h a l f b a k e r yGuitar Hero: 4'33"
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
At some point the notion of ergonomics or binocular vision should factor into the depiction of an illusory 'window' that is art. All paintings (generally speaking) take for granted the 90 degree edge square/rectangle box as the point of departure for the definition of the abstract or reality into creative/artistic
terms.
When I see, there are 4 corners missing from my vision - the common configuration of this framed artistic depiction of the world. My idea is that at least the corners be curved on a canvas - heading towards a more accurate display of the world. I cannot accurately suggest the shape of my peripheral vision - but i know there are no corners.
Perhaps even round frames, round paintings and round photographs to get a better idea of what's going on. Then of course a round/curved edge image connotates the image as an object and not an illusory 'window' as we are accustomed. .
Curved Edge Pictures
http://www.geocitie...twork/MISCARTW.html
[benfrost, Jul 05 2001]
[link]
|
| |
Round and elliptical paintings can be seen in any large art gallery. |
|
| |
Yes, this is true, but the round/elliptical images are seen as exceptions rather than the reality of vision. I suggest a wide spread product recall in the area of framing devices towards this oversight. |
|
| |
As Mr Sealy, heir to the mattress fortune, says, this is not exactly unbaked.
Now, if you were to suggest elliptical computer monitors... |
|
| |
//elliptical computer monitors...// |
|
| |
oooh... ahhh... that would be fun! |
|
| |
<ot> In the UK in the 'fifties, there were many 'Practical Wireless'-type magazines which included construction instructions (!) for televisions based on military surplus radar screens which were, of course, circular.</ot></poor writing style><!--I must have left a tag open somewhere> |
|
| |
Furthermore, how do you know that I see art in the same way as the artist, or even the same as the person next to me in the gallery? I'm sure that question has been baked a thousand times. Is a rectangle to me the same feeling as an oval is to you?
Most people think of curves as comfortable shapes. Others (myself included) are more 'comfortable' with what you would call a hard edge. Security. Therefore, in my mind's eye, in my dreams, my imaginings, I would say that images are more likely to be rectangular since my mind would rather produce an image with which it is 'comfortable', not a forced oval. I couldn't cope with an oval computer screen. What I work with, words and datalists and maps and cross-sections, need a horizontal AND a vertical reference alignment. If I worked with scanning radar, I would use a round screen. |
|
| |
ok then - let's move along the lines of ergonomics suggested in the idea. If you observe cars, design, including most framing devices, the corners are being rounded off. One could suggest this is a trend, but it stands to reason that such things are being objectified and that the picture plane is only square or rectangular for ease of information display - ie a cell phone which must show maximum info and anything other than right angles would mean a loss of space.
This however is substantiated such that the corners of the cell phone window are curved also. Why is that?
I suggest an ergonomic trend towards objectification in the realm of information. |
|
| |
Art however is not essentially about information display and how much you can fit in a window. |
|
| |
My general observation here is that it is taken for granted that a painting is to follow the given rules of square or rectangle. Any artist following these parameters should be able to explain why they use them - but I bet you 90% wouldn't even question it. |
|
| |
Well, that depends on whether you think the purpose of art should be to bring something beautiful into people's lives or to cleverly question their assumptions. |
|
| |
It's by no means impossible to do both at the same time. |
|
| |
[benfrost], if you want to //move along the lines of ergonomics// then you shouldn't immediately cite cars and cellphones. Ergonomics is (very generally) about making things easier to use, or rather, more effective for the user. Car design is based on aerodynamics, in which case the curves are there because sharp corners create eddy currents and drag. You're right about the cell phones - the display is rectangular because information is delivered in lines. Rounded-off corners are there (in many devices) so that dust doesn't collect. KISS. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) Don't search for fancy reasons for cellphone window edges being rounded, when it's just about dust.
Hippo, if you're in the former group, you just found a friend. |
|
| |
[petersealy] i have a degree in fine art actually - this idea is "clearly" suggested for artists "to challenge the parameters handed them by society, their materials, their predecessors and their peers." |
|
| |
There is a lot to challenge in a piece of A4 paper - it is the parameter and I am challenging it. |
|
| |
How is it you make sense? |
|
| |
Why frames? Paint on non-glare glass so that the shape defined by your pigment is the only shape seen (when the work is properly lit). Paint on a clear acrylic cylinder a meter in diameter and 2 meters tall. Paint on a globe. By then you're almost doing sculpture, I suppose, but so what? Why flat paintings? (Is this the general thrust of your idea, benfrost?) |
|
| |
How about an IMAX canvas? |
|
| |