A sight to behold! So What's Going On Now?, with his framing, he focused attention on the peeping at the peeping tom, but, in my opinion, deprived the viewer of the chance to answer the question: what (or who) is the first one peeping at? And although the photograph doesn't answer what the intrigue actually is, the desire remains...
A sight to behold! So What's Going On Now?, with his framing, he focused attention on the peeping at the peeping, but, in my opinion, deprived the viewer of the chance to answer the question: what (who) is the first one peeping at? And although the photograph doesn't answer what the intrigue actually consists of, the desire remains...
Mikhail 57 World, deprived them of perspective, I think they're no longer looking into the distance.
A sight to behold! So That's What Now., with his framing, he focused attention on the peeping at the peeping tom, but, in my opinion, deprived the viewer of the chance to answer the question: what (who) is the first one peeping at? And although the photograph doesn't provide an answer as to what the intrigue actually lies, the desire remains...
Mikhail 57 Mir, for you, your logically synthesized thought acts as the driver of perception...
If you want to understand the visual, the most logical thing is to abandon logic.
Otherwise, the whole sky is full of holes the size of your index finger.
Mikhail 57 Mir, I think he deprived them of perspective; they're no longer looking into the distance.
So, So What Now?, I think you're underestimating the role of logic in visual perception. Without a doubt, at the initial stage, when "reading" the emotional background, the subconscious is at work. But if the image intrigues you, your rational mind kicks in, allowing you to evaluate the details and construct a meaningful picture. This is also part of perceiving a visual image. You can deny its significance, but not the fact of its existence. This is psychology, and it can't be abolished; it really exists. Moreover, the process of perception is individual and depends not only on the nature of the image, but also on the personality of the viewer: their emotional state, their preparedness (in the broad sense), and who knows what else...
So, So What Now?, I think you're underestimating the role of logic in visual perception. Without a doubt, at the initial stage, when "reading" the emotional background, the subconscious is at work. But if the image intrigues you, your rational mind kicks in, allowing you to evaluate the details and construct a meaningful picture. This is also part of perceiving a visual image. You can deny its significance, but not the fact of its existence. This is psychology, and it can't be abolished; it really exists. Moreover, the process of perception is individual and depends not only on the nature of the image, but also on the personality of the viewer: their emotional state, their preparedness (in the broad sense), and God knows what else...
Mikhail 57 World, the fact is that logic is very far removed from the aesthetic enjoyment of the visual, so far removed that they don't even intersect. Hence my conclusion = If you want to enjoy what you're seeing, turn off your calculator. Logic is such a stubborn thing that, by hook or by crook, it will inevitably push itself to the highest level of understanding and perception... although, in fact, understanding, for visual perception, is not at all required.
Mikhail 57 Mir, the thing is, logic is very far removed from the aesthetic pleasure of the visual, so far that they don't even intersect.
Hence my conclusion = If you want to get a thrill from what you observe, turn off your calculator.
Logic is such a stubborn thing that, by hook or by crook, it will inevitably drive itself to the highest level of understanding of perception... although, in fact, understanding, for visual perception, is not at all required.
There.
So, What Now?,
You've either learned to turn off logic, which I don't believe (otherwise you're an enlightened guru communicating with the Cosmos and the World only through your subconscious), or you're just showing off (which is much more likely). It's like living, say, without using your stomach or kidneys, while claiming that life becomes more sublime...
Mikhail 57 World, And what kind of logic turns on in you when you contemplate something decorative and applied, for example? I wish I had a table like that for my dacha? ) Learning to look at any photograph as decorative is not difficult, by and large. Another thing is that Alokh himself is happily engaged in design activities based on signs, the comprehension of which lies in the realm of the rational (we are not talking about thought yet, Alokh has a mess in his head with these concepts) I do not hope that Alokh will understand that understanding cannot be conveyed verbally, but with the help of thought it is only possible to illuminate certain aspects of it. Therefore, for a long time we will still be reading here how "the water pump entered through the navel and was the beginning of immersion into the space of the frame..." or whatever...
