T A Universal Grammar for Visual Composition

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 63

T H E O R E T I C A L

P E R S P E C T I V E

A Universal Grammar for Visual Composition? ABSTRACT

Peter D. Stebbing

S

tuart MacDonald, in an essay entitled “Articidal Tendencies,” criticizes the “art educationalists” who “have been busy demolishing the subject which supports them” [1]. Victor Pasmore, one of the gurus of English art education of the 1950s and 1960s, declared, “The whole business of art school teaching is in a very difficult position. Because of course there’s nothing to teach” [2]. Finally, Philip Ball, an editor of the scientific journal Nature, recently wrote, “In science, new knowledge builds on and refines the old. In art, according to common caricature, the new eclipses the old and rewrites all the rules” [3]. A tragedy of art and design education stems from the confused distinction between the aims and responsibility of the educational process and the professional activity. A London university department head once told me that contemporary interest in conceptual art does not require an understanding of form, which consequently is not taught [4]. However, I argue that the vagaries of fashion and subjectivity cannot provide the criteria for art and design curricula. The products of creative potential are not the means for developing that potential. A symphony is not a music lesson. If “form” or visual arrangement is currently not in vogue, that is no justification for its virtual disappearance from the curriculum (remembering that form and pattern perception are two of the brain’s major activities). An education determined by our personal tastes is immoral.

Peter D. Stebbing (teacher), Hochschule für Gestaltung, D-73525 Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany. E-mail:
[email protected].

MY AIM

T

he author has identified four fundamental organizational principles common to both organic form and the creation of visual composition. The author proposes that our perceptual system has evolved to respond to these principles (perceptual primitives) due to the necessity of recognizing the diversity of organic forms on which our survival depended during our earlier evolution. The evidence shows that these four principles occur widely throughout humankind’s aesthetic expression in different cultures, epochs, art forms and media. Applying von Humboldt’s principle, the author proposes that these limited means provide unlimited possibilities for developing student creativity if it were taught as a coherent grammar.

My aim is to identify the core components of a visual organization grammar (“composition”) for the art and design curriculum. Criticisms of formalism are as irrelevant as they would be for all grammars, since their limited means open the way to unlimited possibilities. (Are authors criticized for using words?) I believe that this aim is achievable by adopting more objective approaches and by using multidisciplinary and multicultural knowledge. The question of identifying curricular universals was recently posed by Walling: In thinking about art education it is essential to consider some new questions: How can we define curricular “universals,” given the complexity of today’s society? Who must have a say in the definition? Who ultimately decides? Policymakers? Administrators? Teachers? Parents? Students themselves? How do the themes of postmodernism influence this decision? [5]

Walling’s question has been answered, but not by any of those whom he suggests. The idea of universals is essential in order for us to emerge from the current educational dilemma, because universals [6] such as artistic behavior [7,8] are biological characteristics of our species. Therefore, those most able to answer Walling’s question include anthropologists, eth-

Fig. 1. A summary of the results of the frequency of the most-mentioned terms from the tables of contents of 50 books on visual composition.

CONTRAST Gradation Variation other synonyms

61 27 27 97  212

BALANCE Equilibrium Symmetry other synonyms

35 8 10 4  57

RHYTHM Repetition pattern other synonyms

33 35 34 29  131

PROPORTION golden mean/section other synonyms

36 10 2  48

© 2004 ISAST

UNITY Harmony other synonyms

24 11 2  37

movement motion other synonyms

48 9 0  57

expression other synonyms

30 11  41

LEONARDO, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 63–70, 2004

63

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 64

nologists, evolutionary biologists, neurophysiologists and archaeologists.

Table 1. Analysis of the occurrence of CRBP (and synonyms) plus Harmony in the tables of contents of 50 books concerned with visual composition (organization)

Contrast Rhythm Balance Proportion Harmony total mentions

THE ORIGIN OF THIS INVESTIGATION My investigation originated from discussions with my undergraduate graphic design students about why “rhythms” and “balance” are important in visual composition. In my search for objective answers, I quickly found that these two components, together with contrast and proportion, regularly but inconsistently occurred in the art and design literature. As a former student of biology and a practicing biological illustrator, I also recognized that Contrast, Rhythm (including pattern), Balance (including symmetry) and Proportion (referred to hereafter as CRBP) are basic principles in the organization and biology of organic form [9]. The question is whether CRBP are universal components of our species’ artistic behavior. Eventually I evolved a strategy of analyzing the tables of contents of books on visual composition in order to investigate this question.

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION— PROCEDURE Authors present the major components and structure of their books in tables of contents, and so I created a “mega-glossary” of all the words from the contents pages of 50 books [10] on visual composition from various art and design subjects.

Analysis 1 I used the cut-and-paste function of a word-processing program to compile the mega-glossary to identify the frequency of words primarily associated with visual composition in the 50 books. I did not attempt to compensate for cases where terms not mentioned in the contents pages subsequently appeared as headings within the text, and so because I wanted to maintain an objective procedure I adhered strictly to the words in the contents pages when creating the mega-glossary.

