Various - Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1

V >> Various >> Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55

Exp. V. Curve III. See Fig. 12, III.

A series with the upper end turned out from the center was unanimously
pronounced as ugly. The inward position only appears in the results,
which are given in full.

(_a_) F. (80x10), V. CURVE.

F. V.
O. C.

40 106 126 68 73
80 106 128 109 102
120 140 88 156 110* 154 72*
160 104 66 182 80 136* 130*
200 X 52 178 220* 162

(_b_) F. CURVE, V. (80x10)

F. V.
O. C.

40 126 122 73 80
80 122 128 66 112* 40
120 90 116 97 156* 55 105
160 65 43 120 182* 87 134
200 70 50 148 66

This curve exemplifies the same principles as the preceding. _O_ takes
the natural mechanical choice from (_a_) F. 40 to F. 120, and from
(_b_) F. 120 to F. 200. A mechanical choice, however, for (_a_) F. 120
ff., and for (_b_) F. 40 to F. 120, would have brought the lines too
far apart in (_a_), and too near together in (_b_), hence the
reversal. _C_ inclines always to the mechanical choice, but recognizes
the other point of view in his second choices.

Exp. V. Curve IV. See Fig. 12, IV.

Curve in.

(_a_) F. (80x10), V. Curve.

_C_ puts V. always further than F. and, even for F. 200, has
V. 230, X. _O_ puts V. farther up to F. 120, then puts it
nearer than F., and always refuses to choose for F. 200.

(_b_) F. Curve, V. (80x10).

_C_ always puts V. nearer than F. _O_ puts V. farther for F.
40 and F. 80, beyond that, nearer than F.; but refuses to
choose once each for F. 40, and F. 200.

The same principles of choice appear. _C_ maintains the
mechanical choice, and _O_ reverses it only beyond (_a_) F.
120, and up to (_b_) F. 120, to fill space well, showing his
preference for the mechanical choice by changing into it at an
unusually early point.

Exp. V. Curve V. See Fig. 12, V.

Curve in.

(_a_) F. (80x10), V. Curve.

_C_ puts V. farther than F., except for F. 200, V. 125 and X.
_O_ also, changing as usual at F. 120 to V. nearer than F.

(_b_) F. Curve, V. (80x10).

_O_ puts V. always farther than F. _O_ has V. farther for F.
40 and F. 80, then nearer than F. Refuses to choose for F.
200. Results exactly parallel with those of Curve IV.

Comparing all the results of this whole series of experiments on the
suggestion of movement, we may conclude that movement, whether
suggested by a whole line or part of a line, produces in terms of
mechanical balance the same effect that the balanced object would
produce after the completion of the suggested motion. This tendency to
balance, it appears, lies at the basis of our preference; it often
gives way, however, before considerations of space-filling, when the
figure which on the scheme of mechanical balance is weaker, gains
interest and so 'heaviness' by being brought nearer the center.

_D. Experiments on Interest._

By intrinsic interest is meant the interest which would attach to an
object quite apart from its place in the space composition. In a
picture it would be represented by the interest in an important
person, in an unusual object, or in an especially beautiful object, if
that beauty were independent of the other forms in the picture--as,
for instance, a lovely face, or a jeweled goblet, etc. When the
question of the influence of interest on composition came to be
discussed, it was found very difficult to abstract the form of the
object from the content presented; still more difficult to obtain an
effect of interest at all without the entrance of an element of form
into the space arrangement. Disembodied intellectual interest was the
problem, and the device finally adopted seemed to present, in as
indifferent a form as possible, a content whose low degree of absolute
interest was compensated for by constant change. Stamps of various
countries in black and white reproductions and very small outline
pictures on squares of the same size as the stamps were taken as
material. The figures were so small in relation to the board that any
influence on composition of the lines composing them was impossible;
the outline pictures, indeed, gave to the eye which abstracted from
their content an impression scarcely stronger than the neighboring
blank square.

The first set of experiments (VI.) had a small outline picture on the
side, and on the other a white paper square of the same size. The
necessary interest was given in the form of novelty by changing the
picture for every choice. The subjects were _M_, _G_ and _D_. The
results were of the same type for each subject and could therefore be
averaged.

Exp. VI. (1).

