmetrical buildings, which they and town planners regard as a product of a mind devoid of creativity. But then I do buy clothes from M&S.

We're not abnormal though - studies have shown that most people regard a symmetrical human face as more attractive than an imbalanced one.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I don't think the issue there is symmetry really so much as 1 small thing being glaringly out of place, yeah, much to my surprise I find it a bit annoying. I have a bathroom tile pattern that consists of 4 same colour but different "finish" tiles arranged asymmetrically/randomly on the bathroom floor and I like the randomness but 1 tile being out of place within a regular pattern is disturbing. YMMV.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because the artists is stating they are perfect. Conceited at the very least.

Can't see it.

quote:
This might be why deliberate errors are actually introduced, but this does not apply to the myth of creating a flaw so not to offend God.

I didn't say "offend" God. You're extrapolating without justification.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
The image annoys me, but not due to asymmetry. More because a worker appears to have deliberately abused their position at public expense.

Pleasingly subversive to me, suggesting a sense of humour. C'mon, the pavement works fine, nobody will trip over anything.

I'm inconsistent with symmetry. The driving mirror and satnav have to be dead level. If I scratch myself, I want to scratch the other side too. But then I always wear odd ear-rings, never want the same each side.

I heard an evolutionary psychologist say we're fascinated by symmetry because, in a state of nature, anything symmetrical is either something you can eat, or something that might eat you.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Bilateral symmetry is the basic body plan of almost all animals. David Attenborough was pointing this out to me earlier this week.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
... That picture doesn't bother me much, but then all the pictures in my house hang crooked.

Mine too - our house is (relatively) old, wooden, on an almost vertical hill and has no right angles whatsoever. If the horizontals of our pictures are straight, the verticals won't be. Normally it would bother me, but I've got used to it.

As for the paving stone, I'd probably only notice it if I walked the same piece of road regularly; after walking to school every day for 13 years, I knew every broken or crooked flagstone from home to the school gates.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Bilateral symmetry is the basic body plan of almost all animals. David Attenborough was pointing this out to me earlier this week.

This makes sense. Most cultures find beautiful many things which are not symmetrical, but they are not, typically, animals. Perhaps this has something to do with efficient locomotion. The list of Asymmetrical animals is small and the asymmetry does not affect movement.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Perhaps this has something to do with efficient locomotion.

Well, yes in a sense, because his point was that once you start moving it begins to make sense to have a defined front end or 'head', and then put a mouth there and sensory organs to go with it, and then you have a tail end as well and lots of other bits can get added to the sections in between in convenient places.

And the earliest animals DIDN'T move, apparently. That was a new one to me, because we associate animals with movement and plants with staying still.

[ 12. October 2013, 01:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the earliest animals DIDN'T move, apparently. That was a new one to me, because we associate animals with movement and plants with staying still.

Barnacles don't move. Unless the thing they're attached to moves of course.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the earliest animals DIDN'T move, apparently. That was a new one to me, because we associate animals with movement and plants with staying still.
Barnacles don't move. Unless the thing they're attached to moves of course.

Yeah, I know there are some animals that don't move, but we tend to think of them as unusual, the exception. What struck me was that initially it was the norm.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I guess maybe it's because I spent a lot of time around docks and boats, but it makes perfect sense to me. Back in the primordial soup days, there was presumably food (plants) floating around everywhere, and an animal could just sit in one place and eat it as it goes by -- like a barnacle, or coral, or sea quills, or anemone, and so on.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

From what the show was telling me, more 'absorb' than 'eat', because these things didn't have mouths.

[ 12. October 2013, 02:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Many Navajo weavers introduce spirit lines into their rugs and blankets. The belief is that completing a design totally surrounded by an unbroken border may trap the weaver's spirit and imagination in the piece. Making a discreet weft line the color of the inner design leading through the border to the edge is a path for the spirit to escape.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the earliest animals DIDN'T move, apparently. That was a new one to me, because we associate animals with movement and plants with staying still.
Barnacles don't move. Unless the thing they're attached to moves of course.

Actually, they do. In their larval stage. They cease to move once they anchor. Anemones can move, as can some corals, apparently.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I can't say that the image annoys me as such. But I DO know that I could never do something like this - because if something is in my power to change or affect, I like it to be CORRECT and NEAT. So yes - if there are two candle on the altar, they have to be EXACTLY symmetrically positioned. We have a cross placed on a table at the west end of the church. If it gets moved away from being the dead centre of the church, it distracts me and I have to move it back to its PROPER place.