Acton, M., 1997 Allen, A.B., 1938 Anderson, D.M., 1961 Arnheim, R., 1974 Barratt, K., 1980 Birren, F., 1961 Bugg, S., 1997, 1998 Dondis, D.A., 1984 Dow, A.W., 1997 Garrett, L., 1967 Graves, M., 1951 Harlan, C., 1970 Hesselgren, S., 1969 Hofmann, A., 1965 Howard, C.H., 1926 Itten, J., 1975 Itten, J., 1980 Kandinsky, W., 1979 Kepes, G., 1995 Kleint, B., 1969 Kunstgewerbeschule, Zürich, 1968 Lauer, D.A., 1979 Lowry, B., 1961 Lucio-Meyer, J.J. de, 1975 Malins, F., 1980 Mante, H., 1969 Matthaei, J.M., 1993 Meiss, P., von, 1996 Owen, P., 1970 Palmer, F., 1988 Pearce, C., 1947 Peters, H., 1994 Popham, J.K., 1954 Read, H., 1963 Rowland, K., 1965 , vols. 1–3 Rowland, K., 1976 Ruder, E., 1981 Rüegg, R, and Fröhlich, G., 1972 de Sausmarez, M., 1980 Schodek, D.L., 1993 Scott, R.G., 1951 Smith, P.F., 1987 Sneum, G., 1965 Taylor, J.F.A., 1964 Thiel, P., 1981 Thompson, T., 1950 Wagner, F.C., 1981 Weber, J., 1975 Wong, W., 1993 Zelanski, P., and Fisher, M.P., 1988 Subtotals

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -

4 0 2 4 5 1 1 1 4 0 5 5 2 1 2 2 3 0 0 1

■ ■ ■

■ ■ -

■ ■ -

■ ■ -

■ ■

4 5 2

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ -

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■

1 2 2 2 4 0 1 4 3 4 3

■

■ ■

-

■ ■

■

2 0 4

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■

3 0 1 5 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 5

27

■ 31

■ 20

23

■ 19

3 120/50 = 2.4

Results The results revealed the most frequently occurring terms and supported my hypothesis that CRBP (and their synonyms) were indeed the terms most commonly used for visual composition. In addition, two other words that I had not anticipated appeared prominently: “movement” and “expression.” However, these

64

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

two words do not describe conditions of arrangement but rather a perceptual effect. The results appear in Fig. 1.

Analysis 2 The second analysis, shown in Table 1 (indicating the occurrence of Contrast, Rhythm, Balance and Proportion, as well

as Harmony in the tables of contents), clearly demonstrated the inconsistent perception of the components of composition. On average, 2.4 of the 5 terms occurred in any one of the contents pages of the 50 books. My two analyses therefore demonstrate the inconsistent way in which composi-

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 65

that changes. Styles are the ways in which individuality, or it may be the general feeling of the period, finds expression [12].

On the Internet I found that a theater arts course taught at Saddleback College in California included CRBP as follows: II. Analysis of Literature A. How to analyze: 1. Unity/Harmony 2. Variety/Contrast 3. Balance/Proportion 4. Rhythm B. Semantics and symbolization (Language) C. Literary organization D. Author’s attitude [13].

Finally, in a paper on architecture, Minai aims to: Outline the relevant design process. . . . Harmonic order, as the law of opposites, is reached by increasing uniformity and regularity through reduction of entropy of certain functions (e.g. rhythm), and at the same time increase in randomness and diversity through increase of entropy of opposite functions (e.g. climax) while numerous constraints are conditioning. Finally, “originality” and “probability” techniques are introduced as tools for optimizing certain random functions, such as axioms (rhythm, climax, balance, proportion, harmony and functional expression) and thus produce “harmonic order” [14]. Fig. 2. Contrast visually defined. (© Peter Stebbing)

tion is perceived while simultaneously indicating that CRBP and Harmony are composition’s most commonly identified components.

CRBP IN OTHER MEDIA MODALITIES

AND

My investigations into the occurrence of CRBP in other media and modalities indicate their widespread occurrence as principles of aesthetic composition. For example, on the appreciation of dance, Smith-Autard writes, A few may be pleased by the overall shape of the dance, and see the beginning, middle and end in proportionate relationship, and each section as a well balanced entity yet carefully blended into a unified whole. Others may feel a sense of pleasure on recognition of the repetitions and contrasts and follow the design of the dance within these frames of reference [11].

