CHAPTE R 1Aesthetics TheoryDENNIS DAKEIowa State UniversityAN AESTHETIC THEORY OF VISUAL COMMUNICATIONOne of the most important pieces of the visual communication puzzle is aesthetics.The nature of beauty and why it affects us so deeply is mysterious. Why do qualities soelusive to define (like a sunset or a half-opened rose) affect us so powerfully? This is animportant question to consider in visual communication. It is suggested that, becauseof the essentially nonverbal nature of aesthetics, what can be written is only speculation"about" the nature of visual aesthetics and cannot therefore be "of" visual aesthetics itself.The aesthetic aspects of communication are (a) visible, structural, and configurationalin nature; (b) largely implicit in apprehension; (c) holistic in conveying meaning (notwholly translatable into parsed, discursive form); and (d) cognitive in a generative sense,based on a unique type of visual logic.Three disciplines—philosophy, art, and science—have been used historically to study issuesabout visual aesthetics. Of these disciplines the visual arts offer the most complete andtruly visual understanding. The sciences increasingly can, however, offer factual evidencefor defining how aesthetic qualities play a foundational role in human communications.THE PHILOSOPHIC PERSPECTIVEAesthetics is traditionally defined as "the study and theory of beauty and of the psychologicalresponses to it" (Neufeldt & Guralnik D. E., 1998); the term specifically refersto the branch of philosophy dealing with art, its creative sources, forms, and effects.This definition forms a convenient launching point toward a much wider application ofaesthetic phenomena to all visual communications, but it is only a starting point.A brief historical review will outline the problem philosophers have had articulating atheory ofbeauty. Plato's analysis of beauty—in bodies, in souls, in knowledge—attemptedto describe the affective dimensions (based on a "love" of something) of the aesthetic34 DAKEresponse. His approach became increasingly more abstract until it evolved as a Theoryof Forms based on what he determined to be properties that beautiful things have incommon (Dickie, 1971). Subsequent philosophers, such as Aristotle and St. ThomasAquinas, continued the development of form theory in terms of an analysis of morepractical objects from the world of experience. In the Renaissance, the evolving theoryof art defined beauty in terms of a harmony of parts.In the 18th century, however, philosophers added notions of the sublime and a philosophyof taste, which made notions of beauty more subjective and diffuse and contributedto the fragmentation of the theory of beauty. In other words, a useful theory of beautybased on proportion, unity, and other commonly considered dimensions could not beagreed upon. As Newton (1962, p. 11) observed, "Beauty could not be described, thereforeit could not be defined." In response, British thinkers and the German philosopher Kantsought a unified theory in the realm of esthetic theory, in which cognitive and affectiveresponses were recognized, but within a personal context that permitted individualisticappreciation of beauty. In more recent times, aesthetic theory has articulated twodimensions—the quality itself and the response to it. The aesthetic response, then, is theobject of the search.Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that is rich in discursive theory and interpretativespeculation, but not totally helpful in understanding the role aesthetic qualities play invisual communication. Visual aesthetics are visual in foundation and holistic in understanding.As the 19th-century artist Paul Cezanne observed, "Talking about art is almostuseless" (Rewald, 1976, p. 303).

