Re placement/cropping of cave paintings: inasmuch as I haven't been talking
to paleolithic man recently, I'll have to take your word for it that
placement of cave paiintings didn't have to do with a smooth patch of wall,
a place where the drawing could be seen by everyone, or selected paleolthic
men/women or due to some "spritual' reason.
Geoff C
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:40:44 EDT
In a message dated 10/2/2008 5:54:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frances muses with Luis and others...
The limiting of graphic or plastic or tectonic space, by the
cropping and scaling and closing of visible objects like depicted
images, is indeed probably a mental act of gestalt perception and
vision, but may not fully account for ancient works like
primitive drawings and carvings and buildings that were put on
rocks or in caves, where edges and frames may not actually exist
in concrete fact.
Frances,
The selection of a particular cave setting, the cave itself and the
location
of the drawing/painting on the wall/ceiling is the perceptual cropping. It
was a very intentional act to provide a special place for them. We would
have
to look at many drawing/painting scenarios and their context as it may have
been at the time of their creation (highly difficult in many), to assess
how
far back perceptual cropping occurs.
The deliberate imposition of peripheral
restrictions on aesthetic forms like tones or marks can even be a
block to understanding artistic goodness. In semiotics however
the determination of semantic grounds and margins is required for
signers to interpret the referents and meanings of objects or
subjects that may be signified by signs. Such boundaries act as
limiting spheres and domains and realms, whereby the signer can
be brought into a conforming and controlling relation with the
sign, so that some degree of normality is assured. There is also
a key difference to note in pragmatist semiotics between a
visible material object and a visual mental object. Furthermore,
such semiotics holds that when a delimiting frame is present to
sense, that it is itself a further sign that impacts on the
signing and the signed and the signer. To be specific, a frame or
boarder is mainly an "indexic" kind of sign, and not mainly an
"iconic" or "symbolic" kind of sign, although these three
semiotic properties will be present in all kinds of signs,
regardless of their main dominance in any particular situation of
semiosis. The issue of whether such peripheries are necessary
subjective dispositions discovered by humans as inborn traits, or
rather are arbitrary subjective conventions invented by humans as
learned trails or trials, is another important thorn to deal
with.
I believe that we must already have the built-in cognitive systems to do or
recognize anything that we now or in the future may do or recognize.
Innate
abilities/traits exist cognitively (hardwired potencies) long before we
may
become conscious, as a culture, of them.
Luis Fontanills
Architect
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips
and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