Likewise on music, Westrup writes, Forms are the ways in which at different periods music is cast into intelligible shapes. The fundamental principles remain constant: balance, proportion, repetition, contrast, variation, and so on. It is the detailed application of these principles

OCCURRENCE OF CRBP IN OTHER CULTURES A criticism made of the “mega-glossary” analysis above is that the books were written by either American or European authors. Consequently, I have extended my research into a multicultural investigation, which is revealing that CRBP are found widely, in varying proportions, in other cultures. For example, in the Chinese arts, it is well known that the interplay of contrast (yin and yang) and its balance plays an essential organizational role [15]. At the International Council for Societies of Industrial Design Conference in Seoul in 2001, Cho reported on what he calls “grand principles of design” and also observes that “there exists no one common view among scholars on these principles” [16]. Cho’s design principles are: harmony, unity, balance, emphasis, rhythm, proportion, contrast and symmetry, and he claims to have found their occurrence in all five sensory modalities: “visual, acoustic, gustatory, olfactory and tactual,” with the exception of symmetry for the gustatory and olfactory senses. The use of contrast and pattern (ornament) is to be found in every culture [17,18]. Often ornament is used to indicate status through the expenditure (waste) of energy in behaviors that are

Fig. 3. Rhythm visually defined. (a, top) A rhythm or pattern results from the repetition of a contrast and therefore neither a single nor two pulses can create a pattern or rhythm, because the complete contrast of pulse and pause must be repeated and defined and so a third pulse is necessary. It is self-evident that combinations of 2 and 3 offer endless permutations. (b, bottom) There are four basic symmetry operations that through different permutations create the seven border patterns and the 17 plane patterns. All patterns have their origins in these four operations, which are defined by physical dimensions of space. (© Peter Stebbing)

inessential to biological survival but important, if not essential, for social survival.

HYPOTHESES The evidence I provide here suggests that CRBP may also be universal, since I have found them in both different media and different cultures. I therefore developed the hypothesis that our aesthetic behavior in creating and appreciating visual compositions has evolved (exapted) from our innate ability to recognize the diversity of organic forms through the basic organizing principles of Contrast, Rhythm

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

65

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 66

Fig. 4. Balance visually defined. First, imagine that there is balance within the outer rectangle. We can thereby choose to what extent the contrasting elements with different visual weights should balance against one another or remain in unresolved tension. (© Peter Stebbing)

(pattern), Balance (symmetry) and Proportion, which characterize organic organization. Biology provides us with an explanation of how our ability to recognize organic form could have evolved into our ability for aesthetic organization by “pre-adaptation” or “exaptation” [19]. That is, “The structure and function of every organism depend crucially upon its evolutionary precursors” [20]. For example, the precursor allowing the hand to evolve was the fin. This principle applies equally to behavior [21]. An alternative to the exaptation hypothesis is that our aesthetic behavior may be an evolutionary “spandrel” [22], an aimless evolutionary by-product of another ability, which evolved to recognize organic form. However, all cultures appear to have made good use of this “spandrel.” Lovelock adds further indirect support for our ability to automatically recognize organic forms:

66

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

Fig. 5. Proportion visually defined. Proportion, like Contrast, Rhythm and Balance, is ultimately about relating the components of a design or composition. Proportion does this by ensuring that the measures used are related to one another by specific ratios. Although the specific measures may vary, the same ratio or perhaps several ratios are used repeatedly. Consequently, contrast (in the ratio) and repetition (their repeated used) are integral components of proportion. Proportions may be created in several ways, including (1) by using a specifically chosen ratio such as 1:2, 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, etc.; (2) by a geometrical construction to produce an integrally related number series; (3) by geometrically dividing the surface with lines to derive dimensions for the design or composition. (© Peter Stebbing)

Our recognition of living things, both animal and vegetable, is instant and automatic, and our fellow-creatures in the animal world appear to have the same facility. This powerful and effective but unconscious process of recognition no doubt originally evolved as a survival factor. Anything living may be edible, lethal, friendly, aggressive, or a potential mate, all questions of prime significance for our welfare and continued existence [23].

If true, my hypotheses explain why “life” and organic organization are important if not essential for our aesthetic abilities. Alternatively, if our sense of “form” did not evolve in response to the need to recognize organisms, then what other universal source could provide the correspondence that exists between natural and aesthetic form? Beardsley “suggests that ‘the form of an aesthetic object is the total web of relations among its parts’” [24]. This principle paraphrases the aesthetics of Aristotle, who wrote of the whole, that,

the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference is not an organic part of the whole [25].

Plato and Aristotle originated the concept of organicism, which was further supported by Alberti in the Renaissance. It is this principle of organic organization and relatedness that gives an artwork its harmony or unity and/or “life”—ideals to which many artists have aspired. Significantly, it is known that when these organic “webs of relations,” which exist both within and between organisms, are disturbed, this leads to either illness in the organism [26,27] or damage to the ecosystem [28].

A BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION If we consider our sense of visual composition biologically and as a behavior of

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 67

Fig. 6. Example of the organic occurrence of contrast. This figure summarizes the evolution of the form of the Burgess Shale animals during the Middle Cambrian. The range of potential forms of animal skeletons or their subunits is defined in terms of seven essential properties, each with two to four possible contrasting states, yielding a total of 21 variables. The graphics characterizing the parameters of the skeletal elements from the animals representing each descriptor are illustrated on the left. Illustrations of the use of the skeletal elements in different Burgess Shale animals representing each descriptor are shown on the right [57]. Reprinted with permission from R.D.K. Thomas et al., “Evolutionary Exploitation of Design Options by the First Animals with Hard Skeletons,” Science 288 (19 May 2000) pp. 1,239–1,242. (© 2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science)

our species, then we must ask two questions (among others [29]). Firstly, why do we possess a sense of visual composition? Secondly, from what ability did this sense evolve? Every organism lives in an ecological niche to which it is adapted and confined. The earliest primates, the prosimians, were insectivores, possessing a perceptual system equipped with “bug detector” [30] perceptual primitives that stimulated feeding behavior; these were (1) a small dark spot that (2) moves. However, primate evolution from the lemur to the chimpanzee is characterized by the consumption of an increasing range of food species [31]. Furthermore, the increase in the body size of the genus Homo [32] supports the hypothesis for an increase in the variety of diet during the evolution of Homo from the australopithecines. Our ancestors became nonspecialist feeders par excellence, a development that was probably an adaptation to climatic changes forcing early humans to seek (new) food organisms in new environments. Today, humans are omnivores with an unspecialized diet [33]. When humankind’s ancestors spread around the world, they must have already

possessed an organic-form-recognition system that emancipated them from their dependence on the food organisms in the niche of their origin. Clearly, it would have been biologically inefficient for them to have evolved feature detectors for every organism they eat; therefore, our ancestors’ brains must have evolved an economical (i.e. grammatical) system for recognizing any kind of organism. Recently published work on word recognition [34] supports the proposition that the recognition of complex form takes place through the perception of simple patterns consistent with the hypotheses being proposed here. Although as J.Z. Young has pointed out, “the genes have to perform a task analogous to prediction” [35], the evolution of a perceptual-grammatical system enhances this capability by extending prediction towards novelty. I propose that the evolution of a CRBP perceptual-grammatical system gave early humans the ability to recognize organic forms, including those never seen before. (This case parallels that of speech, in which we are able to understand sentences we have never previously heard and, furthermore, recognize as patterns patterns that we have never previously seen.) This capability made possible both (1) the earliest migrations, by freeing our ancestors from their dependence on the food species of their original niche, and (2) (later) our aesthetic capability.

Fig. 7. Example of the organic occurrence of visual rhythm. Schematic diagrams illustrating the assembly and growth of the bacterial flagellar filament. The cap (A) at the growing end is essential for the assembly of the filament. Monomers travel within the hollow filament to reach the end and are added sequentially to the filament’s end underneath the rotating cap. Side views of the assembly are shown in B and schematic views of the exact assembly process shown from above and the side in C show “rotation and axial translation of the cap plate and accompanied rearrangement of the legs upon every incorporation of a flagellin subunit (from left to right)” [58]. Reprinted with permission from K. Yonekura et al., “The Bacterial Flagellar Cap as the Rotary Promoter of Flagellin Self-Assembly,” Science 290 (15 December 2000) pp. 2,148–2,152. (© 2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science)

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

67

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 68

which contribute positively to their survival or to their reproductive success [37].

Arnheim [38] and Gombrich have both drawn attention to the biological basis of aesthetic emotion: “The greater the biological relevance an object has to us the more will we be attuned to its recognition” [39]. I therefore propose that our aesthetic perception (and the associated emotional response) initially evolved as the initial step in a chain of behavior that could conclude with either feeding or a flight response on recognizing an organism.

GRAMMATICAL PRINCIPLES, NATURAL SYNTAX AND CREATIVITY Fig. 8. Two examples of the organic occurrence of balance. (a, top) A balance between contrasting selection pressures determines the length of the Argus pheasant’s tail. The length of the tail is a balance between two selective pressures: (1) long tails make the pheasant an easier prey for the fox to catch and so selection due to predation results in pheasants with shorter tails. However, (2) the female is attracted to males with long tales and therefore sexual selection encourages longer tails in the population (see Lorenz [59]). (b, bottom) Similarly, a balance between contrasting selection pressures determines the fecundity of seashore animals. Organisms are usually more fecund the larger they are; however, on the seashore, larger organisms are in danger of being swept away. Therefore, a successful seashore organism balances these contrasting pressures by growing large enough to be as fecund as possible while remaining small enough to withstand the strongest waves it is most like to experience. Starfish fecundity is a balance between at least two pressures: storm strength and frequency, and their increasing size (drawn after Denny [60]).

