| "Rules: Logic and Applications" 2nd Workshop, Dec, 2019 |
| Aesthetic Morphisms |
| Jocelyn Ireson-Paine |
| www.jocelyns-cartoons.uk/rules2019/ |
| "Rules: Logic and Applications" 2nd Workshop, Dec, 2019 |
| Aesthetic Morphisms |
| Jocelyn Ireson-Paine |
| www.jocelyns-cartoons.uk/rules2019/ |
| Slides as PDF | Artistic Techniques Database Demo | Artistic Techniques Database Video | Contact |
|
The transformations I've described can't yet be called morphisms in the strict sense, because I haven't shown that they have the necessary mathematical properties. Aesthetics is a biological phenomenon, and biology is always messy.
Indeed, a lot of these transformations are concerned with features deriving from quirks of our biology. Anthropomorphism works, at least partly, because our brains are so good at recognising faces. Likewise, the importance of transformations that emphasise gesture.
As an aside, I wonder whether some of the transformations I've described could be derived a priori from the properties that any sentient being's perceptual system and mind are likely to have. Linking, for example, draws the viewer's attention from one part of a picture to another. Is this related to the fact that we have only a finite amount of attention, and can direct it at only a small region? If so, linking might work for any being with the same mental architecture.
That aside, even if we can't make these transformations into a reputable mathematical object, we should still make a catalogue of them. It could be very useful to graphic designers, artists, and to those learning to be artists.
One sub-task here will be to define an ontology of artistic space, for talking about where features of the image are, or how they are distributed across the image.