Philosophy is based on verbal discursive and parsed explication and follows logical,linear construction. The thousands of philosophical arguments for aesthetics advancedhistorically are based on thought and expression of a different order and character from visualcreation and communication themselves. Thus, philosophical arguments may provemore of a distraction from exploration of aesthetic aspects of visual communication thanan aid to understanding. A biologically based (from recent discoveries in neuroscience)understanding of aesthetics could encompass many diverse philosophical arguments andgive a more stable foundation for understanding visual communication.THE ARTISTIC PERSPECTIVEUsing visual and intuitive experimentation, artists provide a complementary body ofknowledge and understanding on aesthetic visual communication. Although science providesexplicit explanations of aesthetic response, the discipline of art provides a unique visuallybased perspective on the role of aesthetics in communication. Artists, as the makersof visual messages, are infinitely connected to subtle aesthetic clues, their selection, manipulation,and ultimate refinement. This knowledge of aesthetic relationships, gainedthrough visual performance, provides a permanent visual record of decisions made andwordless aesthetic relationships established.What is suggested (Dake, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000) is a form of qualitative action researchutilizing observed and expressed studio ideas of artists (artists' preparatory sketches,1. AESTHETICS THEORY 5maquettes, diaries, letters, photographs of developing artworks) correlated with findingsfrom the sciences. Analogical agreement from this perspective provides a critical, factbasedfilter for expanding understanding of aesthetic communication. Where science andart provide compatible perspectives, there is hope for a more objective theory of visualaesthetic communication.THE SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVEMuch scientific research on aesthetics has been generated in the biological and socialsciences. One branch of knowledge yielding a promising perspective is experimentalaesthetics (psychobiology). This approach to exploring aesthetic communication hasgenerally focused on the responsiveness of individuals to aesthetic properties.Over the past 40 years, most notably in Berlyne's ecological approach to responsiveness,a more precise understanding of aesthetic relationships has been generated. Berlynecoined the term "collative properties" to define stimulus qualities that depend on comparativeapprehension with present or past stimuli. Collative variables such as complexity,ambiguity, incongruity, uncertainty, surprise, novelty, and indistinctness were shown tobe critical to gaining and maintaining viewer attention critical to sustaining the aestheticexperience (Berlyne, 1974). By informed shaping of aesthetic relationships, visual communicatorssystematically study the capacities of the visual brain using a unique set ofintuitive disciplinary tools.Dr. Semir Zeki, of the International Institute of Neuroesthetics, in his book InnerVision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain, discusses the primary importance of a brainbaseddisciplinary approach. 'All visual art is expressed through the brain and musttherefore obey the laws of the brain, whether in conception, execution, or appreciation;no theory of aesthetics that is not substantially based on the activity of the brain is everlikely to be complete, let alone profound" (1999, p. 1).THE INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVEStudying all manner of visual communications media, not just those usually classifiedas art, makes it obvious that all visual communication must utilize the same humanperception system as do art objects. There is no separate eye-to-brain connection for theprocessing of images labeled art. By looking at what is scientifically known about the waythe brain processes visual information, one can learn more about the nature and functionsof aesthetic aspects of perception and therefore the role that aesthetic phenomena playin visual communication. By studying art one can gain a deeper emotional and intuitiveunderstanding of the multitude of sensitive aesthetic relationships involved in shaping animage of visual communication.Establishing a physical basis for aesthetic expression by rigorous scientific explorationand object-based artistic observation promises to help the individual overcome the

current confusing, subjective understanding of aesthetics. A common expression states,6 DAKE"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Although it is true that subjectivity can enlightenthe individual viewer's personal response, it also obscures deeper, more dependable,transpersonal contributions made by visual communication.VISUAL AESTHETIC THOUGHTAesthetics is not about "things" but about systems of ecological relationships andthe processes that create these relationships and aid in their interpretation. The threeprimary players in this ecological balancing act are: the visible object itself, the maker ofthis object, and the intended viewer. Figure 1.1 illustrates the interactive nature of thesethree elements.The physical object itself contains observable relational properties among and betweenall the visible elements. Every line, shape, value, color, and so on, is related to the othervisible elements. Creating meaningful connectedness between the developing visibleform and a hoped for message is the goal of the maker. The physical, concrete natureis therefore vital to both the viewer and the maker, helping them connect and communicate.As the image-maker engages in shaping the emerging system of phenomenologicalelements, an intimate relationship develops between object and maker. To fully participatein the creative process, the maker must focus on all emerging physical relationships,mental nonmaterial relationships, plus the relationship to personal intentions and goals.There must also be a concern for the potential response of the viewing audience.While creating, the maker also serves as an initial viewer of the emerging image.Other viewers will also get visible information from the perception of the object. Shortof explicit verbal statements of intention by the maker, the visually literate viewer needsto complete the maker's creative act by interpreting these relationships among visiblerelationships in the created object.Aesthetics permeates all interactions between these three components of visual communication.Relationships may not immediately reveal the exact intentions of the creatoror help the viewer discover any potential hidden interpretations; but intentions, ofboth the maker and the viewer can alter everyone's perspective on imagistic meaning.Knowledge of meaning can become clearer through a deliberate process of analysis andinterpretation. Heightened awareness of one's own mental imagery is the first step toaccessing this deeper aesthetic aspect of visual communication.ObjectAestheticsYiewer MakerFIG. 