Mithen has proposed that several different kinds of intelligence evolved in our ancestors (including social, technical and natural-history intelligences adapted to specific behaviors). These intelligences became more interactive and subsequently merged to facilitate the development of “cognitive fluidity,” eventually, Mithen suggests, enabling the creation of “art” [36]. I propose that a similar cognitive fluidity underlies our ability not only to recognize organisms not previously seen with variable constitutions of CRBP but also to aesthetically use CRBP across different modalities and media. The ability to recognize organic form also requires an aesthetic/emotional reward system, because, as Boyden states: A feature of hunting and foodgathering . . . is the fact that these activities appear to be generally enjoyed by the participants. This is to be expected, since in nature all animals enjoy behaviours

68

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

I posit that von Humboldt’s observation with regard to language, that limited means provide unlimited possibilities [40], is a principle of natural creative and organic systems, of which language is a special case. These generative systems all display the characteristics of limited means for either the creation or perception of unlimited variety, e.g.: • there are only 4 basic forces in the universe • there are 12 particles in the Standard Model • there are only 4 bases in DNA to code for the 20 amino acids required to create organisms • there are only 4 symmetry operations from which all patterns are generated • higher plants have only 3 possible leaf growth patterns. Our own perceptual systems of color and taste also employ limited means. Pinker [41] cites Chomsky concerning our linguistic ability to understand sentences never previously heard. Similarly, we can also recognize novel patterns as patterns. It is when we consider the ubiquity of von Humboldt’s principle that we can recognize the natural grammatical strategy of using limited means (e.g. CRBP) to recognize organic form, which has also provided us with our generative aesthetic grammar. As one of nature’s products ourselves, we cannot doubt its creativity despite or rather because of the rules with which it operates. The art of the last century [42], characterized by the idea of “art as freedom,” may not appear to have been very creative when compared with nature’s products, produced by rule-based strategies. Many have recognized the creative significance of limitation, including Arnheim [43], Braque [44], Riley [45], Welles [46], Goethe [47], Rowlands [48], da Vinci [49] and finally Westrup, who

Fig. 9. Two examples of the organic occurrence of proportion. (a) In the organic world, proportion occurs in different forms as a result of fundamental principles (drawn after Chave and Levin [61]). Kleiber’s Law describes the proportional relationship in organisms across 21 orders of magnitude of metabolic rate to body mass at three-quarters power. (b) The SAR or species/area relationship describes the number of species that can live within a specific area and is proportional to the size of that area (drawn after New Scientist [62]).

succinctly stated that “art flourishes on limitations” [50]. In a recent essay on creativity, Goldenberg strongly criticized the notion of total freedom, making the recommendation that “our fundamental approaches to creativity” be reevaluated given the strong evidence of the effectiveness of rule-based systems [51]. It appears that “freedom” is a cul-de-sac of intangibility, whereas nature demonstrates that rules and grammatical systems possess a far greater creative potential. Therefore, the key question that art educators must ask today is: “What are the limited means that must be taught in order that the creative potential of our students will have unlimited possibilities?” This is the question that this paper has attempted to answer.

SUMMARY The results of my investigation reflect an evolutionary sequence of the following: 1. Contrast, Rhythm, Balance and Proportion (CRBP) as organizing components in organic form. 2. The evolution of our perceptual system to respond to CRBP as percep-

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 69

tual primitives characterizing organic forms. 3. Due to the “pre-adaptation” of our perceptual system to respond to CRBP, we prefer them as organizing components in aesthetic expression. I have described CRBP and provided examples of their occurrence in organic organization elsewhere [52,53]. In Figs 2–5, I have visually defined each of the four principles of CRBP. In Figs 6–9 I have provided organic examples of the occurrence of CRBP.

D.A. Dondis, A Primer of Visual Literacy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984).

R. Rüegg and G. Fröhlich, Basic Typography (Zurich, Switzerland: ABC Edition, 1972).

A.W. Dow, Composition (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997).

M. de Sausmarez, Basic Design: The Dynamics of Visual Form (Huntingdon, U.K.: Herbert Press, 1980).

L. Garrett, Visual Design: A Problem-Solving Approach (New York: Rheinhold Publishing, 1967).

D.L. Schodek, Structure in Sculpture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993).

M. Graves, The Art of Color and Design (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951).

R.G. Scott, Design Fundamentals (New York: McGraw Hill, 1951).

C. Harlan, Vision and Invention, A Course in Art Fundamentals (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970).

P.F. Smith, Architecture and the Principle of Harmony (London: RIBA Publications, 1987).

S. Hesselgren, The Language of Architecture (London: Applied Science Publishers, 1969). A. Hofmann, Graphic Design Manual (Heiden AR, Switzerland: Verlag Arthur Niggli, 1965).

