Posted by R. John Howe on January 27, 1999 at 20:40:04:
In Reply to: Partial Results of Checklist Application, Part 1 posted by R. John Howe on January 27, 1999 at 19:50:08:
(Continued from message above)
Rule 8: No ratings
Rule comment: This rule statement is not clear to me on its face. I've repeatedly examined Dr. Salingaros' Eastern Turkestan example but am not taking the rule in yet.
Rule 9: No ratings
Rule comment: This rule statement is also unclear to me.
Rule 10:
(measurement in inches on the screen)
PIC 1 screen measurements: <1/16,4/16;1,31/2
PIC 2 screen measurements: <1/64,<1/32,1/16,2/16,9/16,1 1/2,2 3/4,3 3/4,6 5/8
PIC 3 screen measurements: <1/32,1/16,2/16,9/16, 1 1/2, 4, 5 3/4
Rule comment: No rule ratings. Rule does not seem borne out by measurement of elements of various scales on the screen. Scales used in Rug 2 are the most attractive to me but doesn't seem to be an instance of the rule.
Totals (first 7 rules): PIC 1: 7
PIC 2:12
PIC 3: 9
Unaided by these rules I would select PIC 1 well ahead of PIC 1 primarily because of the sloppy drawing in PIC 3. But the rules did draw my attention to some virtues of PIC 3 that exist at the lower building block levels. PIC 2 is my favorite ensis of these three and I would argue with more traditional criteria like spacious, precise drawing, clarity of color, attention to detail that is the most beautiful ensi of these three by a considerable distance.
I was most impressed with rules 1,3,6. I think rules 2 and 7 are in fact traditional rules already widely used.
I was most disppointed in the results here concerning rule 10 about which I was hopeful and which appears potentially to offer some good evidence of the formalists' claim that our aesthetic judgments are to an extent "hardwired." Not, it seems to me, in this first comparison.
Fire when ready,
R. John Howe