1.1. Diagram of aesthetic relationships.1. AESTHETICS THEORY 7PERCEPTION OF AESTHETIC RELATIONSHIPSVisual Aesthetic Thought Is Configurational (Visibly Relational)Aesthetic thought is first of all structural thought. Mental imagery (thought) is mademanifest in the material world. In analyzing a work of aesthetic communication, RudolfArnheim has made this case: "What matters is that even at this abstract level the compositionalstructure is grasped as a whole, namely as a configuration of perceptual componentssymbolizing the psychological theme of the work by direct visual reflection. The exampleshows also what I meant when I said that basic perceptual features point directly to thedeepest meanings of the artistic statement, even though to do so they need to be seenin the structural context of the whole" (1992, p. 33). Without a physical manifestation,aesthetic qualities would not be perceivable. Without a particular holistic configuration,an image / message would be different in its impact. The qualities of both the parts (detailsand separate visual elements) and of the whole structure of an image are simultaneouslyconveyed in a specific gestalt presentation. The aesthetics are embedded in the whole.For visual communication to take place, both part (parsed and detailed) and whole(holistic and global) information need to be effectively mixed in the viewer's brain. Studiesindicate that the local details of the image are processed in a module within the brainseparate from the module for handling global information. A 1995 study by Heilman,Chatterjec, and Doty discovered that a global-local dichotomy "maybe related to the mannerin which the right and left hemispheres respond to spatial frequencies" (p. 60). Their

data shows that the right hemisphere tends to direct attention toward visual extrapersonalspace (far from the body). This makes right hemispheric processing more concerned withglobal matters of fuzzy, low spatial frequency. The left hemisphere, by contrast, directsattention to visual information taking place close to the body (peripersonal space withdetailed, sharp, high spatial frequency). The shaping of successful aesthetic messages,therefore, must involve synchronization of two hemispheres through a process of creativevisual thinking. Visual information that only considers individual parts rather thancontextual relationships results in never seeing the forest for the trees. The perceptionand understanding of complex relationships are among the most basic contributions ofaesthetic perception to visually based communication.It appears that individuals trained in visual communication and aesthetic appreciationsee more of the global, contextual information as well as more detailed nameable parts.Aesthetically trained brains take in more global structural information and balance it witha subtle perception of small detailed differences. Significant aesthetic perception begins,however, before conscious awareness processes can make reasoned decisions. Aestheticperception precedes cortical information processing and therefore any conscious awarenessof associative symbolic inferences. At a very basic level, visual-perceptual processingdetermines the type and amount of information that is sent to the brain for furtherthought.Physiognomic RelationshipsAesthetic perception seems to utilize large-scale aspects of visual compositional structure.These complex relationships between visual elements are not easily comprehended8 DAKEin verbal terms. The designated term for these complex structural relationships isphysiognomies.In aesthetic communication, what is mentally compared and correlated are basic physiognomicstructures supporting and composing each image. The contribution of aestheticthought to the construction of meaning begins with a heightened sensitivity to this foundationalaesthetic structure. Such aesthetic physiognomies are not household names forobjects that can be easily grasped, named, and classified. Aesthetic physiognomies arelargely overlooked by the naming functions of the brain's left hemisphere.The sensitive perception of aesthetic/physiognomic qualities is present in bothchildren and adults. According to a developmental study by Seitz and Beilin 'Adults aswell as children perceive category membership as a matter of degree" (1987, p. 324).Learning to deal constructively with the fuzzy boundaries is the mental space wherevisual appearance-based analogies begin to form and deep meaning is based.Flexibility and FluencyCreative thinking is closely related to aesthetic apprehension because both use similarareas of the human brain. Fluency and flexibility characterize all healthy and productivevisual thought. From a variety of potential visual possibilities, the maker of an image canvisually judge the most potentially potent and pertinent structural message. The aestheticquality or spirit of a visual message can then best be understood as the embodiment ofa certain quality of flexibility and fluidity of thought that offers new possibilities tothe viewer's mind for consideration. During the graphic ideation of visual message,designers and artists leave an indelible structural mark on images, which then sets upa potentially equally creative outcome in the viewer's mind. The quality that makesfor an effective visual message emerges from a visual comparison with a variety ofknowable possibilities. This quality is directly perceivable by a trained individual whosees configurational relationships in their full meaningful context, including very personaland individual relationships to the image. A verbal analysis of aesthetics only deals withone part at a time and is therefore always incomplete in description and understanding.In the creative design of visual messages, as well as in creative viewing and interpretation,flexibility of structural construction is vital. Flexibility provides for the purelyperceptual apprehension of novelty, originality, and message integrity. Ritualized, stereotyped,and repetitive messages are not as likely to attract or sustain viewer attention.Therefore, the message's flexibility is crucial for discovering and imparting significantaesthetic aspects of meaning.

Implicit or Hidden Aesthetic RelationshipsNot all perception of the visible world is explicitly available to the maker or the viewer.Neuroscientists theorize that the brain has dual memory systems, one explicit and oneimplicit. Visual message designers need access to the contents of implicit perception andmemory to craft messages with communicative, experiential impact.Current research tantalizingly suggests that the perception of aesthetics depends ona subconscious substrate that may not be totally a process of inductive (active) learning1. AESTHETICS THEORY 9FIG. 1.2. Untitled photograph, Stephen Herrnstadt, 1988 (used with permission of the artist).or even based on enculturation. If this is true, then visual communications would nothave to be learned as communication's conventions, but would be innate and supportuniversal aspects of visual communications as is often proposed for the fine arts.Do skilled visual communicators really see more of the contents of implicit perceptionas well as explicit configurations made up of lines, shapes, colors, values, and soon? A 1995 study by Liu found that experienced designers show greater awareness ofimplicit subshapes compared to inexperienced designers. Only experienced designerscould lower their thresholds of recognition activation, which allowed them to discoverimplicit emergent subshapes. Seeing more aesthetic forces potentially opens up a wholeworld of "felt" holistic structural qualities. These intuitively felt qualities of orientation,implied spaces, and the essence of empty space add significantly to both the quality andquantity of visiospatial information available to the brain—things the viewer can explicitlysee and name plus felt qualities of the image that convey more patterns of meaningfulforces.A comparison of three forest scene photographs by Stephen Herrnstadt in Figs. 1.2,1.3, and 1.4 illustrates both the explicit perception of holistic configurational structureand the richness of implicit relationships. Although all of these images are of nameableforms called trees, this layer of meaning does little to help us understand the aestheticdimension of communication.10 DAKEFIG. 1.3. Untitled photograph, Stephen Herrnstadt, 1988 (used with permission of the artist).In the case of Fig. 1.2, there are several verticals that penetrate a textured ground in theleft half of the photograph. The strongest structure is the widest with marginally moredetail. The message of the verticals contrasts with the much looser and more dynamicforces of bramble of texture in the bottom half of the image, from which the verticalsarise.Figure 1.3 has a quite different aesthetic structure. The verticals here have a slighttilt, which makes them more dynamic. The widest and most dominant vertical is alsothe darkest. The middle linear form is lightest of the three verticals and bends mostdramatically toward the third vertical on the right-hand side. This highly structured arearelates to the lighter, bottom two thirds of the surface, which has a looser, more lineartextural feel. There is a subtle curvature of ground/tree horizon line going from upperleft to lower right. When combined with the strong spreading forces of the verticals, thiscurvature implies a kind of strong aesthetic energy emanating from the curvature of theearth itself.Figure 1.4 also presents a dominant vertical, but in a central position. Because itis so detailed in texture compared to its surroundings, it becomes the commandingdominant focus. Some implicit relationships then create an even stronger contrast inmeaning. In Fig. 1.4 the ground and horizon line are deemphasized in favor of a foggyatmospheric mist. The ambiguous depth of the background gives an otherworldly feel to1. AESTHETICS THEORY 11FIG. 1.4. Untitled photograph, Stephen Herrnstadt, 1987 (used with permission of the artist).the work. When combined with the strong backlit staging, it suggests a meaning morerelated to dematerialized spirit than earthly concerns. Together the explicit and implicitrelationships create a fuller understanding of the visual message. A comparison of theaesthetic structure of these three photographs therefore yields a quite different aestheticbasis for communication of distinct visual messages.Holistic Vision: Thinking by AppearanceHow is it that the viewer is able to construct meaningful patterns out of an image's