_(a)_ F. Picture, V. Blank. Eight choices for each. _M_,
Average: V. 17 mm. farther from center. _G_, Average: V. 10
mm. farther from center. (Symmetrical position beyond F. 120.)
_D_, Average: V. 25.8 mm. farther from center.

_(b)_ F. Blank, V. Picture. _M_, Average: V. 33 mm. nearer
center. _G_, Average: V. 4 mm. nearer center. (Symmetrical
beyond F. 120.) _D_, Average: V. 30 mm. nearer center. (But V.
farther at F. 40.)

These results are practically unanimous. They show that an object
which possesses intrinsic interest acts like a mechanically heavy
object, being placed nearer the center than a blank. Two marked
deviations from the mechanical choice occur--although they have not
affected the average sufficiently to destroy the general harmony of
results. _G_, in both _(a)_ and _(b)_, chooses symmetrical positions
from F. 120 on. His notes ['_(a)_ F. 140, V. 136, picture
unimportant'; '_(b)_ F. 120 and ff., loses relation as they separate';
'_(b)_ F. 160, picture makes no impression'] show clearly that for
positions wide apart the picture, already a faint outline, becomes
only a white square like the other and is put into geometrical
symmetry.

Exp. VI. (2), by _G_ and _D_. A stamp on one side unchanged, took the
place of the blank; on the other side the stamp was changed for each
choice.

_(a)_ F. unchanged stamp; V. changed stamp.

_D_. Two series, (1) V. always nearer center. (2) Same, except
F. 20, V. 52; F. 80, V. 94; F. 140, V. 152; F. 160, V. 175.

_G_. Two series. (1) V. much farther from center up to F. 140,
then nearer. (2) V. farther throughout, except F. 160, V. 121.

_(b)_ F. changed stamp; V. unchanged stamp.

_D_. Two series. (1) V. farther up to F. 100, then
symmetrical. (2) V. farther up to F. 100, then symmetrical or
nearer center.

_G_. Two series. (1) V. farther up to F. 120, then
symmetrical, and beyond F. 140, nearer center. F. 140, V. 63.
(2) V. much farther up to F. 120, then nearer center, but more
nearly symmetrical than (1). A complete series of second
choices beginning at F. 40, V. slightly nearer center than F.

Analyzing results, we find the changed stamp, which has the interest
of novelty, nearly always nearer the center than the unchanged. This
would indicate a balance of the mechanical type, in which the interest
makes an object 'heavier.' The exceptions are in _(a)_ four choices of
_D_, _G_ to F. 140, and in _(b)_, _D_'s choice beyond F. 200, and
_G_'s beyond F. 120. The deviations are thus seen to be all of the
same type: for positions of F. near the center, when a mechanical
choice would have brought V. still nearer [(_a_)], it is instead put
farther away; for positions of F. far from the center, when a
mechanical choice would have put V. still farther away [(_b_)], it is
instead brought near. The exceptions are thus fully accounted for by
the demand for space-filling.

_E. Experiments on Depth._

The experiments on suggestion of depth in the third dimension were as
follows. It was desired to contrast two objects differing only with
respect to the degree to which they expressed the third dimension.
Those objects that do express the third dimension are, in general,
views down streets, colonnades, corridors, gates, etc., or, in
landscape, deep valleys, vistas between trees, distant mountains, etc.
It is evident that representations of products of human handiwork
would be less unnatural when isolated for experiment, and two pairs of
pictures were accordingly prepared as follows: There was drawn on a
square of 80 mm. the picture of the mouth of a railway tunnel, closed
tightly by an apparently massive door; and another picture of
identical form and surroundings, but showing the rails entering at a
slight curve, the deep blackness within, and the small circle of light
at the farther end. The second pair consisted of the gateway of a
baronial castle, with heraldic bearings and closed iron-wrought doors;
and the same gateway open, showing a flagged pavement and an open
court with fountain beyond. The perspective effect was heightened by
all possible means for both pictures, and care was taken to have the
contrast of black and white the same for each pair, so that to the
half-shut eye, opened and closed forms seemed to have the same tone.

The subjects were directed to try to _feel_ the third dimension as
vividly as possible--to project themselves down the vistas, as it
were--and then to arrange the squares in the most pleasing manner. The
experiments were made by _A_, _M_, _S_, _H_ and _D_. Not all made the
same number of repetitions, but as their notes were unusually
suggestive, I have made use of all the results, and shall quote the
notes for the most part _verbatim_:

Exp. VIII. F. Closed Tunnel. V. Open Tunnel.

