Reddit reviews Art and Visual Perception, Second Edition: A Psychology of the Creative Eye
We found 5 Reddit comments about Art and Visual Perception, Second Edition: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I think this is the most general standard book not only for color but for everything regarding visual input: Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye by Rudolf Arnheim. I don't have a fine art degree either so correct me if i'm wrong.
Here is a seminal work for designers/artists written by a psychologist: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520243838/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 (a caution to anyone looking to pick this up — this is not a quick/easy read).
It addresses the various elements of design through the lens of visual and cognitive psychology.
Obviously there are numerous channels for learning design tools, as far as design prompts there are sites that do that, but why not just go to upwork and look at actual client requests.
As far as getting a BA, look at local in-state schools, you should be able to go for $5k-$10k a year. People make the mistake of going to private institutions or going nuts by going out-of-state, but in-state public schools are pretty affordable.
As far as working in the field, don't count your eggs before they hatch. This is competitive field with a massive over-saturation of labor supply.
This is not quite what you're asking about.
>but when it comes to the big idea of that project and how the visual works in with the idea, I seem to get overwhelmed or lost.
Reading some of the Rudolf Arnheim's writings could be of profit to you. Be it Art and Visual Perception or Visual Thinking. Or maybe generally a bit more about the Theory of Graphic Design?
>when i try to give direction i feel as if i come up short
Maybe get in the head of some great art directors by reading their biography or books they published? The Art Directors Club could be a resource for information and inspiration too.
This is my last comment on the thread unless it gets back to what I originally posted the Hemingway quote about in the first place, which is holding true to a set of standards that one develops over an extended period of exposure to a certain kind of art.
Instead it has become an examination of my personal visual art theory, which I am glad to discuss. However, it's not what I wanted to talk about within the context of the Hemingway quote.
I will begin by REstating: GROSS simplification. What I said concerning the cave paintings was a gross simplification.
There have been several instances in which words have been put into my mouth. I never said that:
>all painting can trace its lineage to French cave art
I did say that those caves were the origin of visual language. That was a mistake. I should have said that they were one of the origins.
What I am talking about is not aesthetics in terms of a style. (The style of Chinese landscape vs. the style of Egyptian sculpture.) I am also not talking about whatever impetus it was that motivated these peoples to create art. You call me Eurocentric, when all I was trying to do was to put in as simple a statement I could the idea that color, line, shape, FORM was introduced in some of the earliest recorded examples of art that we have. The Asian arts possess these qualities as well. As do the entirety of great visual art.
What I am talking about is formalism. But let me define the way in which I am applying formalism. Formalism talks about the end of art. End here meaning the final product. Formalism does not say that Rothko set out to make a blue and yellow painting because that is aesthetically pleasing. I don't know what Rothko's motives were when beginning his painting. He may have thought at the outset that he was going to make a green painting. But the end was a blue and yellow one.
True, formalism will never be able to talk about the poetry that happens when those two colors start to interact, but it can look at it from a distance and say: This painting deals with the visual properties of color. It does so in a good way.
I agree with you when you say that art cannot "be completely stripped of its context and described entirely by its formal qualities." However, looking at it by its formal qualities is, I believe, the only way one can gain an objective view of it.
I also agree that "a painting is more than the sum of its brushtrokes." The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (gestalt psychology) is not, and has never been, in conflict with formalism.
I have tried, and obviously failed, to convey my ideas here. However, I can at least point you in the direction of where my ideas come from.
Rudolf Arnheim was a Gestalt psychologist who wrote extensively on visual perception. His book Art and Visual Perception was and is essential to my understanding of art.
Josef Albers and his book The Interaction of Color:
These are pretty basic, by no means simple, starting points. I also find the art criticism of Fairfield Porter to be very intriguing. Plus he's a stellar painter.
So yes, the location, impetus, desire, motivation of painters and draftsmen around the world are all going to be radically different. But the end result is going to be something that CAN be looked at from a formalist point of view. This point of view does not encompass the whole of what that piece of art is, but it does provide an unbiased approach. And all of these pieces of art can be judged on how well the line, size, shape, position, value, hue, chroma, temperature, and texture have been utilized. All of these factors can be found in those caves (and in Chinese landscapes, and African masks, and Mesopotamian sculptures, and, and, and). And all of those factors can be said to be utilized to the utmost effect.
And so that's as close as I can come to my set of standards. That the formal qualities be utilized in an honest and intriguing way, and not to the extent of creating vulgar works. I'll leave it with this comparison and hope that the discussion gets back on topic from here. One of these is the superior work. One is vulgar, the other is not: