STUDIES IN ÆSTHETIC PROCESSES. — часть 9

I shall now proceed to the interpretative part of the paper. Bilateral symmetry has long been recognized as a primary principle in æsthetic composition. We inveterately seek to arrange the elements of a figure so as to secure, horizontally, on either side of a central point of reference, an objective equivalence of lines and masses. At one extreme this may be the rigid mathematical symmetry of geometrically similar halves; at the other, an intricate system of compensations in which size on one side is balanced by distance on the other, elaboration of design by mass, and so on. Physiologically speaking, there is here a corresponding equality of muscular innervations, a setting free of bilaterally equal organic energies. Introspection will localize the basis of these in seemingly equal eye movements, in a strain of the head from side to side, as one half the field is regarded, or the other, and in the tendency of one half the body towards a massed horizontal movement, which is nevertheless held in check by a similar impulse, on the part of the other half, in the opposite direction, so that equilibrium results. The psychic accompaniment is a feeling of balance; the mind is æsthetically satisfied, at rest. And through whatever bewildering variety of elements in the figure, it is this simple bilateral equivalence that brings us to æsthetic rest. If, however, the symmetry is not good, if we find a gap in design where we expected a filling, the accustomed equilibrium of the organism does not result; psychically there is lack of balance, and the object is æsthetically painful. We seem to have, then, in symmetry, three aspects. First, the objective quantitative equality of sides; second, a corresponding equivalence of bilaterally disposed organic energies, brought into equilibrium because acting in opposite directions; third, a feeling of balance, which is, in symmetry, our æsthetic satisfaction.

It would be possible, as I have intimated, to arrange a series of symmetrical figures in which the first would show simple geometrical reduplication of one side by the other, obvious at a glance; and the last, such a qualitative variety of compensating elements that only painstaking experimentation could make apparent what elements balanced others. The second, through its more subtle exemplification of the rule of quantitative equivalence, might be called a higher order of symmetry. Suppose now that we find given, objects which, æsthetically pleasing, nevertheless present, on one side of a point of reference, or center of division, elements that actually have none corresponding to them on the other; where there is not, in short, objective bilateral equivalence, however subtly manifested, but, rather, a complete lack of compensation, a striking asymmetry. The simplest, most convincing case of this is the horizontal straight line, unequally divided. Must we, because of the lack of objective equality of sides, also say that the bilaterally equivalent muscular innervations are likewise lacking, and that our pleasure consequently does not arise from the feeling of balance? A new aspect of psychophysical æsthetics thus presents itself. Must we invoke a new principle for horizontal unequal division, or is it but a subtly disguised variation of the more familiar symmetry? And in vertical unequal division, what principle governs? A further paper will deal with vertical division. The present paper, as I have said, offers a theory for the horizontal.

To this end, there were introduced, along with the simple line figures already described, more varied ones, designed to suggest interpretation. One whole class of figures was tried and discarded because the variations, being introduced at the ends of the simple line, suggested at once the up-and-down balance of the lever about the division point as a fulcrum, and became, therefore, instances of simple symmetry. The parallel between such figures and the simple line failed, also, in the lack of homogeneity on either side the division point in the former, so that the figure did not appear to center at, or issue from the point of division, but rather to terminate or concentrate in the end variations. A class of figures that obviated both these difficulties was finally adopted and adhered to throughout the work. As exposed, the figures were as long as the simple line, but of varying widths. On one side, by means of horizontal parallels, the horizontality of the original line was emphasized, while on the other there were introduced various patterns (fillings). Each figure was movable to the right or the left, behind a stationary opening 160 mm. in length, so that one side might be shortened to any desired degree and the other at the same time lengthened, the total length remaining constant. In this way the division point (the junction of the two sides) could be made to occupy any position on the figure. The figures were also reversible, in order to present the variety-filling on the right or the left.

If it were found that such a filling in one figure varied from one in another so that it obviously presented more than the other of some clearly distinguishable element, and yielded divisions in which it occupied constantly a shorter space than the other, then we could, theoretically, shorten the divisions at will by adding to the filling in the one respect. If this were true it would be evident that what we demand is an equivalence of fillings—a shorter length being made equivalent to the longer horizontal parallels by the addition of more of the element in which the two short fillings essentially differ. It would then be a fair inference that the different lengths allotted by the various subjects to the short division of the simple line result from varying degrees of substitution of the element, reduced to its simplest terms, in which our filling varied. Unequal division would thus be an instance of bilateral symmetry.

