=aesthetics =art =architecture
There are 2 basic components of aesthetics: representation and intentionality.
Representation can be divided
into universal and particular representation.
A statue of a human or
a dog will generally be more attractive than a statue of a centipede or a
housefly. These are "universal" instances of representation.
If you make a painting of Mao
Zedong, there's a high chance that some people will like it and others will
dislike it based on what kind of political statement it seems to be making.
This sentiment is based on the impression of having an ally or enemy in a
conflict which is generally zero-sum. Also, such meaning is situational: if
you use an ancient flag in a painting, it will mean nothing to most people
except a vague impression of unfamiliarity and distance. These are
"particular" representational aesthetics. If making something such as
architecture which will be used by many people for a long time, it's risky
to use them.
To add intentionality, simply
choose some legible rules, and apply them repeatedly and consistently. In
the case of abstract rules, this can said more precisely as: choose some
invariants, and apply them in a way that maximizes the effective entropy
reduction from invariants relative to a baseline entropy determined by
perceived
complexity.
A solid color follows a rule, but it only follows one
rule one time. That's enough for it to not be ugly, but not enough for it to
be attractive or interesting. If the rule is mostly followed but then broken
by stains or chipped paint, then the result is ugly. There's also some
representation present in how the original design has been perturbed: a wall
with bullet holes is less attractive than cracked paint on an old shrine in
Japan, because of the message implied. If you break the pattern of a wall
with something that looks like mold, the aesthetic result is worse than
random changes, because mold is unappealing.
A circle is rotationally symmetric. A
circle centered in a square is more aesthetic than just a square, because it
has more kinds of symmetry. Lots of circles in a solid color has many
instances of symmetry, as well as repetition, and "polka dot" patterns are
sometimes used for clothing. Other shapes with rotational symmetry (such as
stars) also work.
Humans and mammals have bilateral symmetry, so
there's a particular appeal to bilataral symmetry, but other kinds of
symmetry are also aesthetic. Spirals are also appealing, as long as they
follow a consistent rule for their pattern.
A straight
line shows some intentionality in its straightness. Multiple parallel lines
are better, because straightness is repeated, there's repetition, and
they're parallel. Multiple sine waves also work. If you try to maximize the
patterns present in repeated straight lines, one result is a
plaid pattern, which is
sometimes used for clothing.
A brick wall is more aesthetic than a
pile of bricks, because it has a consistent pattern and a flat surface. A
wall made of stones with various shapes is more aesthetic when gaps between
the stones are small, because the rule of having small gaps between stones
is being followed even in a poorly-made wall, and following that rule better is more aesthetic.
A lattice brick wall is aesthetic, so the problem is not the presence of
holes per se, but the failure to follow a pattern being established.
A skyscraper with a hierarchical pattern of square windows in squares is
more aesthetic than a skyscraper where the entire exterior is large sheets
of glass, because more rules are being applied more times, so more
intentionality is visible. That uniform exterior style is sometimes thought
to be chosen for practicality, but that's incorrect: large sheets of glass
are more expensive and worse at insulation than many smaller sheets of glass
in a wall, and balconies are desirable. Some architects adopted the
elimination of visible exterior patterns as countersignalling and novelty,
and some companies want to mimic the companies whose architects adopted that
style. When buildings are designed for profitability without regard to
exterior aesthetics, they look more like
Hong Kong apartments. When exterior aesthetics are designed to give an
acceptable impression to typical home buyers at low cost, the result is
something like a
Texas donut, or a japanese
マンション with maximum balcony.
When people are dancing, having
multiple people doing the same movements together (or mirrored versions of
the same movements) has more intentionality than a single person doing the
same movements, which makes that more aesthetic. It's also possible to have
more complex patterns where the movements are partly matched and the
mismatches follow a pattern. By the same principle, a pair of matching
skyscrapers on opposite sides of a road is more aesthetic than a single one,
but that's uncommon, because a single skyscraper is already a big project,
coordination between different developers is difficult, architects typically
want to make unique buildings, and exterior aesthetic benefits are mostly
externalities.
It's obviously possible to
combine both elements.
Humans have bilateral symmetry. Flowers have
rotational symmetry. Patterns with many abstract flowers on them are
sometimes used for clothing and wallpaper. (These are simple examples; art
is often much more complex.) High-accuracy representation is also a kind of
intentionality, so realistic charcoal portraits are often considered
aesthetic.
Humans are good at pattern
recognition, and can recognize the intentionality of complex rules. Complex
fractals such as the
Mandelbrot set and
Buddhabrot are generally considered aesthetic. When randomness isn't
overused,
generating patterns with code is often aesthetic, because the rules
written into code are being followed many times, consistently.
It's
also possible to represent things by the choice of rules. For example, when
a tree branches, the total cross-section stays the same. So, any 2d figure
where a line branches and sum(width^2) is constant alludes to a tree. Humans
generally like trees, so the result of that allusion is generally appealing.
