Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory - Hugo Münsterberg (best life changing books txt) 📗
- Author: Hugo Münsterberg
- Performer: -
Book online «Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory - Hugo Münsterberg (best life changing books txt) 📗». Author Hugo Münsterberg
part of the marked symmetry of primitive art by non-æsthetic
influences, and we are therefore forced to conclude an original
tendency to create symmetry, and to take pleasure in it. A strong
negative confirmation of this is given, as noted above, by the utter
lack of symmetry of the only branch of art in which the primitive man
is fully preoccupied with meaning to the neglect of shape; and by the
contrast of this with those branches of art in which attention to
meaning is at its minimum.
The question put at the beginning of this section must thus be
answered affirmatively. There is evidence of an original æsthetic
pleasure in symmetry.
III. EXPERIMENTS IN SUBSTITUTIONAL SYMMETRY.
A. Method of Experiment.
A certain degree of original æsthetic pleasure in symmetry may be
considered to have been established by the preceding section, and,
without considering further the problems of real or geometrical
symmetry, it may now be asked whether the pleasure aroused by the form
of asymmetrical objects is not at bottom also pleasure in symmetry;
whether, in other words, a kind of substitution of factors does not
obtain in such objects, which brings about a psychological state
similar to that produced by real symmetry.
The question what these substituted factors may be can perhaps be
approached by a glance at a few pictures which are accepted as
beautiful in form, although not geometrically symmetrical. Let us
take, for instance, several simple pictures from among the well-known
altarpieces, all representing the same subject, the _Madonna
Enthroned_ with Infant Christ, and all of generally symmetrical
outline. It seems, then, reasonable to assume that if the variations
from symmetry show constantly recurring tendencies, they represent the
chief factors in such a substitutional symmetry or balance, supposing
it to exist. The following pictures are thus treated in detail, M.
denoting Madonna; C., Child; and Cn., Central Line. The numbers refer
to the collection of reproductions used exclusively in this
investigation, and further described in section IV.
1. 56, Martin Schöngauer: Madonna in Rose-arbor. M. is seated
exactly in Cn., C. on Right, turning to Right. M. turns to Left, and
her long hair and draperies form one long unbroken line down to Left
lower corner. All other details symmetrical.
2. 867, Titian: Madonna. The picture is wider than it is high. M.
stands slightly to Right of Cn.; C. on Right. Both turn slightly to
Left, and the drapery of M. makes a long sweep to Left. Also a deep
perspective occupies the whole Left field.
3. 248, Raphael: Madonna (The Bridgewater Madonna). M. sits in Cn.,
turning to Left; C. lies across her lap, head to Left, but his face
turned up to Right, and all the lines of his body tending sharply down
to Right.
In 1, all the elements of the picture are symmetrical except the
position of C. on the Right, and the long flowing line to Left. In 2,
there is a slightly greater variation. The mass of the figures is to
Right, and the C. entirely over against the deep perspective and the
flowing line on the Left, and the direction of both faces toward that
side. In 3, the greater part of C.‘s figure on Left is opposed by the
direction of his lines and movement to Right. Thus these three
pictures, whether or not they are considered as presenting a balance,
at least show several well-defined factors which detach themselves
from the general symmetrical scheme. (1) Interest in C. is opposed by
outward-pointing line; (2) greater mass, by outward-pointing line,
deep vista, and direction of attention; and (3) again interest by
direction of line and suggestion of movement.
This analysis of several æsthetically pleasing but asymmetrical
arrangements of space strongly suggests that the elements of large
size, deep perspective, suggested movement, and intrinsic interest are
in some way equivalent in their power to arouse those motor impulses
which we believe to constitute the basis of æsthetic response. It is
the purpose of these experiments to follow up the lines of these
suggestions, reducing them to their simplest forms and studying them
under exact conditions.
But before describing the instruments and methods of this experimental
treatment, I wish to speak of the articles on the ‘Æsthetics of Simple
Form,’ published as Studies from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory,
by Dr. Edgar Pierce.[15] These articles, sub-entitled ‘Symmetry’ and
‘The Functions of the Elements’ seem at first sight to anticipate the
discussions of this paper; but a short analysis shows that while they
point in the same direction, they nevertheless deal with quite
different questions and in a different manner. In the statement of his
problem, indeed, Dr. Pierce is apparently treading the same path.
[15] Pierce E.: PSYCH. REV., 1894, I., p. 483; 1896, III., p.
270.He says: “Can a feeling of symmetry, that is, of æsthetical equality
of the two halves, remain where the two sides are not geometrically
identical; and if so, what are the conditions under which this can
result—what variations of one side seem æsthetically equal to the
variations of the other side?” Some preliminary experiments resulted
in the conclusion that an unsymmetrical and yet pleasing arrangement
of a varied content rests on the pleasure in unity, thus shutting out
the Golden Section choice, which depends on the pleasure in variety.