The thought is plausible. For, in regarding the short part of the line with the long still in vision, one would be likely, from the æsthetic tendency to introduce symmetry into the arrangement of objects, to be irritated by the discrepant inequality of the two lengths, and, in order to obtain the equality, would attribute an added significance to the short length. If the assumption of bilateral equivalence underlying this is correct, then the repetition, in quantitative terms, on one side, of what we have on the other, constitutes the unity in the horizontal disposition of æsthetic elements; a unity receptive to an almost infinite variety of actual visual forms—quantitative identity in qualitative diversity. If presented material resists objective symmetrical arrangement (which gives, with the minimum expenditure of energy, the corresponding bilateral equivalence of organic energies) we obtain our organic equivalence in supplementing the weaker part by a contribution of energies for which it presents no obvious visual, or objective, basis. From this there results, by reaction, an objective equivalence, for the psychic correlate of the additional energies freed is an attribution to the weaker part, in order to secure this feeling of balance, of some added qualities, which at first it did not appear to have. In the case of the simple line the lack of objective symmetry that everywhere meets us is represented by an unequal division. The enhanced significance acquired by the shorter part, and its psychophysical basis, will engage us further in the introspection of the subjects, and in the final paragraph of the paper. In general, however, the phenomenon that we found in the division of the line—the variety of divisions given by any one object, and the variations among the several subjects—is easily accounted for by the suggested theory, for the different subjects merely exemplify more fixedly the shifting psychophysical states of any one subject.

In all, five sets of the corrected figures were used. Only the second, however, and the fifth (chronologically speaking) appeared indubitably to isolate one element above others, and gave uniform results. But time lacked to develop the fifth sufficiently to warrant positive statement. Certain uniformities appeared, nevertheless, in all the sets, and find due mention in the ensuing discussion. The two figures of the second set are shown in Fig. 2. Variation No. III. shows a design similar to that of No. II., but with its parts set more closely together and offering, therefore, a greater complexity. In Table II. are given the average divisions of the nine subjects. The total length of the figure was, as usual, 160 mm. Varying numbers of judgments were made on the different subjects.

Fig. 2.

TABLE II.

With the complex fillings at the left, it will be seen, firstly, that in every case the left judgment on No. III. is less than that on No. II. With the figures reversed, the right judgments on No. III. are less than on No. II., with the exception of subjects E and H. Secondly, four of the subjects only (E, F, G and H) had judgments also on the side which gave the complex filling the larger space; to E, F and G, these were secondary preferences; to H they were always primary. Thirdly, the judgments on No. III. are less, in spite of the fact that the larger component parts of No. II., might be taken as additional weight to that side of the line, and given, therefore, the shorter space, according to the principle of the lever.

The subjects, then, that appear not to substantiate our suggested theory are E and H, who in the reversed figures give the shorter space to the less complex filling, and F and G, who, together with E and H, have always secondary judgments that allot to either complex filling a larger space than to the simple horizontal. Consider, first, subjects E and H. For each, the difference in division of II. and III. is in any case very slight. Further, subject E, in judgments where the complex filling exceeds the horizontal parallels in length, still gives the more complex of the two fillings markedly the shorter space, showing, apparently, that its additional complexity works there in accord with the theory. There was, according to his introspection, another principle at work. As a figure, he emphatically preferred II. to III. The filling of II. made up, he found, by its greater interest, for lack of length. He here secured a balance, in which the interest of the complex material compensated for the greater extent of the simpler horizontals. This accounts for its small variation from III., and even for its occupying the smaller space. But in judgments giving the two complex fillings the larger space, the more interesting material exceeded in extent the less interesting. In such divisions the balance was no longer uppermost in mind, but the desire to get as much as possible of the interesting filling. To this end the horizontal parallels were shortened as far as they could be without becoming insignificant. But unless some element of balance were there (although not present to introspection) each complex filling, when up for judgment, would have been pushed to the same limit. It, therefore, does seem, in cases where the complex fillings occupied a larger space than the horizontals, that the subject, not trying consciously to secure a balance of interests, was influenced more purely by the factor of complexity, and that his judgments lend support to our theory.

Subject H was the only subject who consistently preferred to have all complex fillings occupy the larger space. Introspection invariably revealed the same principle of procedure—he strove to get as much of the interesting material as he could. He thought, therefore, that in every case he moved the complex filling to that limit of the pleasing range that he found on the simple line, which would yield him most of the filling. Balance did not appear prominent in his introspection. A glance, however, at the results shows that his introspection is contradicted. For he maintains approximately the same division on the right in all the figures, whether reversed or not, and similarly on the left. The average on the right for all four is 67; on the left it is 74. Comparing these with the averages on the simple line, we see that the right averages coincide exactly, while the left but slightly differ. I suspect, indeed, that the fillings did not mean much to H, except that they were 'interesting' or 'uninteresting'; that aside from this he was really abstracting from the filling and making the same judgments that he would make on the simple line. Since he was continually aware that they fell within the 'pleasing range' on the simple line, this conclusion is the more plausible.

