Right brain, left brain myth debunked

[spidermike]

iirc You'll typically reject new information in order to defend your existing belief.

And some people will jump on any information for no other reason than it challenges current orthodoxy.

Artists did not wake up one morning and decide to invent some rules that the artistic cabal should work to. The 'rules' (leading lines, rule of thirds etc) came out of an analysis of what makes a pleasing picture (to the western senses).

The examples that Arlen linked to were not really about composition as far as I could tell but about the kind of elements the person focuses on. And, as the article mentions, people are hard-wired to focus on other peoples' faces and as such the title of the article is either misleading or not really about leading lines at all.  Additionally the first of those pages even says the experiments do not explain what a person is thinking and it is the 'thinking' part that is crucial to this discussion.

[amolitor]

I know about the rule of thirds.

That was invented in the early 20th century by a photographer, for photographers. Painters and everyone else think it is very amusing.

(I mean the rule that says "place the subject on a 1/3 line" not the one about pleasing proportions within the painting, which is quite a bit older).

[PeterAit]

FWIW (not that you are interested in all likelihood) one of the most tedious responses I find in this sort of discussion. It comes across as extremely high minded as someone who is happy to throw their comment with no substantiation.
How do we know we are looking at the same 'evidence' you are?

Point taken. However, let me make two comments. First, I am not trying to prove I am "right" or smarter than others (as happens so often on this forum), I am merely contributing to the discussion from my knowledge and education. If someone finds my comments interesting or provocative, they can investigate further on their own. To expect me to serve as their unpaid research assistant is a bit nervy, don't you think? Second, many people do not really care about evidence. They pretend to care, asking for "links," but when evidence supporting my statement is actually presented (as was done by a couple of other people on this thread), it is dismissed as "clunky" and is ignored.

So, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The earth is flat.

There you go. Just don't expect me to serve as your unpaid research assistant and provide links and evidence. Besides, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?

[PeterAit]

The earth is flat.

There you go. Just don't expect me to serve as your unpaid research assistant and provide links and evidence. Besides, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?

Now you are just being silly.

[spidermike]

Point taken. However, let me make two comments. First, I am not trying to prove I am "right" or smarter than others (as happens so often on this forum), I am merely contributing to the discussion from my knowledge and education. If someone finds my comments interesting or provocative, they can investigate further on their own. To expect me to serve as their unpaid research assistant is a bit nervy, don't you think? Second, many people do not really care about evidence. They pretend to care, asking for "links," but when evidence supporting my statement is actually presented (as was done by a couple of other people on this thread), it is dismissed as "clunky" and is ignored.

So, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?

Thank you for taking the time to reply, Peter: my cynicism was thankfully misplaced on this occasion. Yes, it can be frustrating when someone disguises interest as a reason to disparage but sometimes contentious topics need to be actively supported.

[spidermike]

I know about the rule of thirds.

That was invented in the early 20th century by a photographer, for photographers. Painters and everyone else think it is very amusing.

(I mean the rule that says "place the subject on a 1/3 line" not the one about pleasing proportions within the painting, which is quite a bit older).

and yet, the rule of thirds often works very well - it is too often quoted as a 'rule' when it is often little more than an aid to not placing the main focus centrally. and I have seen some pretty loose definition of what constitutes a 'third'. But we digress.... but in the same way, lead-in lines do seem to work on many shots.
Whether the research proposed disproves it I am not sure, or whether doing visual studies is merely the first step in investigating 'why' it works. I suspect the latter.

[amolitor]

Yes, stay away from the middle is a consequence of the theories of composition I've read.

I'm still interested in whether eye leading is a modern idea.

Certainly lots of people will claim that it dates back to da Vinci, but they say that about everything.

[Isaac]

Reading this again, I am not sure if that was a rhetorical "you" or you were addressing me directly?

As requested, my guess about you :-)

…guess what I am going to stick to?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... many people do not really care about evidence. They pretend to care, asking for "links," but when evidence supporting my statement is actually presented (as was done by a couple of other people on this thread), it is dismissed as "clunky" and is ignored.

As a man of science, you surely must allow the possibility that those links do not provide (sufficient) evidence, nor support your statement? Especially not that it is a "nonsense." Just because something has a "science" label, does not make it unquestionable, otherwise science would be just another form of religious dogma.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As requested, my guess about you :-)

Fair enough. However, my concern was with your claim that I "typically reject" new information. I would appreciate some justification for the "typically" part. You might PM me, if you do not want to derail the thread.

[Isaac]

I would appreciate some justification for the "typically" part.

It's just the impression that remains after years of discussion.

[spidermike]

Going back to the OP

With all due respect to Ms. Tennenbaum (right brain left brain articles). The right, left brain myth has been thoroughly debunked and has no support in the neuroscience field. It's an oversimplification of a small study that has grown into a popular myth.
Here is a link to one of many articles on the subject.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/29/there-is-no-left-brainright-brain-divide/

I won't offer any theory as to why we prefer an image to read from left to right.

The complexity of the brain and its endless subtleties, allied with what is really still very early stages of understanding how it all works, has left the door open for a whole host of gross simplifications at best, or at worst an opportunity for anyone with anyone with a partially formed theory to sell a few million books. Examples are anything to do with the 'battle-of-the-sexes' ("Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" etc), many theories underlying NLP and a host of self-help books.
I am not saying the underlying research are not helpful stepping stones, but like a lot of genetic research, are jumped on by people thankful for having a reason to explain why they are like they are.  

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It's just the impression that remains after years of discussion.

Ouch!

[Isaac]

Sorry.

[Isaac]

iirc You'll typically reject new information in order to defend your existing belief.

And some people will jump on any information for no other reason than it challenges current orthodoxy.

And this is not a dichotomy. Let's go through Door #3.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I am not saying the underlying research are not helpful stepping stones...

Indeed, Mike, that's what they are. And that is how I see all those studies I referred to as "clunky." Treating them, however, as an ultimate "myth debunking" or "evidence" that centuries of accumulated human knowledge is "nonsense" is not doing science a favor.

[Isaac]

… or "evidence" that centuries of accumulated human knowledge is "nonsense" …

Although they may be. It wouldn't be the first time centuries of accumulated human knowledge has been revealed as no more than a nice story.

[Tim Lookingbill]

There is no eye leading.

People look at what they want/desire and if it's a boring image with a boring subject or boring layout, they'll move on no matter what and how the elements within an image are arranged.

An artist or photographer must have a level of sensitivity in order to make choices with their wandering eye and creative mind to not make images that are boring. Fortunately there is an endless supply of those with this level of sensitivity.

One sees with their mind. Others who do not see this way are merely watching a magic act or being conned by slight of hand.

[amolitor]

Prior to 1900, at any rate, the term "leading line" was rarely used, and seems to have meant "major lines" or "important lines".

This appears to be another invention of the 20th century to systematize composition as a simple set of rules and tricks for photographers.