CONCLUSION I conclude that our species shares a basic sense of composition (possibly with some other primates [54]), exapted from our innate ability to recognize organic form. The adaptation of our perceptual system to the recognition of the principles of organic organization (as perceptual primitives) has resulted in our favoring the same principles for aesthetic composition. This knowledge provides a strategy for art and design educators, because what has appeal for us has been determined by our evolutionary past. We have apparently evolved a cognitive fluidity for responding to organic novelty based on permutations of universal principles— Contrast, Rhythm, Balance and Proportion—that are simultaneously embedded in our own biology. If we ignore the constants of the human condition and follow only fashions and technology, are we in danger of losing ourselves in a meaningless texture of background noise? I profoundly believe that human creative potential has more to offer than that. Contrast, Rhythm (pattern), Balance (symmetry) and Proportion are embedded in the laws of nature, which has shown us that they can also provide us with an aesthetic meta-grammar with similarly unlimited creative possibilities.

C.H. Howard, Design (London: John Lane the Bodley Head, 1926). J. Itten, Design and Form (London: Thames & Hudson, 1978).

J. Weber, Gestalt, Bewegung, Farbe (Brunswick, Germany: Georg Westermann Verlag, 1975).

G. Kepes, Language of Vision (New York: Dover Publications, 1995).

W. Wong, Principles of Form and Design (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993).

B. Kleint, Bildlehre (Basel, Switzerland, and Stuttgart, Germany: Schwabe Verlag, 1969).

P. Zelanski and M.P. Fisher, The Art of Seeing (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988).

Kunstgewerbeschule der Stadt Zürich, Form und Farbe (Zürich, Switzerland: Kunstgewerbeschule der Stadt Zürich, 1968).

* Note: These titles are each regarded as 1 title since they present one curriculum.

D.A. Lauer, Design Basics (New York: Holt, Reinhardt & Winston, 1979).

References and Notes

J.J. de Lucio-Meyer, Visual Aesthetics (London: Lund Humphries, 1975).

1. S. MacDonald, “Articidal Tendencies,” in D.W. Piper, ed., Readings in Art & Design Education 2: After Coldstream (London: Davis-Poynter, 1973) pp. 89–99. An account is given in J. Elkins, On Pictures and the Words That Fail Them (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998) pp. 213–240.

F. Malins, Understanding Paintings: The Elements of Composition (London: Phaidon, 1980).

2. L. Jobey, “The Man Who Took Art Back to Basics,” The Sunday Times, 1984.

H. Mante, Bildaufbau—Gestaltung in der Fotografie (Ravensburg, Germany: Otto Maier Verlag, 1969).

3. P. Ball, “Science in Culture,” a review of the exhibition More Than Meets the Eye, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, 6–30 September 2000, Nature 407, No. 6800 (7 September 2000) p. 20.

B. Lowry, The Visual Experience, An Introduction to Art (London: Prentice-Hall, 1961).

J.M. Matthaei, Grundfragen des Grafik-Design, wahrenehmen und gestalten (Augsburg, Germany: Augustus Verlag, 1993). P. von Meiss, Elements of Architecture—From Form to Place (London: E & FN Spon, Chapman & Hall, 1996). P. Owen, Painting, The Appreciation of the Arts No. 5 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1970). F. Palmer, Themes and Projects in Art and Design (London: Longman, 1988).

H. Peters, Bildnerische Grundlehre (Stuttgart, Germany: Enke Verlag, 1994).

A.B. Allen, The Teaching of Art in Senior Schools (London: Frederick Warne, 1938).

J.K. Popham, Pictorial Composition (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1954).

D.M. Anderson, Elements of Design (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961).

H. Read, The Meaning of Art (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1963).

S. Bugg, Curriculum Bank—Art, Key Stage One Scottish Levels A–B, (Leamington Spa, U.K.: Scholastic, 1997); S. Bugg, Curriculum Bank—Art, Key Stage Two Scottish Levels C–E (Leamington Spa, U.K.: Scholastic, 1998).*

T. Thompson, Basic Layout Design (London: Studio Publications, 1950).

W. Kandinsky, Point and Line to Plane (New York: Dover Publications, 1979).

M. Acton, Learning to Look at Paintings (London: Routledge, 1997).

F. Birren, Color, Form and Space (New York: Reinhold Publishing, 1961).

P. Thiel, Visual Awareness and Design (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1981).

F.C. Wagner, Grundlagen der Gestaltung—plastische und räumliche Darstellungsmittel (Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1981).

C. Pearce, Composition (London: Batsford, 1947).

K. Barratt, Logic and Design (London: George Godwin, 1980).

J.F.A. Taylor, Design and Expression in the Visual Arts (New York: Dover Publications, 1964).

J. Itten, Elemente der Bildenden Kunst (Ravensburg, Germany: Otto Maier Verlag, 1980).

APPENDIX A

R. Arnheim, Art and Visual Perception (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974).

G. Sneum, Teaching Design & Form (London: B.T. Batsford, 1965).

K. Rowland, Pattern and Shape, Looking and Seeing No. 1 (London: Ginn, 1976); K. Rowland, The Development of Shape, Looking and Seeing No. 2 (London: Ginn, 1976); K. Rowland, The Shapes We Need (London: Looking and Seeing No. 3, Ginn, 1965).* K. Rowland, Visual Education and Beyond (London: Looking and Seeing, Ginn, 1976). E. Ruder, Typography: A Manual of Design (New York: Arthur Niggli, Visual Communication Books, 1981).