Perhaps these remarks account for the respective uniformities of the judgments of E and H, and their departure from the tendency of the other subjects to give the more complex filling constantly the shorter space. But subjects F and G also had judgments (secondary with both of them) giving to the complex filling a larger extent than to the parallels. With them one of two principles, I think, applies: The judgments are either instances of abstraction from the filling, as with H, or one of simpler gravity or vertical balance, as distinguished from the horizontal equivalence which I conceive to be at the basis of the other divisions. With F it is likely to be the latter, since the divisions of the figures under discussion do not approach very closely those of the simple line, and because introspectively he found that the divisions giving the complex the larger space were 'balance' divisions, while the others were determined with 'reference to the character of the fillings.' From G I had no introspection, and the approximation of his judgments to those he gave for the simple line make it probable that with him the changes in the character of the filling had little significance. The average of his judgments in which the complex filling held the greater space is 66, while the averages on the simple line were 65 on the left, and 64 on the right. And, in general, abstraction from filling was easy, and to be guarded against. Subject C, in the course of the work, confessed to it, quite unsolicited, and corrected himself by giving thenceforth all complex fillings much smaller space than before. Two others noticed that it was particularly hard not to abstract. Further, none of the four subjects mentioned (with that possible exception of E) showed a sensitiveness similar to that of the other five.

With the exception of H, and in accord with the constant practice of the other five, these subjects, too, occasionally found no pleasing division in which the complex filling preponderated in length over the horizontals. It was uniformly true, furthermore, in every variation introduced in the course of the investigation, involving a complex and a simple filling, that all the nine subjects but H preferred the complex in the shorter space; that five refused any divisions offering it in the larger space; that these five showed more sensitiveness to differences in the character of fillings; and that with one exception (C) the divisions of the simple line which these subjects gave were nearer the ends than those of the others. It surely seems plausible that those most endowed with æsthetic sensitiveness would find a division near the center more unequal than one nearer the end; for one side only slightly shorter than the other would at once seem to mean the same thing to them, and yet, because of the obvious difference in length, be something markedly different, and they would therefore demand a part short enough to give them sharp qualitative difference, with, however, in some way, quantitative equivalence. When the short part is too long, it is overcharged with significance, it strives to be two things at once and yet neither in its fulness.

We thus return to the simple line. I have considered a series of judgments on it, and a series on two different figures, varying in the degree of complexity presented, in one of their fillings. It remains very briefly to see if the introspection on the simple line furnishes further warrant for carrying the complexities over into the simple line and so giving additional validity to the outlined theory of substitution. The following phrases are from introspective notes.

A. Sweep wanted over long part. More attention to short. Significance of whole in short. Certainly a concentration of interest in the short. Short is efficacious. Long means rest; short is the center of things. Long, an effortless activity; short, a more strenuous activity. When complex fillings are introduced, subject is helped out; does not have to put so much into the short division. In simple line, subject introduces the concentration. In complex figures the concentration is objectified. In equal division subject has little to do with it; the unequal depends on the subject—it calls for appreciation. Center of references is the division point, and the eye movements to right and left begin here, and here return. The line centers there. The balance is a horizontal affair.

B. Center a more reposing division. Chief attention to division point, with side excursions to right and left, when refreshment of perception is needed. The balance is horizontal and not vertical.

C. A balance with variety, or without symmetry. Centers at division point and wants sweep over long part. More concentration on short part. Subjective activity there—an introduction of energy. A contraction of the muscles used in active attention. Long side easier, takes care of itself, self-poised. Line centers at division point. Active with short division. Introduces activity, which is equivalent to the filling that the complex figures have; in these the introduced activity is objectified—made graphic.

D. Focal point at division point: wants the interesting things in a picture to occupy the left (when short division is also on left). Short division the more interesting and means greater complication. When the pleasing division is made, eyes move first over long and then over short. Division point the center of real reference from which movements are made.

E. No reference to center in making judgments; hurries over center. All portions of simple line of equal interest; but in unequal division the short gets a non-apparent importance, for the line is then a scheme for the representation of materials of different interest values. When the division is too short, the imagination refuses to give it the proportionally greater importance that it would demand. When too long it is too near equality. In enjoying line, the division point is fixed, with shifts of attention from side to side. An underlying intellectual assignment of more value to short side, and then the sense-pleasure comes; the two sides have then an equality.

F. Middle vulgar, common, prosaic; unequal lively. Prefers the lively. Eyes rest on division point, moving to the end of long and then of short. Ease, simplicity and restfulness are proper to the long part of complex figures. Short part of simple line looks wider, brighter and more important than long.

G. Unequal better than equal. Eye likes movement over long and then over short. Subject interested only in division point. Short part gives the æsthetic quality to the line.