(The reason the photo doesn't annoy me is because there is nothing I can do about it. Therefore, I really don't care.)

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This might be why deliberate errors are actually introduced, but this does not apply to the myth of creating a flaw so not to offend God.

As I understand it, the ancient Greeks would build imperfection into a statue or other work in order not to provoke jealousy in their gods. Given that their gods were very prone to jealousy and acts of petty vengeance, this seems most prudent of them.

However, our God is neither petty nor vengeful, so this built in imperfection is not really necessary, imo. Particularly when making something for the glory of God, the imperfection is a given, but our duty is still to do the very best we can.

[ 12. October 2013, 16:48: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because the artists is stating they are perfect. Conceited at the very least.

My understanding was that they got the error out of the way pretty quickly so they could avoid being tempted to try to be perfect, since only God is perfect. Subtle nuance, but it doesn't imply they think they are perfect (because I do get what you're saying), rather, that they want to avoid the temptation of trying to be.

RE: symmetry in animals/pleasingness of asymmetry: In animals, asymmetry usually indicates a disease or injury - and you know what evolutionary psychology would say about that. But I think one reason people are aesthetically pleased with asymmetry is that it's dynamic. Symmetry is at rest. We're bored with that. Something asymmetrical has movement, puzzle, something more interesting about it.

Something complex and symmetrical, however, is less boring, because of its complexity. It can hold our interest as we explore it.

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Symmetry is at rest. We're bored with that. Something asymmetrical has movement, puzzle, something more interesting about it.

Why is symmetry at rest? A spinning top, in order to function at all, must have near-perfect radial symmetry, and yet their behaviour when in motion is immensely complex and fascinatingly hard to describe or understand (without a lot of really rather interesting mathematics, that is). In general, (near)-symmetric move in interesting, structured but not necessarily predictable, ways, while irregular objects simply tumble in a way that is essentially random.

quote:

Something complex and symmetrical, however, is less boring, because of its complexity. It can hold our interest as we explore it.

Mathematically, objects with no symmetry are almost entirely uninteresting, as they have no handles allowing us to describe them. And yet there is an enormous complexity and richness to be found within the constraints of symmetry.

After all, the physics that would appear to describe our universe (to a pretty good approximation) is the consequence of forcing a massive symmetry onto an otherwise unstructured background. In a sense, we exist only because of symmetry.

Remember, the complete absence of symmetry means not interesting structure to explore, but the absence of any form of structure. It is hard to see how that is, in any sense of the term, interesting. We're not psychologically able to deal well with the truly random. Our minds are all about making predictions based on past events, and so we seek out patterns. Without patterns we get confused.

Which is why, if you think about it, art depends on a critical tension coming from the use of patterned (and hence symmetrical) structures and free invention. The myth that creativity requires total freedom is just that: a myth. Creativity without constraint is noise.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:

Why is symmetry at rest? A spinning top, in order to function at all, must have near-perfect radial symmetry, [/QUOTE]
A spinning top has perceptible movement, therefore not completely symmetrical to most observers. And the anticipation created by the knowledge that it will fall creates interest. Snap a pic of just the top, evenly lit and not so much interest. A still image, which is most of what is being discussed, has no movement in itself. Adding asymmetry creates lines and angles which provide more interest. A simple example would be passport photo v. a portrait.

quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:

The myth that creativity requires total freedom is just that: a myth. Creativity without constraint is noise.

I agree, but would add the corollary - Constraint without creativity is dead.
There is a balance and a truly great photo, painting, sculpture, etc. has both.

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :

But a spinning top only spins in that interesting way because of its symmetry. If it weren't radially symmetric the complex behaviours such as apparently standing upright, precessing around an axis and nutation simply couldn't occur: if you tried to spin it, it would just fall over.

So, a still top is a bit dull, yes. But if it weren't for that symmetry, tops wouldn't have the properties in motion that have made it possible for entire books to be written about their behaviour.

And let us not forget, of course, that the mere possibility of motion is down to a number of fundamental, and very mysterious symmetries, within the laws of dynamics that makes them allow for the possibility of moving a system 'through' time. The General Theory of Relativity is essentially little more than a statement that these symmetries exist.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

orfeo:

quote:
Bilateral symmetry is the basic body plan of almost all animals.

