Posted by Yon Bard on January 28, 1999 at 09:39:00:
In Reply to: Re: Partial Results of Checklist Application, Part 2 posted by Marvin Amstey on January 28, 1999 at 08:52:52:
: : (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
: Dear Jihn,
: Suffice it to say that my results are similar to yours, and I used all 10 criteria (perhaps not knowing how to apply some of them correctly). Nonetheless, the numbers came out for me at 16:25:10. I can fully understand why #2 gets high scores, but for the same reasons, I like it less. While the contrasts, and the small building blocks are the best, it is also too rigid, too planned, too "machine-like" for my tastes. So for you, the criteria led to what you like the best; for me, they did not. I once owned an engsi like number two and sold it it sooner than most rugs; it just got boring. So where are we? I have just mentioned some design aesthetics that are not accounted for in the criteria, but which are important in the way I choose a rug. My conclusion is: while this list may be a start, we - or those interested in these excercises - must go back to the drawing boards. Personally, I rather like the unconscious decisions - my gut feelings - to choose the rugs I like. On the other hand, as others in this discussion have stated, these excercises may be useful for those designing new rugs to fit our tastes. Regards, Marvin
I don't understand the logic behind saying 'These criteria are no good for telling what I like, but they may be good for telling manufacturers what to make.' If it's no good for the one it's no good for the other.
Regards, Yon