I’m glad that Arnheim included an example from architecture in his final chapter. I agree with his analysis of Michelangelo’s work on page 450-451 (figure 278). Michelangelo did well by making the cupola seem unbounded. One of the (relatively) new things in architecture/engineering is the infinity pool. People want their swimming pool to appear unbounded, open to the world and yet their own private space. This is also seen in computer design; some computer screens have “infinity” edges, where there is no raised bezel. While this is occasionally not as good structurally (especially on 18.4-inch laptops), it often appears better (in my opinion). In general, controlled unboundedness is more aesthetic than boundedness.
Arnheim talks about not teaching how to express one’s self but how to sharpen the techniques in which one uses to express the self; I completely agree with him. We should not teach how to express but teach why we should express ourselves, sharpen the techniques to express ourselves, and practice expressing ourselves everyday.
I found his discussion about the human body being the most difficult vehicle of visual expression quite interesting. I dislike it at first, but thinking about what it means to show a visual expression with a person, I realize that it likely is much more difficult. Despite the human being what we mostly think of conveying emotions, the person is a single type of object that can be drawn. If the entirety of the world of symbolism, and every other conceivable shape is a potential candidate for showing the expression (trees vs the sobbing woman), one can simply choose an object that by its very nature (before even changing its form to evoke the expression) shows the expression you’re aiming for.
I’m glad that Arnheim included an example from architecture in his final chapter. I agree with his analysis of Michelangelo’s work on page 450-451 (figure 278). Michelangelo did well by making the cupola seem unbounded. One of the (relatively) new things in architecture/engineering is the infinity pool. People want their swimming pool to appear unbounded, open to the world and yet their own private space. This is also seen in computer design; some computer screens have “infinity” edges, where there is no raised bezel. While this is occasionally not as good structurally (especially on 18.4-inch laptops), it often appears better (in my opinion). In general, controlled unboundedness is more aesthetic than boundedness.
Arnheim talks about not teaching how to express one’s self but how to sharpen the techniques in which one uses to express the self; I completely agree with him. We should not teach how to express but teach why we should express ourselves, sharpen the techniques to express ourselves, and practice expressing ourselves everyday.
….
I found his discussion about the human body being the most difficult vehicle of visual expression quite interesting. I dislike it at first, but thinking about what it means to show a visual expression with a person, I realize that it likely is much more difficult. Despite the human being what we mostly think of conveying emotions, the person is a single type of object that can be drawn. If the entirety of the world of symbolism, and every other conceivable shape is a potential candidate for showing the expression (trees vs the sobbing woman), one can simply choose an object that by its very nature (before even changing its form to evoke the expression) shows the expression you’re aiming for.