So, What Now?, it's predictable that you'll jump....
gorox58, logic = https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Логика Can you tell me where to look for the meaning of the words "synthesize" and "thought"? Or can you figure it out yourself...
And what logic turns on in you when you contemplate something decorative and applied, for example? I wish I had a table like that for my dacha? ) Learning to look at any photograph as decorative is not difficult, by and large.
The example is probably not the best, because the table is rather a functional and utilitarian thing. Although, in principle, I understand you. But design is not just aesthetics, but first of all "technical". But I admit that in relation to So What Now, Like., I probably went too far. I am a techie and admit my certain inferiority in the aesthetic sense, a kind of "mental labor disability". But I'm trying to work on it. And in principle So What Now, Like., raised an interesting question: is it possible to analyze and do creative work without using rationality? This is more like Castaneda's path, but it's complex not only psychologically (to stop "making the world," as Juan Matus taught), but also socially (those who acquire such an ability are doomed to loneliness). Therefore, it seems to me that the question is purely theoretical...
You've either learned to turn off logic, which I don't believe
Mikhail 57 World, why do I need it if there are ways to obtain information that is less expensive (while relaxed) and at the same time many times more reliable than the coefficient of "calculating the truth" through logic!?
Otherwise, you are an enlightened guru, communicating with the Cosmos and the World only through the subconscious
You are in vain exaggerating my exceptionalism, I am simply using what is inherent, in each of us, from birth!
Or you are just showing off (which is much more likely).
You also didn't guess... for self-drawing (in order to stand out from the crowd) I would choose a more reliable and effective method... for example, I would start "rhyming" Words, on some non-composer website! Fortunately, the rhyme generators on the internet are legion.
It's like living, say, without your stomach or kidneys, while claiming that life is becoming more sublime...
And why are you so skeptical and sarcastic? After all, everyone knows that for the brainless, life is exactly like that—cloudlessly sublime. ***
Tell this to the physicists and mathematicians who find charm in the rigor of derived formulas...
I told them... waited for an answer (that's why I didn't answer you earlier), and here's their answer: = The only formula that mathematicians, and not only them, get excited about is XXX
Here... Please notice and appreciate the fact that I didn't force your tongue, not once! Well, as always, my
So, Now, Like, I raised an interesting question: is it possible to analyze and create creative work without using rationality?
It's clear that analyzing without rationality is impossible. Creating without rationality, in the completely native sense of the word, is possible. The first example is children, among whom there are geniuses. If you're talking about "Hamburg" numbers, then, for example, Naidan Rusheva, if we're talking about drawing. Or Jacques Lartigue, whose native style was drawn into the foundation of street photography. Or representatives of the naive movement. But there are nuances, as they say. Lartigue himself remains in the memory as a surprise pulled out by Zharkovsky to squeeze fresh photographic thought into MoMA. One way or another, all talented kids had to acquire some kind of systematic knowledge and position themselves in space. The paradox is that the acquired knowledge must be “forgotten” because rationality is consistent, while perception is a parallel, instantaneous process, the result of which is in the gaps between the rationalities describing one or another aspect of the work.
Why won't it work? - You've forgotten your Teacher! )))
That's precisely the lack of rationality. Because everything is built on an axiom that sweeps away objective reality, but somehow lacks persuasiveness. And on all fronts.
I told you... waited for an answer (that's why I didn't reply to you earlier), and here's their answer: = The only formula that mathematicians, and others, get excited about is XXX Here... Please note, and appreciate the fact that I didn't force your tongue, not once!
Well, as always, my
So, So, What Now?,
Mr. Aloha upset me. I write very poorly, you see. I have no imagination or talent, And all the rhymes are from the internet. I understand - logic is my enemy, After all, I may be a techie, but I'm not a fool. And true art, Lives without thought, only by feeling. But how to create without a head, Alas, I still haven't figured out. I fasted for a day, lived in humility, And suddenly I had an epiphany. But there are countless worthy masters, Cooking masterpieces like crazy!
