Dynamic Symmetry?? -372

Рет қаралды 2,606

Күн бұрын

Really a discussion of formulae versus intuition in picture design. Is the logic, unity, in pictures reducible to a formula as simplistic as “dynamic symmetry”? Does the work created by its use justify it or does the actual complexity of the problem defy such solutions?
In Response to Jaz W

Пікірлер: 28

@AstroSquid 2 ай бұрын

I've always thought of beauty as just cognitive ease. It's always a reminder that "good art" is 110% subjective, accept for cognitive ease. Cognitive ease is based around "what someone knows and easily understands". I like the concept of play, and using intuition.

@PaulIngbretson 2 ай бұрын

That's a new phrase but interesting concept... Will peek into it, Astro. Thx.

@querenstewart9944 Жыл бұрын

Hi Paul Thanks for the dance never still always on the journey. Trying to train the horses that won't behave,you get some in the stable and others make a dash for it! Each time we dance the skill improves but the dance is never done,the picture is and to the next and on and on we go. Love this as it's great amusement . And the joy of painting Thanks again Sheila

@PaulIngbretson 11 ай бұрын

"Amen" may be inadequate.

@williamwiseart 9 ай бұрын

I am interested in any "rule of composition" to guide me to a “work of art”! I played with acetate overlays when I first heard about Dynamic Symmetry. It was/is interesting; I learned from it! I agree the Masters (probably) didn’t draw grids on their later paintings, but were they aware of DynSym (or golden mean), was it part of their early education and awareness? You became aware of it. Someone defined and taught the Elements and Principles of design, rules-of-thirds, use odd numbers, etc. what is the difference? Likely their teachers used words and movement lines (as in arabesque) to define WHY good composition works. Learn the rules and decide when to break them. Isn’t it all about awareness for new artists like me? I like painting blues musicians; I have a choice of positioning the area of interest, angle of their guitar, their mic, or arm. Sure, will I consider DS… as well of other compositional elements. I look at watercolor competitions and try to figure out why these paintings were selected/won. Which “rules” did they follow (that I am aware of) and NOT. I also like local galleries and amateur shows and see painting that do-not-entertain me and try to figure out why not! (My private critique). I recently discovered your lecture videos and am enjoying the education!! Thanks

@PaulIngbretson 9 ай бұрын

Yes, really agree that you need to here everything and find out what's true via your practice. Thank you for the extended comment, too.

@HunnitAcreWoods 7 ай бұрын

I read Jay Hambidge and Michele Jacobs along with Harold Speed for my art class and I developed a much different understanding of the use of dynamic symmetry in art and design… The way Hambidge presents is through an analytical perspective using math to find and describe the root rectangle. But Dynamic Symmetry is about how one subdivides the area of their canvas/picture plane to suggest movement and dynamic over static (equally spaced) symmetry in your composition. Yes the math is there but you don’t need the math for dynamic symmetry just like you don’t need math for the rule of thirds

@PaulIngbretson 6 ай бұрын

Uh, huh!

@LarryWhite-h1m 7 ай бұрын

I enjoyed this talk, found it very helpful. and agree with your assessment. For one counter-example, perhaps, Juan Gris, who was a pretty good painter, did apparently use math (including the golden ratio) in some of his paintings. Of course he was pretty inventive in how he used them, and as a cubist he had a lot of flexibility in how he arranged his compositions

@partingmist8550 Жыл бұрын

So true that in math the intuition plays a role. The role is in the axiom or so called 'worthy statement' - you are left with only your intuition to determine if you will take the axiom(s) as true. In math the set of axioms define the field. In painting the axiom is Beauty, and since the form of beauty is unique to each painting (or to each vision) the painting that follows from that axiom is different every time, you'll have to derive your own 'formulas' from Beauty on a per painting basis. The 'anchors' you set also act as your axioms for the painting at hand. I like the metaphor and comparisons of math and art :). A couple of paintings that inspired me to pick up the brush are imaginative paintings - 'Swords to Plowshares' by Terese Nielson, and 'Pouncing Lynx' by Sidarth Chaturvedi hope you like 'em if you check it out.

@christion.miraca1942 11 ай бұрын

So thankful for the good news.

@PaulIngbretson 10 ай бұрын

Lol!

@christion.miraca1942 10 ай бұрын

I really enjoy what you do. I also like some Gospel with my painting. Thank you. @@PaulIngbretson

@jazw4649 Жыл бұрын

For responsible eyeballs everywhere, I am eating dessert tonight for dinner. 😘 It's always so interesting to pick your art brain on these ideas I read about! Thank you Paul and Mr. Producer this is great!

@PaulIngbretson 11 ай бұрын

Love that!

@jeanvizueta1617 Жыл бұрын

Hi Paul, I just wanted to say that you have changed my way of understanding drawing and painting. I ´ve been watching your videos for almost a year, and although I have only grasped a few of the concepts, it´s been enough to improve by miles. Now when I draw, I use longer lines, try to articulate shapes that I see and try to measure with my eyes instead of sight size and construction drawing. Also, I´ve discovered artists like Degas, Tarbell, Millet trough your videos. I do have a few questions: 1. What book or authors would you reccomend for those who want to understand the Boston School methods of drawing and painting? 2. Is the Impressionist method only applicable to painting and drawing ? or it can be applied to other media like sculpture and photography? If so what artists would you reccommend

@PaulIngbretson 11 ай бұрын

Glad to be useful in your evolution, Jean. Working on the Boston School book as nothing is out there really, Just thinking to myself that I maybe I need to offer a not expensive subscription to it and send it to people a chapter at a time.

@jeanvizueta1617 11 ай бұрын

@@PaulIngbretson That's great to know Paul, I'm more than willing to suscribe or buy anything about your methods. Also, If you don't mind , I think You could make a video about your favorite books on drawing and painting. Thanks for the response. Greetings from Ecuador.

@rwaterssydney Жыл бұрын

A beautiful quote by Einsten.

@philipu150 Жыл бұрын

I would suggest that there are not formulas in art but principles. The Golden Mean is not Euclidean principle, nor a logic. As objectified as a "rule of composition" in visual art, it becomes the dry skeleton of what life does in the universe. We can indeed find results or artifacts of the Golden Mean in what life produces, as many have pointed out; it is fascinating, and even more so when we leave the study of the evidently physical for the realm of the invisible, notably the harmonic relationships of which we have considerable evidence that they bear upon the production of matter, organic and inorganic. In fact, the Golden Mean appears as a proportionality, but what does that mean in the process of the complexity of life? To impose a mathematical division on a flat surface as a basis for creating an image, is somewhat like expecting a fixed meter and rhyme scheme to create poetry -- assuming, we expect poetry to be other than sing-song versification. (To take the other extreme, listen to some of Schoenberg's atonal "12-tone method" music, which was constructed on a strict rule.) Whatever mathematics may be involved to produce an orchid or a child is unquestionably a very different mathematics than the kind that draws lines on a rectangle. The question in any formal consideration in visual art is, as Paul emphasizes, its content: what role does it play in contributing the the unity of the composition -- and I would suggest, on a potentially higher plane, the unity of the idea.