That's true, but if you examine them closely you'll probably find that they are not perfectly symmetrical. One of my feet is half a size bigger than the other, for example; not due to injury and it doesn't affect the efficiency of my movement. If you meet me IRL you probably won't notice the differently-sized feet because I'll be wearing shoes, which are sold in pairs of the same size.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo:
quote:
Bilateral symmetry is the basic body plan of almost all animals.
That's true, but if you examine them closely you'll probably find that they are not perfectly symmetrical. One of my feet is half a size bigger than the other, for example; not due to injury and it doesn't affect the efficiency of my movement. If you meet me IRL you probably won't notice the differently-sized feet because I'll be wearing shoes, which are sold in pairs of the same size.

There's nothing symmetrical about our guts between the bottom of the esophagus and the top of the colon. Further the heart and lungs are far from symmetrical; the heart is mostly on one side of the body; one lung has 3 ventricles and one has two. We seem symmetrical because you can't see our insides.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
But a spinning top only spins in that interesting way because of its symmetry. If it weren't radially symmetric the complex behaviours such as apparently standing upright, precessing around an axis and nutation simply couldn't occur: if you tried to spin it, it would just fall over.

So, a still top is a bit dull, yes. But if it weren't for that symmetry, tops wouldn't have the properties in motion that have made it possible for entire books to be written about their behaviour.

And let us not forget, of course, that the mere possibility of motion is down to a number of fundamental, and very mysterious symmetries, within the laws of dynamics that makes them allow for the possibility of moving a system 'through' time. The General Theory of Relativity is essentially little more than a statement that these symmetries exist.

Well, then, we need to split down symmetry in relation to the subject. With the top, it is the physics and math which make it interesting symmetry drives this. However, asymmetry can drive other interests. Think people. A person with a symmetrical face is generally deemed more attractive. However, a symmetrical pose generally less so than an asymmetrical. Think buildings. A square building, viewed from front, not so much. Now view that same building from the corner, generally more interesting. Especially from a still image. Now, there are few hard and fast view as to what keeps our attention, so there will be variations and exceptions. Basically, as we are visual creatures, motion, or the perception of motion, generally tends to be more interesting. Even with the maths of a spinning top, it is the effect of motion which makes it more interesting.

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

For about ten years, I had been walking across the sanctuary to the organ. I would bask in the beauty of the stained glass windows. One day, as I looked up, a glaring 'mistake' slapped me in the eyes. There are eight panes with crosses depicted. Each has a decorative square around the middle of the cross except for the one closest to the organ console. The lower left part of the square is removed farther left.

It always puzzles me that it took that long to see that part of the pattern was incorrect. Now I can't not see it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It bothered me a lot less than the 'deliberate' mistake in my Aran jumper. I see the sign of zany creativity in the misplaced square.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Bilateral symmetry is the basic body plan of almost all animals. David Attenborough was pointing this out to me earlier this week.
This makes sense. Most cultures find beautiful many things which are not symmetrical, but they are not, typically, animals. Perhaps this has something to do with efficient locomotion. The list of Asymmetrical animals is small and the asymmetry does not affect movement.

OTOH as I understand it, nobody is completely symmetrical. Have you seen those pictures where two copies of a face are printed, one in reverse, then the two versions of the left side combined in one face and the two right sides ditto, and they are quite different people. Does your face in the mirror look like your face in a photo? And something I read recently stated that no nose, for example, is symmetrical: one nostril will be larger than the other though I think this might not show externally.

GG

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

The picture bothers me. The spelling and grammar errors on this thread bother me more, though!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Like I said earlier - I like the asymmetry.

BUT - I teach two days a week, which means I sit at other peoples desks. Both are messy folk. I find myself straightening everything up and sorting out the stationery.

I wonder what they think when they return to their desks??

[Roll Eyes]

[ 18. November 2013, 07:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

It bothers me not at all I see it as artistic. I have a friend who is a draftsman and anything out of alignment bothers him no end. I doubt that the picture would bother him as pavers were lined up even though they were different colors. Once at a movie he told me that he had trouble following the story line because the star had a face were one side was very misaligned with the other side. The star's face looked just fine to me, but once he pointed out the misalignment I could see it. It was very minor to my eye. In his case the need for symmetry came from the work he was trained to do.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Oh my. I want to die.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0