Mikhail 57 Mir, It's clear that analyzing without rationality is impossible. Creating without rationality, in the completely native sense of the word, is possible. The first example is children, among whom there are geniuses. If the calculation is "Hamburg," then, for example, Naidan Rusheva, if we're talking about drawing. Or Jacques Lartigue, whose native style was pulled out into the basis of street photography. Or representatives of the naive movement. But there are nuances, as they say. Lartigue himself remains in the memory as a surprise pulled out by Zharkovsky to squeeze fresh photographic thought into MoMA. One way or another, all talented children had to acquire some kind of systematic knowledge and position themselves in space. The paradox is that the acquired knowledge must be "forgotten" Because rationality is sequential, while perception is a parallel, instantaneous process, the result of which works in the gaps between the rational elements describing one aspect of the work or another.
Oleg Popov, I liked the idea of "gaps," I'll think about it... You correctly noted that the paradox is that the original "nativ" will have to be cliched with knowledge, depriving it of its originality. I don't think humanity has devised any other way. One might say it's unfortunate, but that doesn't change the situation. The construction: from analysis to synthesis through knowledge, still works. And it doesn't matter whether it's conscious or unconscious. And the viewer (the receiving end of perception) lives by cliches, and it's difficult for the author to influence them, except perhaps by nonverbally conveying the mood, using an image as an "icon." However, I moved from creation to perception, and that's a completely different story...
Mr. Aloha upset me. I write very poorly, apparently. I have no imagination or talent, And all the rhymes are from the internet. I realized – logic is my enemy, After all, I may be a techie, but I'm no fool. And true art, Lives without thought, only by feeling. But how to create without a head, Alas, I still haven't figured out. I fasted for a day, lived in humility. And suddenly, I had an epiphany. And yet there are countless worthy masters, Creating masterpieces without a care in the world!
*** I'm happy to say it seriously
I'm happy to say it seriously – If only I had the mood... On Parnassus – a farrowing, A vile phenomenon.
The ships have become crowded In the creative fairway - Here and there, the children of a common mother have multiplied,
And they scribble in high spirits, Needing no reason, City dwellers - about the village, Country dwellers - about the city.
Who gazes into the distance like a prophet With the optimism of a whiner, Who talks about morality With the nose of a syphilitic.
She sings of a sea of dreams - Who chews magnesium. When you look - it's a pity to tears Mother of all poetry.
There, titan beats titan, Like an enemy against an enemy. But dig - only droppings, You might as well call a dog trainer.
And the lines of a tedious story float into the light: Out of hunger - about fate, Out of drink - about conscience.
Only Parnassus brings sadness - Not a single person... Where can I find a special dust - Against poetry?
Even though it's not yours, the style is pleasant. We'll continue the dialogue later.
Mikhail 57 World, we'll continue, of course... but please, without your cheap, show-offy style. It's annoying and distressing to read this from a grown man.
Mikhail 57 Mir, of course we'll continue... but please, without your cheap, stilted pretenses. It's annoying and distressing to read this from a grown man.
E. L., I hope the front view is as good as the back
If you want to understand the visual, the most logical thing is to abandon logic.
Otherwise, the whole sky is full of holes the size of your index finger.
ultimar,
I think you're underestimating the role of logic in visual perception. Without a doubt, at the initial stage, when "reading" the emotional background, the subconscious is at work. But if the image intrigues you, your rational mind kicks in, allowing you to evaluate the details and construct a meaningful picture. This is also part of perceiving a visual image. You can deny its significance, but not the fact of its existence. This is psychology, and it can't be abolished; it really exists. Moreover, the process
of perception is individual and depends not only on the nature of the image, but also on the personality of the viewer: their emotional state, their preparedness (in the broad sense), and who knows what else...
Hence my conclusion = If you want to enjoy what you're seeing, turn off your calculator. Logic is such a stubborn thing that, by hook or by crook, it will inevitably push itself to the highest level of understanding and perception... although, in fact, understanding, for visual perception, is not at all required.
