On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think redundancy is a poor word in this context. It's more like an echo > when > patterns are repeated because in fact they can't be really repeated in a > visual > artwork except in a wallpaper type image. The old beaux-arts approach to > visual order and beauty was called the Style and that called for repeating > elements to establish harmony but in the echo sense and not as redundant > repetition. Actually, such harmonizing of shapes, colors, lines ---giving > them > a kind of visual kinship -- has been a mainstay of art in all eras. It's a > human preference. The study, therefore, adds nothing new. But it > remains an > issue that culture can contradict normal human preference and then people > choose > what culture seems to dictate. Advertisers, for instance, have long known > that > they can 'create' a desire for a product by various means even though > without > the initial advertising, no one was looking for the new benefit. > wc > Concerning the word REDUNDANCY, would a better word be RECOGNIZABILITY or RELATABILITY ala the earlier post about the artist complaining that because audiences need to be able to RELATE to an artwork, that any artist puts himself at a disadvantage if he is too creative and original?
