When Filippo talks about average, familiar and trend in this context I start thinking about archetypes. Perhaps the memory of these things catalogued as a series of symbols?
Peter Retallick MDes
--- On Fri 09/29, Filippo Salustri < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
From: Filippo Salustri [mailto: [log in to unmask]]
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:45:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Easy on the eye
I should think that "average" isn't exactly the best word here. The brain adapts to stimuli as a result of repetitive exposure. The stimulus that is most easily (automatically) treated will be that to which the brain has the best *recent* exposure. So as stimuli change, so will the "average". Maybe "familiar" is a better word?
If the experiments always used stimuli to which the subjects were never ever exposed (hard to know definitely), and if the perceived correlation between ease of "processing" and "beauty" remains, then one might consider this an indication of what the brain can process easily. We know that different parts of the brain deal with colour, motion, shape, etc. Perhaps there are other structures in the brain that can be teased out from these experimental results.
The interesting question involves how "trends" form in such an environment. I think that some people have brains that adapt faster than others - they need fewer exposures for the stimulus to become "average" and therefore "beautiful". They then adopt the stimulus - e.g. buy the product that produces the stimulus - and help expose other people more often to the stimulus. Which causes some of the others to "averagize" (ick) the stimulus and then adopt it. And so on, snowball like.
No idea how I'd prove this, but there it is.
Cheers.
Fil
Chris Rust wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Without wishing to comment on the (plausible sounding) science reported
> by Glenn, I'd just like to say that what is "average" or normal varies
> wildly with place, circumstance and time and is endlessly mutable. I was
> informed recently (sorry I don't have a citation) that typography
> standards that were proven to be highly readable a few years ago have
> now been found to be difficult to read, presumably because they have
> become unfamiliar/unfashionable. Clever manufacturers and designers have
> known this for decades, the concept car is often a device for
> acclimatising the public to a new design theme about to be put on sale.
>
> So this theory is mildly interesting and changes nothing. Reactive
> designers and businesses will continue to copy proven formulae for short
> term security. More ambitious people will look for opportunities to move
> on - some will fail and some will change the landscape. Without that
> ambitious element the world would be a sad place, but we knew that already.
>
> And then there is "bleed". I'm writing from Switzerland where the
> aesthetic norms are different from my home. I've been here a week and I
> daresay that my "average" will have shifted and I'll carry a bit of that
> back home with me. If I give all my friends modernist Swiss gifts that
> will have a bigger effect.
>
> Maybe I'd better stock up on cuckoo clocks.....
>
> Best wishes
>
> Chris
>
> ********************
> Professor Chris Rust
> Head of Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> +44 114 225 2686
> [log in to unmask]
> www.chrisrust.net
>
>
>
>>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
|