Week 4.2 Reading Commentary (Isabel Báez)
Symmetry
Ramachandran and Hirstein address the science behind symmetry very directly. They comment on how most of the things that required our attention in primordial times- predators, prey, and mates- we’re, in fact, symmetrical. They suggest that this means our brains are wired to prefer symmetry over asymmetry, whether that be in romantic partners, or in artistic representations. However, I think asymmetry can be appealing as well, as it makes things seem a little more imperfect and relatable.
Contrast
The authors of the article also five deeply into the idea of contrast and how it feels rewarding to the human eye. They state that the optical components in our body are attracted to edges, and therefore consider these more interesting than homogeneous surfaces. This interest translates into pleasure when viewing these works, such as line drawings. I agree with this analysis, as I think designs with drastic contrast are a lot stronger in their depictions, and grasp my attention a lot better. They note the seemingly opposite meaning between contrast and grouping, but highlight how they complement each other: grouping focuses on a set of objects similar to each other, that are not adjacent, while contrast marks the division of two adjacent objects.
Perception
Another topic that Ramachandran and Hirstein discuss is that of perception. They analyze how viewers often recognize a certain perspective as the more generic version of the object, rather than one object that would require that exact point of view to exist. This idea that we stray away from coincidence, and find it hard to believe is very interesting. Individuals with a very mathematical way of thinking will often analyze the probabilities to decide what they are seeing, which will lead to the more generic figure. I find this very intriguing, as I also strive away from believing in coincidences. Therefore, it should be the same when looking at artwork. However, I did not fully grasp the example of the pyramids. Although the first drawing looks less realistic, I’m not sure if it qualifies as less generic, albeit the absence of the floor.