Hi, Saturday, December 28, 2002, 1:49:24 PM, you wrote:
> Bob wrote: >> The proportions of photographic paper are determined by the historical >> proportions of ordinary paper. > This isn't about the format of paper but format of film (which hardly ever fit the >paper). The difference between the proportions of paper and film is why you claim that 6x6 is 'wasteful', so the proportions of the paper, and the reasons for the proportions seem directly relevant. You've claimed that photo paper isn't square because not enough photos are square, and I've suggested another possibility. >> One possible reason why there may be more (non-square) rectangular >> compositions than square ones is that there is only one square, and >> there are infinitely many possible rectangles. > Nope. It is because we don't observe the world square. It is also because the square > format project less tension and look more static. These qualities are used to great advantage by very many artists throughout history. The square and the circle have similar properties and have been used specifically because of the properties you mention, to promote symmetry, harmony, balance. A quick straw poll of the Christmas cards sent to me this year reveals that over 57% of them are square images on square card, the remainder being a variety of different oblongs. We could tentatively conclude from this that certain subject matter is well suited to the square format, and we could test it by counting pictures in museums. But harmony, balance and proportion also exist within oblongs, as a quick study of mother & child pictures will show, as does symmetry. Contrast, tension and sharpening can take place within the square just as they can within an oblong, depending on the composition of other points, lines and shapes with respect to each other and the frame. The way you're dismissing the square seems rather simplistic to me. >>Some controlled psychological >> eperiments have apparently suggested that there is no preference for >> the golden section over other proportions, and this appears to be >> borne out by statistics gathered about the proportions used by >> European painters historically. > Not true. Controlled psychological test have confirmed that almost all humans prefer > the golden section or something close to it. this is a matter of some disagreement even outside the vaulted circles of PDML aestheticians. Different controlled experiments appear to produce different results. The source for my claim is I.C. McManus, "The Aesthetics of Simple Figures", British Journal of Psychology, 71 (1980). I once knew someone who was doing their PhD on Japanese aesthetics, specifically trying to find out whether there was a statistical or psychological preference in Japan for the golden section and to test the claim for the universality of the golden section, which is not wholly accepted. The Tatami rectangle, for instance, appears to be very important in Japanese aesthetics, and possibly more important than the golden rectangle. The jury is still out, I believe. --- Bob "Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction" Francis Picabia