F. V.
Subject _H_. 40 90
60 57
80 13
100 12
120 39
140 - 1
160 -32
180 -71, +50

_Notes._--_H_ finds that he neglects the closed tunnel almost
entirely, eye is constantly attracted to open tunnel, F. 180,
choice of evils. Position of closed tunnel makes the pictures
disagreeable. F. 80, V. 13, closed tunnel grows more
uninteresting as it goes out, while the open tunnel seems
heavier than ever. F. 140, V.-1, closed tunnel loses force and
doesn't gain weight. Open tunnel hangs together with the black
field beyond it.

F. V.
Subject _S_. 40 85 95
60 170 195
80 160 180
100 185 200
120 185 - 35, 200
140 85 20
160 115 115
180 100

_Notes._--F. 120, V. 185. After this there is too large a
black space between squares, and so a more central position is
taken, but there is the necessity of avoiding symmetry, which
is displeasing. F. 160, V. 115 is not symmetrical and so is
more pleasing. F. 60, V. 195:--the open tunnel holds the eyes,
while the other allows them to wander, and so it needs a
bigger field on each side. F. 80, V. 180:--a position close
together is possible, but it is hard to take them so except as
one picture, and that is also difficult. F. 100, V.
200:--there is the same objection to any position which seems
to be an acknowledgment of similarity; that is, symmetrical
position seems to imply that they are alike, and so is
disagreeable. F. 120, V.-35, 200:--now they can be close
together because the black tunnel harmonizes with the black to
the right, and seems to correspond in distance and depth,
while the tunnel 'hangs together' with the black to the left.
(Cf. _H_, F. 160, V.--32.) F. 140, V. 20:--when they are
together it is difficult to apperceive the frame as a whole;
but this position is not far apart, and not disagreeable
because the larger stretch of black to the right again hangs
together with the tunnel. F. 160, V. 115:--when the open
tunnel was in the middle, the closed one seemed to have no
business at all, therefore the open tunnel had to be moved
over. The only position which was not disagreeable.

SUBJECT G.

F. V.
(1) (2) (3) (4)¹ (5)¹
40 48 31 36 30 23
60 105 31 40 51 39
80 111 71 60 64 54
100 104 63 78 60 86
120 123 75 91 62 115
140 136 82 111 56 137
160 162 93 148 72 156
180 107 115 181 83 176

¹Second pair (Court).

_Notes._--(1) All quite unsatisfactory. The arrangement
difficult to apperceive as a whole. Each picture taken by
itself. (2) The tunnel closed doesn't amount to much. (3) The
significance of the tunnel gives it weight. For F. 160, V.
148, and F. 180, V. 180, relation difficult. (4) Court closed
gets weaker as gets farther from center. (5) At F. 100, begins
to lose relation between pictures, as if one were in one room,
one in another.

SUBJECT A.

F. V.
(1) (2) (3) (4) squared (5) squared
40 70 66 140 59 130
60 80 73 159 62 138
80 103 71 120 77 134
100 113 94 108 93 100
120 119 88 96 96 63
140 108 92 60,164 82 43
160 92 118 70 109 50
180 130 154 78 101 50

squaredSecond pair (Court).

_Notes_.--(1) Difficult to apperceive together. From F. 140,
V. 108, depth is more strongly imagined. (3) Tunnel closed has
not much value. (5) F. 80, V. 134, taken with reference both
to frame and to the other picture--must not be symmetrical nor
too far out.

SUBJECT D.

F. V.
(1) (2) (3)
40 100 47 38
60 75 60 68
80 104 78 80
100 148, -12 104 120
120 159 166 160
140 182 152, 84, 78 168
160 193 184, -75 180
180 200 - 95, 190 190

_Note_.--F. 100, V.-12; F. 140, V.-52; F. 160, V. -75: they
must be close together when on the same side.

F. V.
(1) (2)¹
Subject M. 40 55 50
60 56 74
80 64 84
100 86 102
120 93 111
140 124 130
160 134 146
180 144 178

¹Second pair (Court).

_Note_.--(1) Quite impossible to take both together; necessary
to keep turning from one to the other to get perception of
depth together with both.

