Monday, January 25, 2016

The Thinking Eye

When I read this article  I was extremely confused. The way some of his sentences were structured didn't even make sense to me, let alone the concepts underlying them. The main things I couldn't grasp were the thoughts he had put down about focus, function, and tension. So as far as those things are concerned, I did not understand almost anything on the first page. I especially didn't understand the part in the last paragraph of the first page when they try to define the and describe the different forms and movements as feminine and masculine. I did not pick up on that at all. In fact when it talked about how form- making was feminine and form-deciding was masculine, I thought that it seemed a little sexist. I am not sure why that popped up into my head but I seemed to associate the making with food and the decisions with decisions in life, so that is how it came up as sexist in my mind, even though, now thinking about it, it does not really seem sexist, but it still does not make sense.

After the first two pages were over, things cleared up a little bit because they were more straight forward. The dots made sense, as well as the explanation about how a line that went for a walk. However, with those two things, I do not understand the active, middle and passive aspects of them and how they relate. It was all extremely confusing.i also could not understand why some of she shapes that were shaded in were called what they were called. One of the only things I did understand in this article were the lines. I got the difference between the lines that were basically like waves and the lines that were described as connecting different points and therefore has sharp edges and points, and lastly, compared to never ending lines, like circles or triangles.

In class we had touched on how different lines and dots are and how the way they are created mean different things. For example, by listening to the music, there were different ways to make and interpret the dots and lines by the strength of the dot/line or even how close they are.

I definitely feel as though I need the definitions cleared up and explained to me in a slightly different way than was done in this passage. I can not tell if it was just the writing style that I did not understand or if I just couldn't grasp the concepts.


  1. I agree with you, Megan. I thought the first few pages where the author discussed the power of creativity and the theory of form made no sense. Then the rest of the article was a list of unorganized notes he had on lines and shapes.
    I also noticed how he described shapes as being lines in constant motion, which I thought was interesting because I had never thought of a shape like that. As for the other ideas he brought up I feel like with more explanation he could have cleared up what he meant, but I also found him hard to understand.

  2. I agree with Megan. The article did not make much sense to me until he started talking about the dot and how a line is a dot in motion. I was also confused with active, middle and passive aspect. He also brought up planes which he did not give a definition for until the very end. I feel that the confusion had a lot to do with the confusing writing style of the author. Personally, I do not have an art background which I felt I came to a bigger disadvantage while reading the article because not only did I not understand the new terms, the writing style made the new terms much more difficult to understand.