Here we intend to explain
influences of the frame on an object within it. Moreover, all the forces
acting upon an object within the certain field of vision - the field of
our image. While for the primary, orientational forces (being left and
right, and up and down) existence of frame isn't essential - it is sufficient
to (self explanatory in deed) have basic spatial orientation, all of the
other forces are directly caused and determined by the frame itself. Our
illustrations try to assume the simplest possible "laboratory isolated"
shape - a circle (presumably an abstract denominator of every object's
manifestation) in an empty horizontal frame, roughly proportioned by the
golden rule. The belief is that every example is applicable to any object
in any other shape or proportion of the frame. It only remains to be mentioned
that in practical cases, instead of the clean and isolated influences,
we'll find a sum of different forces, often the contradictory ones, all
around the very detail we are trying to figure out. Besides, our visual
memory is usually sufficient to install chaos even in a blank paper. That's
why these "clean" illustrations to follow need an equally innocent eye.
From there, what follows is quite simple.
up and down
The only thing necessary for this grid of forces to appear is some
kind of decision or realization about what is "up" of what we see, even
if we are looking at an action painting laid down on the floor. (It could
be argued that floor is a natural habitat for many of those, which they
lost due to traditional establishment of the wall.) This kind of work,
just like some structuralist images and many ornaments, does not contain
information about what is up and down. Therefore, the "gravitational" order
of our visual field is something inherently subjective - not necessarily
predetermined - it emerges from our relation to the seen. Our eye will
establish this order no matter how we turn the image - and it is possible
that the composition will "function" in each case - although it will for
sure function in a significantly different way.
Since the whole hierarchy is gravity based, the altitude of the object
within the image is directly connected with its potential energy. That
is why everything that is higher up looks bigger and heavier, and the first
impression of turning a quiet and settled composition upside down is as
if everything is going to fall and tumble over each other. In this relation
the characteristic of super- and inferiority is very clearly stated. Our
impressions about this order are almost of an architectural nature: we
see things leaning on the others, weighting them, being built on them,
coming out of something, still supporting some others above, etc., which
is all obviously hierarchical. Ambivalence of these attributes manifests
itself accordingly: an object on the bottom can offer an impression of
rest, peace, emptiness, and exhaustion. In the other context, it can radiate
with ambition towards all the space awaiting it above. These are literary
two opposite forces applied to the same spot. In need of example, we can
use a head of the person within a portrait. |
Even though the little window has the position of utmost
height and power, the claustrophobic feeling of closeness to the edge and
being squeezed by the remainder of the image turns the emotion towards
confinement, limitedness, and sorrow, despite its pride.
The opposite is the role of a small bush bottom center.
Having so much space above, and attracted by the relations with the higher
placed objects, it shows a climbing tendency, even though it retains the
power and weight of the earth. (On the wall above is a painting of the
bull's head.)
|