You've either learned to turn off logic, which I don't believe (otherwise you're an enlightened guru communicating with the Cosmos and the World only through your subconscious), or you're just showing off (which is much more likely). It's like living, say, without using your stomach or kidneys, while claiming that life becomes more sublime...
Tell this to the physicists and mathematicians who find charm in the rigor of derived formulas...
logic = https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Логика
Can you tell me where to look for the meaning of the words "synthesize" and "thought"? Or can you figure it out yourself...
You are in vain exaggerating my exceptionalism, I am simply using what is inherent, in each of us, from birth!
You also didn't guess... for self-drawing (in order to stand out from the crowd) I would choose a more reliable and effective method...
for example, I would start "rhyming" Words, on some non-composer website!
Fortunately, the rhyme generators on the internet are legion.
And why are you so skeptical and sarcastic? After all, everyone knows that for the brainless, life is exactly like that—cloudlessly sublime.
***
I told them... waited for an answer (that's why I didn't answer you earlier), and here's their answer:
= The only formula that mathematicians, and not only them, get excited about is XXX
Here... Please notice and appreciate the fact that I didn't force your tongue, not once!
Well, as always, my
Explain why... or do it yourself?
"Art and Visual Perception"...it's a bit dated, but I don't see anything better on the horizon.
http://school4you.ru/download/perception/Арнхейм+Р.+-+Искусство+и+визуальное+восприятие.pdf
Lartigue himself remains in the memory as a surprise pulled out by Zharkovsky to squeeze fresh photographic thought into MoMA. One way or another, all talented kids had to acquire some kind of systematic knowledge and position themselves in space. The paradox is that the acquired knowledge must be “forgotten” because rationality is consistent, while perception is a parallel, instantaneous process, the result of which is in the gaps between the rationalities describing one or another aspect of the work.
Why won't it work? - You've forgotten about your Teacher! )))
Mr. Aloha upset me.
I write very poorly, you see.
I have no imagination or talent,
And all the rhymes are from the internet.
I understand - logic is my enemy,
After all, I may be a techie, but I'm not a fool.
And true art,
Lives without thought, only by feeling.
But how to create without a head,
Alas, I still haven't figured out. I fasted for a day, lived in humility,
And suddenly I had an epiphany.
But there are countless worthy masters,
Cooking masterpieces like crazy!
I liked the idea of "gaps," I'll think about it...
You correctly noted that the paradox is that the original "nativ" will have to be cliched with knowledge, depriving it of its originality. I don't think humanity has devised any other way. One might say it's unfortunate, but that doesn't change the situation. The construction: from analysis to synthesis through knowledge, still works. And it doesn't matter whether it's conscious or unconscious. And the viewer (the receiving end of perception) lives by cliches, and it's difficult for the author to influence them, except perhaps by nonverbally conveying the mood, using an image as an "icon." However, I moved from creation to perception, and that's a completely different story...
I'm happy to say it seriously
I'm happy to say it seriously –
If only I had the mood...
On Parnassus – a farrowing,
A vile phenomenon.
The ships have become crowded
In the creative fairway -
Here and there, the children of a common mother have multiplied,
And they scribble in high spirits,
Needing no reason,
City dwellers - about the village,
Country dwellers - about the city.
Who gazes into the distance like a prophet
With the optimism of a whiner,
Who talks about morality
With the nose of a syphilitic.
She sings of a sea of dreams -
Who chews magnesium.
When you look - it's a pity to tears
Mother of all poetry.
There, titan beats titan,
Like an enemy against an enemy.
But dig - only droppings,
You might as well call a dog trainer.
And the lines of a tedious story float into the light:
Out of hunger - about fate,
Out of drink - about conscience.
Only Parnassus brings sadness -
Not a single person...
Where can I find a special dust -
Against poetry?
(c) Denis Korotaev
https://www.chitalnya.ru/work/194093/
Even though it's not yours, the style is pleasant,
We'll continue the dialogue later.
It's annoying and distressing to read this from a grown man.
I replied to you privately...