H. Center not wanted. Division point the center of interest. (No further noteworthy introspection from H, but concerning complex figures he said that he wanted simple or the compact on the short, and the interesting on the long.)

These introspective notes were given at different times, and any repetitions serve only to show constancy. The subjects were usually very certain of their introspection. In general it appears to me to warrant these three statements: (1) That the center of interest is the division point, whence eye-movements, or innervations involving, perhaps, the whole motor system, are made to either side. (2) That there is some sort of balance or equivalence obtained (a bilateral symmetry), which is not, however, a vertical balance—that is, one of weights pulling downwards, according to the principle of the lever. All the subjects repudiated the suggestion of vertical balance. (3) That the long side means ease and simplicity, and represents graphically exactly what it means; that the short side means greater intensity, concentration, or complexity, and that this is substituted by the subject; the short division, unlike the long, means something that it does not graphically represent.

So much for the relation between what is objectively given and the significance subjectively attributed to it. There remains still the translation into psychophysical terms. The results on the complex figures (showing that a division may be shortened by making the innervations on that side increasingly more involved) lend plausibility to the interpretation that the additional significance is, in visual terms, a greater intricacy or difficulty of eye-movement, actual or reproduced; or, in more general terms, a greater tension of the entire motor system. In such figures the psychophysical conditions for our pleasure in the unequal division of the simple horizontal line are merely graphically symbolized, not necessarily duplicated. On page 553 I roughly suggested what occurs in regarding the unequally divided line. More exactly, this: the long section of the line gives a free sweep of the eyes from the division point, the center, to the end; or again, a free innervation of the motor system. The sweep the subject makes sure of. Then, with that as standard, the æsthetic impulse is to secure an equal and similar movement, from the center, in the opposite direction. It is checked, however, by the end point of the short side. The result is the innervation of antagonistic muscles, by which the impression is intensified. For any given subject, then, the pleasing unequal division is at that point which causes quantitatively equal physiological discharges, consisting of the simple movement, on one hand, and, on the other, the same kind of movement, compounded with the additional innervation of the antagonists resulting from the resistance of the end point. Since, when the characteristic movements are being made for one side, the other is always in simultaneous vision, the sweep receives, by contrast, further accentuation, and the innervation of antagonists doubtless begins as soon as movement on the short side is begun. The whole of the short movement is, therefore, really a resultant of the tendency to sweep and this necessary innervation of antagonists. The correlate of the equivalent innervations is equal sensations of energy of movement coming from the two sides. Hence the feeling of balance. Hence (from the lack of unimpeded movement on the short side) the feeling there of 'intensity,' or 'concentration,' or 'greater significance.' Hence, too, the 'ease,' the 'simplicity,' the 'placidity' of the long side.

As in traditional symmetry, the element of unity or identity, in unequal division, is a repetition, in quantitative terms, on one side, of what is given on the other. In the simple line the equal division gives us obviously exact objective repetition, so that the psychophysical correlates are more easily inferred, while the unequal offers apparently no compensation. But the psychophysical contribution of energies is not gratuitous. The function of the increment of length on one side, which in the centrally divided line makes the divisions equal, is assumed in unequal division by the end point of the short side; the uniform motor innervations in the former become, in the latter, the additional innervation of antagonists, which gives the equality. The two are separated only in degree. The latter may truly be called, however, a symmetry of a higher order, because objectively the disposition of its elements is not graphically obvious, and psychophysically, the quantitative unity is attained through a greater variety of processes. Thus, in complex works of art, what at first appears to be an unsymmetrical composition, is, if beautiful, only a subtle symmetry. There is present, of course, an arithmetically unequal division of horizontal extent, aside from the filling. But our pleasure in this, without filling, has been seen to be also a pleasure in symmetry. We have, then, the symmetry of equally divided extents and of unequally divided extents. They have in common bilateral equivalence of psychophysical processes; the nature of these differs. In both the principle of unity is the same. The variety through which it works is different.

FOOTNOTES.

1 Witmer, Lightner: 'Zur experimentellen Aesthetik einfacher räumlicher Formverhältnisse,' Phil. Studien, 1893, IX., S. 96-144, 209-263.

2 op. cit., 212-215.

3 Witmer: op. cit., S. 212-215.

4 op. cit., S. 262.

5 Zelsing, A.: 'Aesthetische Forschungen,' 1855, S. 172; 'Neue Lehre von den Proportionen des menschlichen Körpera,' 1854, S. 133-174.

6 Wundt, W.: 'Physiologische Psychologie,' 4te Aufl., Leipzig, 1893, Bd. II., S. 240 ff.

7 op. cit., S. 262.

8 Witmer, L.: 'Analytical Psychology,' Boston, 1902, p. 74.

9 Külpe, O.: 'Outlines of Psychology,' Eng. Trans., London, 1895, pp. 253-255.