visible and hidden relationships? Could there be a visual semantic structure underlyingvisual communication? Dr. Betty Edwards first proposed a basic visual language structurein her book Drawing on the Artist Within (1986). Edwards described and demonstratedthe expressive, communicative potential of an underlying nonobjective analog structure,visible in student exercises and works by historic artists.Takahashi (1995) presented separate scientific collaboration of this universal semanticpotential. By using similar visual analogs created by a group of art students, Takahashishowed the rich potential for visual communication in underlying visual holistic structure.Analysis of these analogs by an unrelated group of nonart students identified a remarkabledegree of aesthetic communication. Takahashi concluded, "This finding suggests that a12 DAKEsynergistic relation exists between some perceptual property and a specific word concept.The presence of specific visual structures may activate one's knowledge about kinds ofaffective categories" (1995, p. 681). Takahashi proposed a positive link between affectiveand aesthetic mental processes and later cognitive processes. The implication points tothe existence of a purely visual aesthetic language based on holistic abstract structure, asrevealed in outward appearance.Thinking by appearance is a function of the right hemisphere of the brain. Levyand Trevarthen concluded in a 1976 study that "The right and left hemispheres arespecialized for detecting structural and functional similarities, respectively" (p. 311). Theleft hemisphere makes logical connections between objects that fulfill similar functionswithin denned categorical boundaries. Associative reasoning seems to follow the samepattern. In contrast, the right hemisphere specializes in making comparisons based purelyon structural appearance. Appearance-based reasoning in the right hemisphere is largelyunknown to the left hemisphere. Perception of the same images presented to the lefthemisphere yield logical and functional decisions. Thus words used to interpret meaningfrom images can, by their linear nature, distort and convert the information in the visualcommunication.ReconstrualMary Peterson (1993) examined the multiple interpretive possibilities within shapememory and identified a foundational principle of aesthetic creativity she called reconstrual.She provided evidence of the vast potential for multiple mental reconstruals froma single geometric form. Instead of a singular visual recognition and categorization,Peterson suggested that in perception, "there exists a stage in which a structural descriptionof a shape is not connected to an interpretation" (1993, p. 172). At this important stageof aesthetic perception there appears to be a rapid mental search through an imagisticmental lexicon for the best possible match with incoming visual stimuli. Awareness of themind's ability to perform a multiple-layered search provides for imaginative perceptionand the discovery of possible multiple, meaningful interpretations.Figure 1.5, "Self Portrait as Pagan Fire God" by Chuck Richards, presents a novel senseof multiple meanings to the traditional subject of self-portrayal. The representation isfiltered through many layers of thinking by appearance. In addition to the symmetryof religious icons, appearance comparisons recall fabricated sets of old exotic movies(such as King Kong), sacrificial rituals of distant cultures, hedonistic masks of spring revels,mythic sculptural representations of gods who need to be fed (note the eating utensils),the manipulation behind the scenes (see small Wizard of Oz-like figure in lower-left-handcorner, and the showmanship of the circus). Rich and fluid appearance thinking endowsthe maker and viewer with the capability to stretch and break the tight conceptual boundariesof literal meaning. Once "outside the box," the multiple series of visual relationshipsand spatial associations lead inevitably to multiple analogies. These embedded analogieslead to a form of poetic "visual rhyming" and then as in the case of this example to newmultiple-layered meanings for self-portraiture. Who is the person being portrayed? Whatis the individual's self-image and his in life? What personality characteristics define thisperson's life? The systematic analysis of analogies yielded by these reconstruals changes1. AESTHETICS THEORY 13FIG. 1.5. Self-portrait as pagan fire god, Chuck Richards, 24" x 24", colored pencil (used withpermission of the artist).the aesthetic tone of an actual scene and provides a charged series of potential metaphoric