4. J. Palmer, personal communication, June 1998. 5. D.R. Walling, Rethinking How Art Is Taught—A Critical Convergence (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2000) p. 48. 6. D.E. Brown, Human Universals (New York: McGrawHill, 1991) pp. 1–7. 7. C.M. Otten, Anthropology and Art—Readings in Cross Cultural Aesthetics (New York: Natural History Press, 1971) p. 76. 8. R. Arnheim, “Universals in the Arts,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 11 (1988) pp. 60–65. 9. P. Stebbing, “Identifying the Basis of Visual Appeal for Designers,” International Council for Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID)/International Robert Maxwell Prize for new writing on design thinking, shortlisted, unpublished, winning entry (1988). 10. See Appendix A for the 50 books used in the contents page study. 11. J. Smith-Autard, Dance Composition, A Practical Guide for Teachers (London: A.&C. Black, 1992) p. 109 (emphases added). 12. J. Westrup, An Introduction to Musical History (London: Hutchinson Univ. Library, 1967) p. 14 (emphases added). 13. TA 30, found at the Saddleback College web site,
http://www.sccd.cc.c.us/sc/courses9798/topic806 14010.html (30 November 1998).

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

69

Leonardo_37-1_001-092 1/13/04 12:26 PM Page 70

14. A.T. Minai, “Communication Systems Approach in Architectural Design,” in Design Theory and Practice, R. Langdon and P.A. Purcell, eds. (London: Design Council, 1984) pp. 37–50 (emphases added).

31. G. Teleki, “The Omnivorous Chimpanzee,” in Biological Anthropology, Readings from Scientific American (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman, 1975) pp. 91–102.

15. G. Rowley, Principles of Chinese Painting (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1970).

32. R. Foley, Another Unique Species (Harlow Mill, U.K.: Longman, 1987) pp. 118–150.

16. Dong-sung Cho, “Four Stages of Design Revolution: Expansion of the Design Domain and the Development of Grand Principles of Design,” in Exploring Emerging Design Paradigm, Proceedings of ICSID 2001 Seoul Conference (Oullim), (Seoul: ICSID, 2001) pp. 84–152.

33. S. Boyden, Western Civilization in Biological Perspective (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1989) p. 67.

17. P. Stevens, Handbook of Regular Patterns (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984). 18. D.K. Washburn and D.W. Crowe, Symmetries of Culture (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1992). 19. S.J. Gould and E. Vrba, “Exaptation: A Missing Term in the Science of Form,” Paleobiology 8 (1981) pp. 4–15. 20. D.G. Stork, “Preadaptation and Principles of Organization in Organisms,” in Principles of Organization in Organisms, Proceedings of the Workshop on Principles of Organisation in Organisms held in 1990 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity XIII (1992) p. 206. 21. J. Huxley, The Courtship of the Great Crested Grebe (London: Jonathan Cape, 1968) p. 53. 22. M.A. Goldman, “Spandrels or Selection,” Nature 413, No. 6853, 252–253 (2001). 23. J.E. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979) pp. 3–4. 24. M.C. Beardsley, Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1958); cited in W.J. Mitchell, The Logic of Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996) p. 25. 25. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art (London: Macmillan, 1932) p. 35. 26. It has been proposed that the deformities occurring in frogs across North America may be the result of chemical pollutants interfering with an enzyme in the nervous system. The pollutants inhibit the production of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE), thereby repressing the production of a growth factor that is necessary for normal limb development. Although the specific chemicals responsible for the deformities have not been identified, it is known that AChE inhibitors are found in some insecticides. Furthermore, experiments on frogs to test the effects of the AChE inhibitors cause the same deformities as those now found in the wild. K. Kleiner, “Grown Astray,” New Scientist 162, No. 2180 (1999) p. 26. 27. About 50% of post-menopausal women lose the capacity for their bone architecture to adapt adequately to reasonable loads. This adaptability depends on sufficient estrogen secretion to activate the -form of estrogen receptors (ER-, which affects the proliferation of the osteoblasts, the cells that lay down bone. K. Lee, et al., “Bone Adaptation Requires Oestrogen Receptor-,” Nature 424 (2003) p. 389. 28. Ecologists now recognize the significance of “keystone” species, the removal of which from an environment results in the collapse of the existing niche. The classic example is the sea otter. E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (London, Penguin Books, 1992) p. 154. 29. R.A. Hinde, Ethology (Glasgow, Scotland: Fontana, 1986) pp. 20–21. 30. P. Lieberman, The Biology and Evolution of Language (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1984) pp. 54–55.

