Maple Forest

RonMartin(deceased)

Basically yes that is what I am saying. but a lot depends on what the forest looks like.

Advertisement

Will_Heath

Could you please post an example of a forest under 10 trees, that has an even number of trees that is also visually pleasing to the eye?


Will

RonMartin(deceased)

Forget it Will. Its not worth the argument .

RonMartin(deceased)

I could but would they be pleasing to your eyes.
Can you explain to me why the numbers must always be odd.

Will_Heath

Sure Ron, I'll try, this is quite a common assumption in visual arts, I find it hard to believe that so many could be wrong.

But first, let's take one question at a time here to avoid confusion, as I asked above...could you please post an example of a forest under 10 trees, that has an even number of trees that is also visually pleasing to the eye? Without some sort of standard that even numbered forests under 10 trees can and do look pleasing, the discussion would be pointless, don't you agree?


Will

RonMartin(deceased)

As someone on IBC once said ( a thousand times ) Sigh.
Will I do think that you should go back and read my article. This time for comprehension.

David Yedwab

I really thought we were getting somewhere but, as is too frequent, the big minutae came up again and raised its ugly head.

Odd is easier to design an asymmetric balance than even. Too many trees can also be overpowering but remember goshin (as photographed at WBC) even greater than 9 certainly works (if I can still count).

Attached Images

goshin.JPG (49.6 KB, 37 views)

__________________
David Yedwab

Will_Heath

I don't understand Ron, you have agreed already to my understanding of your article, do you have an example of a forest with less than 10 trees and with an even number or not? I just figured since you are stating that it could be visually pleasing with an even number, that you have actually seen one that was.

(Did someone say something on IBC relating to this subject? I'm afraid that comment makes no sense to me at all.)



"Now we are at a point in this essay that we are able to ask a battery of questions or the "Ifs of numbers" First, if it is a truth in art; -
That odd numbers are used because they provide a more pleasing composition to the eye, than that provided by even numbers? Second,- Do even numbers in art provide a composure, an equanimity offered by a recall and self-possession of our own body symmetry Other questions flush forward in quick procession... Do odd numbers throw us off balance in art? Are odd numbers favored in art ( made by humans) put there just to provide separation of us from our own symmetrical bodies? Is the odd number passion, the even number reason? These are questions that ask "Why is it beautiful?" or more precisely "Why is it numbered so as to seem beautiful?" Our creative solutions can be as unlimited as desire, each new "solution" expanding our thoughts over the old "solution"; like an "arch form" offering more than a "post and lintel" form, the odd number in art comes forward to offer itself as a simple yet complete solution, an alternative to the even number.
We can compound things even further by considering fractions. What irrational notions of creativity can be brought forth by the use of fractions? So fractions or odd numbers provide the lesson that the irrational can always lurk beneath the rational, always ever-ready to break forth and flourish? What fruitage of thought can we collect from these numbers and their meanings?" - Carol Sutton


Anyhow, the use of odd numbers in art predates all of us, Picasso, Monet, Van Gogh all knew this from instinct or instruction. It is mentioned often, shown more, below are a few examples.

Monet
Monet
Monet
Van Gogh
Van Gogh
Van Gogh


Will

RonMartin(deceased)

I agree with that. Think I even said so in my article