meanings. A self-portrait is more that the outward appearance of the individual.Tolerance for multilevels of meaning occurring simultaneously is prerequisite to fullyunderstanding meaning-making in visual communication. Logical, verbal reasoning isoften not the best laboratory for discovering meaningful patterns. Arthur Koestler suggeststhe real basis for understanding visual meaning: "The mind is insatiable for meaning,drawn from, or projected into the world of appearances, for unearthing hidden analogieswhich connect the unknown with the familiar, and show the familiar in an unexpectedlight. It weaves the raw material of experience into patterns, and connects them withother patterns" (1975, p. 390).Meaning in the world of the aesthetic visual communication can never be singularand literal because the viewer's brain will automatically make multiple connectionsthrough reconstrual. The attempt to impose singular meaning on images (through logicalargument and discursive assertion) does not foreclose flexibility of appearance-basedthinking.Understanding how meaning arises from aesthetic qualities requires response-abilityfrom individuals doing creative seeing. This implies not only the ability to respond to initialphysiognomic phenomena, but also the obligation to pursue the universal implications14 DAKEFIG. 1.6. Untitled photograph, Stephen Herrnstadt, 1988 (used with permission of the artist).within individual responses. Painter Pablo Picasso comments on the subject: "Reality ismore than the thing itself. I look always for the super reality. Reality lies in how you seethings. A green parrot is also a green salad and a green parrot. He who makes it only aparrot diminishes its reality. A painter who copies a tree blinds himself to the real tree.I see things otherwise. A palm tree can become a horse" (July 10, 1950, Sunday Observer).Perceived meaningful information involving reconstrued aesthetic qualities becomes acreative mental action by the viewer.Two photographic landscape images further demonstrate the diverse potentialmeanings generated by using thinking by appearance. The image shown in Fig. 1.6,Herrnstadt's untitled photographic work, has many possible reconstruals, new nonliteralconnections beyond immediate associations. Could it be reminiscent of soldiers'corpses on a battlefield, for indeed the fallen, decaying trees on the forest probably resultedfrom destructive forces for organic life. The same configuration of fallen treescould also be analogous to the veins of Mother Earth herself. Through these veins wouldflow energy, creating further organic growth, much like decaying vegetable matter onthe forest floor. The crystalline light shimmering on the organic forms transports theviewer to a transcendental and fantastic scene. None of these levels of meaning, however,forecloses a literal reading of the visible evidence. A forestry expert could make accuratescientific conclusions from the same visible evidence.1. AESTHETICS THEORY 15FIG. 1.7. Terminus, Mary Stieglitz, digital image, 2003 (used with permission of the artist).Figure 1.7, Terminus, a digital print by Mary Stieglitz, presents nature up close inwhat appears to be the rotting carcass of an animal. The angular forms also resemblemountains rising from flat land. This relationship attaches a monumental importanceto the message as a huge creature preys on the parched land. An altered sky area conjuresup scenes of rusting metal, adding a decaying aesthetic. An organic beauty in thisarrangement engages the viewer to carefully attend to the interplay of form and texture,as thinking by appearance lends deeper levels of meaning. Metaphoric thinking leadsto far more significant meaning levels than a rotting carcass literally suggests. Visualmeaning can certainly be understood through words (interpretation), deeds (visible attributes),or underlying tone (aesthetic qualities). The power of visual communicationlies in relationships among these three aspects of understanding images.THE LOGIC OF VISUAL AESTHETICSHow can the maker and viewer have faith and rely on a level of meaning embedded in animage? Why not opt for an imaginary construction in the mind?A central dilemma of aestheticvisual communication is whether visual images can provide evidence of importanthuman cognitive activity or whether an image's communicative value is wholly dependenton discursive logic. Can one judge the quality, preciseness, and utility of communicationby purely visual means? What makes a visual image "work" for maker and viewer alike?

