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. (80×10); V. (160×10).
| F. | V. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | - 44, | ||
| 160 | -150, | -105, | -88 |
| 200 | -94, | -46, | -110 |
(b) F. (160×10); V. (80×10).
| 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?