Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1 / Containing Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.

by Unknown

I. THE PROBLEMS OF SYMMETRY.

The problem of æsthetic satisfaction in symmetrical forms is easily linked with the well-known theory of 'sympathetic reproduction.' If there exists an instinctive tendency to imitate visual forms by motor impulses, the impulses suggested by the symmetrical form would seem to be especially in harmony with the system of energies in our bilateral organism, and this harmony may be the basis of our pleasure. But we should then expect that all space arrangements which deviate from complete symmetry, and thus suggest motor impulses which do not correspond to the natural bilateral type would fail to give æsthetic pleasure. Such, however, is not the case. Non-symmetrical arrangements of space are often extremely pleasing.

This contradiction disappears if we are able to show that the apparently non-symmetrical arrangement contains a hidden symmetry, and that all the elements of that arrangement contribute to bring about just that bilateral type of motor impulses which is characteristic of geometrical symmetry. The question whether or not this is the fact makes the leading problem of this paper, and the answer to it must throw light on the value of the theory itself.

An exhaustive treatment of our question would thus divide itself into two parts; the first dealing with real (or geometrical) symmetry, the second with apparent asymmetry; the first seeking to show that there is a real æsthetic pleasure in geometrical symmetry, and that this pleasure is indeed based on the harmony of the motor impulses suggested by symmetry, with the natural motor impulses of the human organism; the second seeking to show in what manner æsthetically pleasing but asymmetrical arrangements conform to the same principles. Within these two groups of problems two general types of investigation are seen to be required; experiment, and the analysis of æsthetic objects.

The main question, as stated above, is of course whether the theory can explain our pleasure in arrangements which are completely or partly symmetrical. It is, however, an indispensible preliminary to this question, to decide whether the pleasure in symmetrical arrangements of space is indeed immediate and original. If it were shown to be a satisfaction of expectation, bred partly from the observation of symmetrical forms in nature, partly from the greater convenience of symmetrical objects in daily use, the whole question of a psychophysical explanation would have no point. If no original æsthetic pleasure is felt, the problem would be transformed to a demand for the explanation of the various ways in which practical satisfaction is given by symmetrical objects and arrangements. The logical order, then, for our investigation would be: First, the appearance of symmetry in the productions of primitive life, as a (debatable) æsthetic phenomenon emerging from pre-æsthetic conditions; secondly, the experimental study of real symmetry; thirdly, the analysis of geometrical symmetry in art, especially in painting and architecture, by means of which the results of the preceding studies could be checked and confirmed. Having once established a theory of the æsthetic significance of real symmetry, we should next have to examine asymmetrical, beautiful objects with reference to the relation of their parts to a middle line; to isolate the elements which suggest motor impulses; to find out how far it is possible to establish a system of substitution of these psychological factors and how far such substitution takes place in works of art—i.e., to what extent a substitutional symmetry or balance is found in pleasing arrangements. These investigations, again, would fall into the two groups of experiment and analysis. The products of civilized art are too complicated to admit of the complete analysis and isolation of elements necessary to establish such a system of substitution of psychological factors as we seek. From suggestions, however, obtained from pleasing asymmetrical arrangements, first, isolated elements may be treated experimentally, and secondly, the results checked and confirmed by works of art.

With regard to the study of objects without a natural or suggested middle line, as for instance sculpture, many types of architecture, landscapes, gardens, room-arrangements, etc., we may fitly consider it as a corollary to the study of asymmetrical objects with artificial limits which do suggest a middle. If we find, by the study of them, that a system of substitution of psychological factors does obtain, the whole field can be covered by the theory already propounded, and its application extended to the minutest details. The hypothesis, having been so far confirmed, may be then easily applied to the field of asymmetrical objects without a natural middle line.

The set of problems here suggested to the student of symmetry will not be fully followed out in this paper. The experimental treatment of geometrical symmetry, the analysis of the completely symmetrical products of civilized art, and the analysis of all forms of asymmetry except asymmetry in pictures will be omitted. If, however, the fact of an original æsthetic feeling for symmetry is established by the study of primitive art, and the theory of the balance of motor impulses through the substitution of factors is established by the experimental treatment of isolated elements, and further confirmed by the analysis of pictures, the general argument may be taken as sufficiently supported. This paper, then, will contain three sections: an introductory one on symmetry in primitive art, and two main sections, one on experiments in substitutional symmetry, and one on substitutional symmetry or balance in pictures.

II. SYMMETRY IN PRIMITIVE ART.

The question which this section will attempt to answer is this: Is there in primitive art an original and immediate æsthetic feeling for symmetry? This question depends on two others which must precede it: To what extent does symmetry actually appear in primitive art? and, How far must its presence be accounted for by other than æsthetic demands?

For the purpose of this inquiry the word primitive may be taken broadly as applying to the products of savage and half-savage peoples of to-day, as well as to those of prehistoric races. The expression primitive art, also, requires a word of explanation. The primitive man seldom makes purely ornamental objects, but, on the other hand, most of his articles of daily use have an ornamental character. We have to consider primitive art, therefore, as represented in the form and ornamentation of all these objects, constituting practically an household inventory, with the addition of certain drawings and paintings which do not appear to serve a definite practical end. These last, however, constitute only a small proportion of the material.