The final part of this chapter's theoretical proposition speculates on the full cognitiveimport of aesthetic aspects of visual communication. The hypothesis is that effective16 DAKEcommunication depends on a unique visually based logic, created through visual modulesand processes of the human brain. The order and patterns of neural brain structuredetermine visual communication effectiveness. Visual logic is defined here as a systemof visual relationships that encourages a developed internal sense of image cohesiveness,integrity, and elegance necessary to attract attention and guide the viewer to a sense ofaesthetic completion and comprehension.Six individual, interlocking principles guide the development of this sense of visuallogic. These six principles are (a) Ambiguity and Meaning, (b) Control of Direction,(c) Ecological Relationships, (d) Tensional, (e) Unity, and (f) Realism.Ambiguity and MeaningThere are no "pictures" in the human brain, only individual neuronal responses todifferent elements in the image. The visual world is therefore always ambiguous (withouta single level of meaning that can be clearly explained in words). Having accepted this, it isimportant for viewers to explore the "manner" in which meaning construction is takingplace in their own brains. No amount of parsing with left hemispheric processes willalone suffice to comprehend meaning. The ambiguity and meaning principle suggeststhat, if aesthetic form and content are effectively related, the visually literate viewer isable to extract relevant information by concentrating on visible relationships and thenature of meaning-making in the human brain. Multiple meanings emerge later fromthe layered relationships with the other five principles.Control of DirectionThe control of direction principle suggests there are actions that the image-maker cancontrol about the manner in which the image attains and maintains the viewer's attentionand interest and elicits an aesthetic response. On the other hand, there are other aspects,such as arriving at a common uniform interpretation of meaning, that can't be dictatedby the maker. Individual viewers will arrive at some degree of individual connectionand relationship to the image based on their individual wants, needs, and expectations.The individual image-maker can control many aspects of "how" the viewer's perceptualsystem interacts with visible relationships but not the final interpretation. The makercan direct the viewer's eye throughout the image's significant areas through directionalclues, groupings of elements, and tensions. The maker can also choose to emphasizecertain aspects of the image and to subordinate others in order to direct the viewer'smind to significant matters. However, the sheer number of visible relationships willquickly overwhelm the parsing and decision-making functions of the brain. Intuitionmust therefore guide the image-maker and viewer in controlling the effect the image hason the brain.Ecological RelationshipsWhen interpreting the inherent visual logic imbedded in an image, the maker (duringthe act of ideation) and the viewer (in a process of perception) both become involved in1. AESTHETICS THEORY 17an intimate reciprocal and ecological relationship with the image. The visual structureoffers parameters for perception of possible multiple meaning levels, as well as the potentialfor fixation on one particular meaning or focused aesthetic response. The maker,through trial and error, shapes this image, and the viewer must empathize with this relationshipwhile at the same time understanding his or her ecological interactions with thestructure.Gregory Bateson (1975) theorized that the human mind is essentially an ecologicalgovernor, controlling the body's processes to ensure that decisions are of maximal value.Because the body is part of the environment itself, appropriate mental interpretationcannot be totally fixed and objective. Through trial and error decision making, thebrain compares visible structure to potential meanings. During this process, failures ofjudgment or aesthetic response (for example, an immediate "I don't like it," based onsuperficial viewing) could be viewed as positive experiences to be valued. Failures couldindicate to the viewer that he or she has stretched interpretation beyond his or her pastcapabilities and is searching for less obvious relationships, analogies, and connections.

The depth of visual logic is not always initially apparent.TensionalIllusionistic use of spatial clues adds an implied tension with the image's true flat surface. Inaddition, the visual elements on the picture plane's flat surface have tensional relationshipswith each other, with sides of the image, and with its center of the image. The sum totalof all tensions, both explicitly perceived and implicitly apprehended, creates an aestheticimpression of mood and a visible foundation for the communicated message.Generally, artists and image-makers intuitively and explicitly shape aesthetic elementsto discover meaningful relationships and cause a specific brain response. Based thenon the viewer's life experience with tensions in the environment, the message beingcommunicated can be perceived as being more or less truthful. Important tensionalrelationships and their implied meanings are thus passed from message-maker to viewerbased on normal human perceptual functions.UnityBecause the brain's left hemisphere specializes in parsing information, rather than graspingit whole, the full cognitive and communicative potential of holistic gestalt forms ofknowing is often overlooked (Bolles, 1991). Every effective visual message has cohesivevisual forces that group visual elements (the gestalt grouping principles of similarity,proximity, closure, continuation, and common fate) into meaningful and aesthetically rewardingpatterns. These underlying structures are not usually apparent to the untrainedeye.Unity of message implies a wholeness of spirit or purpose that give the visual sensetrustworthiness. Without