very interesting! thanks for posting this, Eszter. The “Mooney faces” (row 4 on the first page) and the notion of “perceptual closure” reminded me of the sporadic appearances that the virgin Mary and assorted Hindu deities make on walls, bed linen etc.
The description for that entry mentioned how humans are quite adept at perceiving human faces from very scant visual cues. Yet most people seem to be not so good at reading emotions from human faces (or so claimed a Smithsonian article.) My naive attempt at evolutionary psychology predicts the opposite, though – reading emotions from actual human faces should be rather more useful than discovering Lord Ganesha on a piece of bread. Perhaps someone can reconcile this apparent discrepancy?
That’s exactly it, Miriam: the images are art because they reflect a consciousness that they’ve reached beyond the research that produced them, into aesthetics; these images are no longer simply recording what the research is.
{ 5 comments }
JayAnne 05.10.05 at 4:58 pm
Oh yes interesting. Thank you. Have you seen Ken Stange’s Computer Poems? Not the same, but I was reminded of them
http://kenstange.com/gallery/
rajH 05.11.05 at 11:43 am
very interesting! thanks for posting this, Eszter. The “Mooney faces” (row 4 on the first page) and the notion of “perceptual closure” reminded me of the sporadic appearances that the virgin Mary and assorted Hindu deities make on walls, bed linen etc.
The description for that entry mentioned how humans are quite adept at perceiving human faces from very scant visual cues. Yet most people seem to be not so good at reading emotions from human faces (or so claimed a Smithsonian article.) My naive attempt at evolutionary psychology predicts the opposite, though – reading emotions from actual human faces should be rather more useful than discovering Lord Ganesha on a piece of bread. Perhaps someone can reconcile this apparent discrepancy?
seth edenbaum 05.11.05 at 6:18 pm
What about any of the images could be considered ‘art’?
mjones 05.13.05 at 3:01 pm
Because someone saw something beautiful, and chose to shape an image of it?
Just a guess.
LiL 05.15.05 at 9:09 am
That’s exactly it, Miriam: the images are art because they reflect a consciousness that they’ve reached beyond the research that produced them, into aesthetics; these images are no longer simply recording what the research is.
Comments on this entry are closed.