The subjects agree in remarking on the lack of interest of the closed
tunnel, and the attractive power of the open tunnel, and notes which
emphasize this accompany choices where the open tunnel is put
uniformly nearer. (Cf. _H_, F. 180, V. 50; F. 80, V. 13; _G_, (2),
(3), (4), (5); _A_, (3), and F. 140.) As a glance at the results shows
that the open tunnel is placed on the whole nearer the center, we may
conclude that these choices represent a mechanical balance, in which
the open tunnel, or depth in the third dimension, is 'heavier.'

But another point of view asserts itself constantly in the results of
_S_, and scatteringly in those of the others. Analyzing at first only
the results of _S_, we find that up to F. 140, with one exception, he
places the open tunnel much farther out than the other; and from F.
140 on, nearer. He says, F. 120, V. 185, 'After this there is too
large a black space'; that is, in bringing the open tunnel in, he is
evidently filling space. But why does he put the open tunnel so far
out? It seems that he is governed by the desire for ease in the
apperception of the two objects. In his note for F. 80, V. 180, this
point of view comes out clearly. He thinks of the objects as being
apperceived side by side with the space about each (which apparently
takes on the character of its object), and then he seems to balance
these two fields. Cf. F. 60, V. 195: 'The closed tunnel allows the
eyes to wander, and so it needs a bigger field on each side.'
Evidently there is an implication here of the idea of balance. Cf.
also F. 120: 'The black tunnel harmonizes with the black to the right,
and seems to correspond in distance and depth,' while the closed
tunnel 'hangs together with the black on the left.' In brief, the view
of F. seems to be that the closed tunnel is less interesting, and
partly because it 'allows the eyes to wander,' partly as compensation
for the greater heaviness of the open tunnel, it takes with it a
larger space than the open tunnel. It is on the whole better to put
them apart, because it is more difficult to apperceive them when close
together, and so the open tunnel in the earlier choices must, of
course, go farther from the center. When these points conflict with
the necessity of filling space, the open tunnel comes nearer the
center. In general, the notes which emphasize the difficulty of
apperceiving the two pictures as flat and deep together accompany
choices where the tunnel is put uniformly farther out, or
symmetrically. Cf. _G_, (1), (5); _A_, (1); _M_, F. 40, etc.

Thus we may continue to separate the two points of view, that of
mechanical balance and that of another kind of balance, which we have
known heretofore as 'space-filling,' made possible by the power of the
center to give 'weight,' but which seems to be now more explicitly
recognized as a balancing of 'fields.' At this point we need repeat
only, however, that the suggestion of depth in the third dimension
seems to confer 'weight,' 'heaviness,' 'balancing power' on its
object.

Before making a general survey of the results of this chapter, it is
necessary to consider a type of choice which has been up to this
point consistently neglected--that in which the variable has been
placed on the same side of the center as the fixed object. On the
theory of balance, either in its simple mechanical form or in its
various disguises, this choice would at first seem to be inexplicable.
And yet the subjects usually took special pleasure in this choice,
when they made it at all. These minus choices are confined to three or
four subjects and to two or three experiments. Exp. I. (a) and (b)
show the largest number. We have:

EXP. I. (_a_) F. (80x10); V. (160x10).
F. V.
120 - 44,
160 -150, -105, -88
200 -94, -46, -110

(_b_) F. (160x10); V. (80x10).
F. V.
120 -70, -80
160 -114
200 -155, -146, -148

It will be noticed that, with two exceptions, none of the positions
chosen are nearer than 70 mm. to the center, and that most of them are
much farther away. The two lines seem to be more pleasing when they
are pretty close together on the same side. _S_, in I. (_b_) F. 120,
V.-70, notes: 'If V. is nearer _O_, there is a tendency to imagine a
figure by the connection of the ends of the two lines, which is
disagreeable. 'The only other minus choices were in Exp. VII., by
_S,_, _H_, and _D_. _S_, F. 120, V.-35, says: 'Now they can be close
together,' and _H_, F. 140, 160 and 180, V. -1, -32, -71, notes the
same. So also _D_, F. 100, V. -12; F. 140, V. -52; F. 160, V. -75; F.
180, V. -95. It is evident from this insistence on the closeness
together of the objects, and this desire to form no figure, that the
two are taken as one, and set off against the blackness on the other
side. It seems as if this were not taken as empty space, but acquired
a meaning of its own. The association with pictures in which the empty
space is occupied by a deep vista or an expanse of sky is almost
irresistible. The case of Exp. VII. seems a little different. _S_, at
least, separates the two fields as usual, but for him also the black
space is living, 'corresponds in distance and depth.' It is at least
certain that there is no subjective feeling of emptiness or of
unoccupied energies on the empty side. And it would seem that some
influence from the objects sweeps across the central field and
vitalizes it. The most natural view would seem to be that the ease of
apperception of the two objects together, and the tendency of the eye
movement to begin on the occupied side, and to sweep across to the
unoccupied, which we think of as deep, combine to give a feeling of
pleasure and of balance.