70

Stebbing, A Universal Grammar

34. W. Geisler and R. Murray, “Practice Doesn’t Make Perfect,” Nature 423, No. 6941, 696–697, 2003. 35. R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978) p. 59. 36. S. Mithen, The Prehistory of Mind (London: Thames & Hudson, 1996) pp. 178–184. 37. Boyden [33] p. 69. 38. R. Arnheim, “Gestalt Psychology and Artistic Form,” in L.L. Whyte, ed., Aspects of Form (London: Lund Humphries, 1951, 1968) p. 204. 39. E.H. Gombrich, “Meditations on a Hobby Horse, or The Roots of Artistic Form,” in L.L. Whyte, ed., Aspects of Form (London: Lund Humphries, 1968) p. 216. 40. Von Humboldt, quoted in N. Chomsky, Language and Mind (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972) p. 127. 41. S. Pinker, The Language Instinct (London: Penguin Books, 1994) p. 22. 42. J.D. Andrew, The Major Film Theories—An Introduction (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1976) p. 243. 43. Andrew [42] pp. 27–41. 44. G. Braque, in H.B. Chipp, Theories of Modern Art (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968) p. 260. 45. R. Kudielka, Bridget Riley (London: Zwemmer, 1995) pp. 34–37. 46. J. Lansdown, “Artificial Creativity: An Algorithmic Approach to Art,” student handout, Middlesex Polytechnic, n.d. 47. D. Luke, ed., Goethe: Selected Verse (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1981) pp. 153, 197. 48. K. Rowlands, Visual Education and Beyond (London: Ginn, 1976) p. 13. 49. D. Summers, The Judgement of Sense: Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990) p. 172. 50. Westrup [12] p. 16. 51. J. Goldenberg et al., “Creative Sparks,” Science 285, No. 5433, 1,495–1,496 (1999). 52. P.D. Stebbing, “There Is a Universal Grammar for Visual Composition!” in Generative Art, Proceedings of the 1998 Milan First International Conference (Milan, Italy: Editrice Dedalo Atti, 1998) pp. 127–147. 53. P.D. Stebbing, “Shaping Our Creative Understanding and the Biological Origins of Our Creative Understanding of Shape—A Universal Grammar of Aesthetic Composition (A Position Paper),” in Proceedings of the AISB’99 Symposium on Creativity in Entertainment and Visual Art (Edinburgh, Scotland: Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation Behaviour, Edinburgh College of Art & University of Edinburgh, 1999) pp. 31–37. 54. D. Morris, The Biology of Art (London: Methuen, 1962) pp. 80–86. 55. G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (New York: Ballantine, 1989) p. 315.

56. Stork [20] p. 206. 57. R.D.K. Thomas et al., “Evolutionary Exploitation of Design Options by the First Animals with Hard Skeletons,” Science 288 (2000) pp. 1,239–1,242. Readers may view, browse, and/or download material for temporary copying purposes only, provided these uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. Except as provided by law, this material may not be further reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, adapted, performed, displayed, published or sold in whole or in part without prior written permission from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. 58. K. Yonekura et al., “The Bacterial Flagellar Cap as the Rotary Promoter of Flagellin Self-Assembly,” Science 290 (2000) pp. 2,148–2,152. Readers may view, browse, and/or download material for temporary copying purposes only, provided these uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. Except as provided by law, this material may not be further reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, adapted, performed, displayed, published or sold in whole or in part without prior written permission from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. 59. K. Lorenz, On Aggression (London: Methuen & Co., 1967) p. 32. 60. M. Denny, “Survival in the Surf Zone,” American Scientist 83 (1995) pp. 166–173. 61. J. Chave and S. Levin, “Scale and Scaling in Ecological and Economic Systems,”
http://www. edb.ups-tlse.fr/equipe1/chave/scale4.pdf. 62. B. Holmes, “Day of the Sparrow,” New Scientist 158, No. 2140 (1998) p. 34.

Glossary The working definitions that I have adopted are deliberately simple, pragmatic and holistic. balance and symmetry—two or more elements or forces set against (opposing) each other so that they equalize or neutralize their tensions, often resulting in a symmetry of form (see Fig. 5). contrast—I use Bateson’s definition [55] of a contrast as a difference that makes a difference and can be identified by any of our senses (see Fig. 2). exaptation or preadaptation—“used to describe the process by which an organ, behavior, neural structure, etc., which evolved to solve one set of tasks is later utilized to solve a different set of tasks” [56]. proportion—a ratio composed of two or more contrasting quantities used repeatedly in either the same and/or different measures in a design (see Fig. 6). rhythm or pattern—a repetition of a contrast also occurring in one or a combination of the four basic symmetry operations (see Figs 3 and 4).

Manuscript received 28 January 2002.

Peter Stebbing initially studied zoology before turning to biological illustration, which he practiced for 16 years in the U.K. However, his fascination with teaching design students eclipsed his interest in illustration, and he now has a full-time position teaching drawing and visualization in Germany. The subject of this paper has been a deep interest of his for nearly 20 years.