[DSF]

Сообщение от Art-lover

DSF, so that "the shape and color of the primary and there are certainly" hard to disagree. Just not enough. Now that you witness his respect for Arnheim, we should not lose sight of the basic idea of the book "Art and Visual Perception:
Quote: "Reading this book, we must always remember that every visual model is dynamic. As the essence of a living organism can not be reduced to a description of its anatomy as well and the nature of visual experience can not be expressed in centimeters, angles or the length of the light waves. These static measurements apply only to certain "incentives" perception, which inform the organism about the material world. But the function of perception - its significance and value - are entirely determined by the activities already described by us forces. Any line drawn on a sheet of paper, any form of simple partial, fashioned from a piece of clay, like a stone thrown into a pond. All this - disturbance, the mobilization of the space. Sight is the perception of action. "
The phrase "the essence of visual experience can not be expressed in centimeters, angles or the length of light waves" can be rewritten as: "the essence of visual experiences can not be reduced to the shape and color".

With all that you can not argue with that, I completely agree. However, these findings relate to visual perception as such. But the task of the artist is not part of the study and the processes of perception or reconstruction of the universal dynamic archetype, is the task of the researcher. The artist is not a scientist, he was not interested in the nature of "universal dynamic model of the Force." The artist only uses the available tools at its disposal "to create expressive images. It operates with the very "certain" incentives "perception" that can be measured and they are "always specific, ie endowed with a certain visual and symbolic value, regardless of whether you use these elements in the paintings depicting the non-objective or natural objects. "

Сообщение от Art-lover

Arnheim holds the idea that the "primary elements" of images (including the shape and color) take an artistic sense only when the artist uses them for the "mobilization of the space, for forming an image on the expressive the basis of a universal dynamic model of the Force, allowing symbolic interpretation.

And this is a matter of expression, harmony and artistic value of the product, that is, the artist uses the "primary elements", the issue goes far beyond the scope of this discussion

Сообщение от Art-lover

From the bell tower of a dynamic model of the major opposition by a pair of concepts of "speaker" - "static" (cf. "yang" and "yin"). Correlation of this pair with elements of the image leads to separation as a fundamental distinctions do not form and color, and the lines (on the pole dynamics) and stains (no pole statics).

This distinction is not clear to me. Line and the spot - only the derivatives, a kind way of being tsvetoform plane pictures. Especially that "practically the line - it is only a special example of the color spot. If not, then how to distinguish the line from the spot? And why is the line-dynamics, and spot-static, and not vice versa? And how does this apply to the real picture?