* * * * *

We have now reached a point from which a backward glance can be cast
upon the territory traversed. Experiment with the isolated elements in
pictorial composition has shown that pleasing arrangements of these
elements can be interpreted by the formula of mechanical balance. This
principle was obtained by opposing two lines whose relative value
(corresponding to 'weight' in balance) was known; and it was found
that their relative positions corresponded to the relation of the arms
of a balance. Further opposition of lines, of which one was already
determined in 'weight,' showed the same variations and suggested
certain valuations of the undetermined lines on the basis of this
common term of weight. Thus, the line suggesting movement out from the
center fitted the formula if taken as 'heavy' and _vice versa_, the
line suggesting movement in, if taken as 'light.' Similarly, objects
of interest and objects suggesting movement in the third dimension
were 'heavy' in the same interpretation. But this interpretation, in
its baldest form, fitted only a majority of the pleasing arrangements;
the minority, in which the consistent carrying out of the lever
principle would have left a large unoccupied space in the center,
exactly reversed it, bringing the 'light' element to the center and
the 'heavy' to the outer edge. Later experiments showed that this
choice implied a power in the 'lighter' objects, owing to their
central position, to cover or infuse with vitality the empty space
about them, so that the principle of balance seemed to maintain itself
in one form or another.

All this does not go beyond the proof that all pleasing space
arrangements can be described in terms of mechanical balance. But
what is this mechanical balance? A metaphor, no matter how
consistently carried out, explains nothing. The fact that a small
object far from the center is usually opposed by a large object near
the center tells us nothing of the real forces involved. Physical
balance can be explained by principles of mechanics, but no one will
maintain that the visual representation of a long line weighs more
than that of a short one. Moreover, the elements in the balance seem
utterly heterogeneous. The movement suggested by an idea--the picture
of a man running--has been treated as if equivalent to the movement
actually made by the eye in following a long line; the intrinsic
interest--that is, the ideal interest--of an object insignificant in
form has been equated to the attractive power of a perspective which
has, presumably, a merely physiological effect on the visual
mechanism. What justification can be given either of this
heterogeneous collection of elements or of the more or less arbitrary
and external metaphor by which they have been interpreted?

I believe that the required justification of both points of view is
given in the reduction of all elements to their lowest term--as
objects for the expenditure of attention. A large object and an
interesting object are 'heavy' for the same reason, because they call
out the attention; a deep perspective, because the eye rests in
it;--why, is another question. And expenditure of effort is
expenditure of attention; thus, if an object on the outskirts of the
field of vision requires a wide sweep of the eye to take it in, it
demands the expenditure of attention, and so is felt as 'heavy.' It
may be said that involuntary attention is given to the object of
intrinsic interest, while the uninteresting object far on the
outskirts needs a voluntary effort to perceive it, and that the two
attitudes cannot be treated as identical. To this it may be answered
that an object on the outskirts of a field of view so definitely
limited calls out of itself a reflex movement of the eye toward it, as
truly spontaneous as the impulse toward the object of intrinsic
interest. But what is 'the expenditure of attention' in physiological
terms? It is nothing more than the measure of the motor impulses
directed to the object of attention. And whether the motor impulse
appears as the tendency to fixate an object or as the tendency to
follow out the suggestions of motion in the object, they reduce to
the same physiological basis. It may here be objected that our motor
impulses are, nevertheless, still heterogeneous, inasmuch as some are
_toward_ the object of interest, and some _along_ the line of
movement. But it must be said, first, that these are not felt in the
body, but transferred as values of weight to points in the picture--it
is the amount and not the direction of excitement that is counted; and
secondly, that even if it were not so, the suggested movement along a
line is felt as 'weight' at a particular point.