Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory, Hugo Münsterberg [top fiction books of all time TXT] 📗

is impossible to account for more than a small

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,