That is, the choices made will not in general follow the golden
section, but ‘when the figure consists of two halves, the pleasure
must be a feeling of æsthetical symmetry.’
The final experiments were arrangements of lines and simple figures on
a square, black background in which the center was marked by a white
vertical line with a blue or a red line on each side. On one side of
these central lines a line was fixed; and the subject had to place on
the other side lines and simple figures of different sizes and
different colors, so as to balance the fixed line. The results showed
that lines of greater length, or figures of greater area must be put
nearer the center than shorter or smaller ones—‘A short line must be
farther than a long one, a narrow farther than a wide, a line farther
than a square; an empty interval must be larger than one filled, and
so on.’ And for colors, “blue, maroon and green, the dark colors, are
the farthest out; white, red and orange, the bright colors, are
nearest the center. This means that a dark color must be farther out
than a bright one to compensate for a form on the other side. The
brightness of an object is then a constant substitute for its distance
in satisfying our feeling of symmetry.”
Now from these conclusions two things are clear. By his extremely
emphasized central line, and his explicit question to the subjects,
‘Does this balance?’ the author has excluded any other point of view
than that of mechanical balance. His central fulcrum is quite
overpowering. Secondly, his inquiry has dealt only with size and
color, leaving the questions of interest, movement, and perspective
untouched. But just the purpose of this experimental study is to seek
for the different and possibly conflicting tendencies in composition,
and to approximate to the conditions given in pictorial art. It is
evident, I think, that the two studies on symmetry will not trespass
on each other’s territory. The second paper of Dr. Pierce, on ‘The
Functions of the Elements,’ deals entirely with the relation of
horizontal and vertical positions of the æsthetic object and of the
subject to æsthetic judgments, and has therefore no bearing on this
paper.
For his apparatus Dr. Pierce used a surface of black cloth stretched
over black rubber, 1 m. square. Now an investigation which is to deal
with complicated and varied relations, resembling those of pictures,
demands an instrument resembling them also in the shape of the
background. A rectangle 600 mm. broad by 400 mm. high seemed to meet
this requirement better than the square of Dr. Pierce. Other parts,
also, of his instrument seemed unfitted for our purpose. The tin, 5
cm. broad and confined to the slits across the center of the square,
gave not enough opportunity for movement in a vertical direction,
while the scale at the back was very inconvenient for reading. To
supply these lacks, a scale graduated in millimeters was attached on
the lower edge of the board, between a double track in which ran
slides, the positions of which could be read on the scale. To the
slides were attached long strips of tin covered with black cloth. On
these strips figures glued to small clamps or clasps could be slipped
up or down; this arrangement of coördinates made it possible to place
a figure in any spot of the whole surface without bringing the hands
into the field of view. The experiments were made in a dark room, in
which the apparatus was lighted by an electric globe veiled by white
paper and hung above and behind the head of the subject, so as not to
be seen by him and to cast no shadow: in this soft light of course the
black movable strips disappeared against the black background. A gray
paper frame an inch and a half wide was fitted to the black rectangle
to throw it up against the black depths of the dark room—thus giving
in all details the background of a picture to be composed.
The differences in method between the two sets of experiments were
fundamental. In Dr. Pierce’s experiments the figures were pulled from
one side to the other of the half-square in question, and the subject
was asked to stop them where he liked; in those of the writer the
subject himself moved the slides back and forth until a position was
found æsthetically satisfactory. The subject was never asked, Does
this balance? He was indeed requested to abstract from the idea of
balance, but to choose that position which was the most immediately
pleasing for its own sake, and so far as possible detached from
associations.
I have said that Dr. Pierce intentionally accentuated the center. The
conditions of pictorial composition suggest in general the center only
by the rectangular frame. Most of my experiments were, therefore, made
without any middle line; some were repeated with a middle line of fine
white silk thread, for the purpose of ascertaining the effect of the
enhanced suggestion of the middle line.
But the chief difference came in the different treatment of results.
Dr. Pierce took averages, whereas the present writer has interpreted
individual results. Now, suppose that one tendency led the subject to
place the slide at 50 and another to place it at 130 mm. from the
center. The average of a large number of such choices would be 90—a
position very probably disagreeable in every way. For such an
investigation it was evident that interpretation of individual results
was the only method possible, except where it could be conclusively
shown that the subjects took one and only one point of view. They were
always encouraged to make a second choice if they wished to do so, as
it often happened that one would say: ‘I like both of these ways very
much.’ Of course, individual testimony would be of the highest
importance, and a general grouping into classes and indication of the
majority tendency would be the only way to treat the results
statistically. And indeed in carrying out the experiments this caution
was found absolutely necessary. In all but one or two of the sections,
the taking of averages would have made the numerical results
absolutely unintelligible. Only the careful study of the individual
case, comparison of various experiments on the same person to find
personal tendencies, and comparison of the different tendencies,
Comments (0)