|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Test as to whether you are really fussy about symmetry.
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jedijudy
Organist of the Jedi Temple
# 333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Jasmine, little cat with a big heart.
Posts: 18017 | From: 'Twixt the 'Glades and the Gulf | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
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
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
The picture bothers me. The spelling and grammar errors on this thread bother me more, though!
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 18. November 2013, 07:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