unity, the experience for the viewer lacks cohesion, makingcommunicative interpretation less sure. With unity, the viewer's own natural perceptualabilities can interpret visual clues to determine the nature and type of visual messageand its relationship to reality.18 DAKERealismAll imagery communicates some aspect of reality. That reality may not be a naturalisticillusion of optical conditions but conveys knowledge about aspects of reality not readilyaccessible to the unaided human eye (microscopic views, time-related processes, or energiesoutside the visible spectrum). To construct visual images, the maker has a series ofclues to depth used that aid in communicating knowledge of reality. The knowledgeableviewer must be able to reinterpret these clues to meaning.Gestalt psychology provides understanding of depth clues (overlap, shadow, color,gradients, and placement) that give the viewer clues to form and space. Motion cluesin moving images also shape the nature of visual evidence. Awareness of complexityand arbitrary use of visual clues is necessary for viewers to independently evaluate thevisual image for veracity and importance. Application of the realism principle providesa ground of information that is either believable and true or false and manipulative.Informed visual communication must consider the medium of realism selected by themessage designer and its aesthetic and affective dimensions created within the viewer.LayeringVisual elements never exist in isolation; they are always effected by what is around them.What is implicitly meaningful is the larger gestalt configuration. The philosopher JohnDewey stated, "To think effectively in terms of relations of qualities is as severe a demandupon thought as to think in terms of symbols, verbal and mathematical" (Dewey, 1934,p. 46). For an effective visual message to be shaped, a composite, holistic gestalt mustemerge from multiple types of separate aesthetic relationships, a layering of simultaneousevents.Each image contains forces and tensions; groupings; selections of depth clues; decisionsmade through trial, error, and reflection; and conscious design decisions directingthe viewer's attention. Like geological stratum, each separate relationship represents aprocess of layered transparency, a unique type of visually based logic. This logic supportsthe process of visually based reasoning and the interpretation of the perceived message.Visual logic is based on understanding of normal functions of perceptual processingof the human nervous system. Words can only speak of one thing at a time, but images

arrive holistically, everything present simultaneously. Visual logic must be understood ina wordless way of speculating, considering, and eventually knowing.SEEKING CONSILIENCEAesthetic exploration can lead to unique forms of knowing that are cognitive and affectiveat the same time. Zeki (1999) concluded that wordless modes of knowing can discoversignificant new knowledge, complementarily and sometimes foreshadowing science.Figure 1.8 is a painting by the author of this chapter entitled, "Thought Structure." Someyears after its completion and titling, a chemist interpreted this image as an example offractal geometry (the mathematics of asymmetry). As the artist, this was not my conscious1. AESTHETICS THEORY 19FIG. 1.8. Thought structure, Dennis Dake, 22-1/2" x 28", airbrush/watercolor, 1977.intention. My intention was to capture the structure of my thoughts: Mathematics as asubject had never entered my conscious thought. The visually logical resemblance to arepresentation of a fractal is, however, striking.Aesthetics are the mute, unnamable aspects of visual communication that one couldtalk about forever. If visual communication is defined as only clarity and exactness inverbal interpretation, much potential power of visual imagery to connect human mindswould be lost. Literary exactitude forces visual information through too narrow a funnel.Filtered out is some of visual language's richest potential for informational relationship.In his 1998 book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, biologist Edward O. Wilson arguedfor the fundamental unity of all knowledge and the need to search for proof thateverything is organized in terms of a small number of fundamental natural laws, underlyingevery branch of learning. The physical and biological sciences are now increasinglyreaching such consilience, where new understandings can be based on common principles.Wilson saw the effort to bridge between the sciences and other disciplines as agreat labyrinth, which must be negotiated. The greatest challenge Wilson foresaw wasconsilience between the sciences and the arts.Interpretation has multiple dimensions, namely history, biography, linguistics, and aestheticjudgment. At the foundation of them all lie the material processes of the human mind.20 DAKETheoretically inclined critics of the past have tried many avenues into that subterraneanrealm, including most prominently psychoanalysis and post modernist solipsism. Theseapproaches, which are guided largely by unaided intuition about the way the brain works,have fared badly. In the absence of a compass based on sound material knowledge, theymake too many wrong turns into blind ends. If the brain is ever to be charted, and anenduring theory of the arts created as part of the enterprise, it will be by stepwise andconsilient contributions from the brain sciences, psychology, and evolutionary biology. Andif during this process the creative mind is to be understood, it will need collaborationbetween scientists and humanities scholars. (Wilson, 1998, p. 216)This chapter has speculated on some possible connections among knowledge fromthe neurosciences, evidence from artistic expression, and the nature of visual aestheticcommunication. Triangulation from these perspectives may generate verifiable principlesand laws on which to base a disciplined understanding of aesthetic aspects of visualinformation exchange, a fruitful consilience.