chris,terence-
its perhaps best to look at the entire spectrum of things, the
'black&whites'(&grays) as well as the '16billioncolours'... and arrive
at the notion of difference & repetition (no intentional reference to
Deleuze here!); the averageness & the uniqueness, both equally
important to the spectrum.
as in the 'faces' example, there is ofcourse an 'average' form(at) to
all faces we perceive, the shapesizetexture, but its the specifics
that differentiate people-we-know from this generic format (our mental
concept of a 'face', well we all do have one such fuzzy concept
hardwired in us!) that makes us even have the ability to perceive &
recognize faces; remembering ofcourse that there is, in reality, no
'average face' in existence ofcourse and that it is merely a
mathematical/conceptual construct.... a lot perhaps like the
averagehumandimensions concept, however unreal, that (mis)lead
architecture & some anthropometric design fields for many years, when
mass production was the way.
it really is duofold- quality&quanity, difference&repetition,
averageness&uniqueness, form&formless - so lets not bias our view!
cheers*
On 10/4/06, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Chris,
> Good point. As a matter of detail, in terms of the preferred aesthetics of
> faces (combined, compounded or morphed) it seems to be _exactly_ the
> mathematical average that is used (New Scientist 2 Oct 2004 and 22 Feb
> 1992). There are claims that compounding helps increase 'beauty' by
> increasing complexity and that people have an preference for increased
> complexity of facial detail. An empirical touchstone is model agencies
> apparently preferred photos of potential models whose faces had been
> digitally modified in this way.
> Cheers
> Terry
>
>
> >I don't think there is any suggestion that this "average" follows the rules
> of mathematical averages, I put it in quotes to indicate that it's a kind of
> rhetorical gadget.
>
>
|