Perceptual Complexity_AparajitaMisra

Perceptual Complexity by Aparajita Misra Lady Shri Ram College for Women 2015
Perceptual Complexity
A research on aesthetic perception
This paper is a compilation of multiple theories along with my own perspective
Disclaimer : Only 60% of the content is originally by Aparajita Misra along with 40% of supported
articles.

Bibliography & Key References
- Vedanta theory of perception - http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/phil/phil_05.html
- Aesthetic complexity by guy birkin 2010
- https://www.academia.edu/2095718/A_Portrait_of_the_Artist_as_an_Aesthetic_Expert
- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-aesthetics/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

ABSTRACT
My research investigates the aesthetics of visual complexity in the
practice and perception of visual art and design. The aim is to
understand visual complexity in terms of the relationship between the
objective properties of images and subjective properties of
perception. The research will bring out important points when it
comes to both perceptions of the creator and the subject. The
perceptual complexity is based on two ways, firstly, a subjective
complexity based on perception of a work of art or a regular object
around us arriving at how we perceive a certain object presented to
us. Secondly, an objective complexity where we will try to show the
inherent complexity of the creator.
The project will highlight the key differences when it comes to
perceptually of objects from both the subject and the object as well as
the relation between the two. It will also guide you on how this
understanding is very important for an observer and a creator to have
due to the whole idea of spur-of-the-moment on both ends.
Towards the end project will illustrate the notion of environmental
aesthetics.

INDEX
1. Introduction
2. Vedanta Theory of perception
3. Perceptual complexity
4. The Aesthetic
5. The working model of aesthetics
6. Complexity
7. Subject’s Complexity
8. Creator’s Complexity
9. Object’s Complexity
10.Scope of error in perception of
Beauty
11. God as the creator of the world
12.Conclusion

Introduction
This project investigates the aesthetics of visual complexity. If you look around now, you will
probably see mostly plain and simple areas (such as a clear sky or plain walls), regular
patterns in smaller areas (clothing and furnishings), and perhaps some irregular patterns
(carpet, grass or clouds). Besides anything living (people, pets and plants), the most complex
visual things around are probably objects of aesthetic value. Why artworks tend to be
complex, and how visual complexity relates to aesthetic value, what is the relationship
between an art and an artist, and how the perceiver and the creator have differing visions of
the same object are the questions I aim to answer in this research.
This includes an account of the personal context for the research, including a brief
description of previous academic work and the art practice from which the current research
developed.
Vedanta theory of Perception
According to the Sankhya system the stimulus for perception is provided by the existence of
a real object outside. In right perception a real object which is outside is presented to the
perceptive consciousness. The object of right perception is not an illusion, but real, and has
practical value. The senses give a direct apprehension of truly existent objects of which one
becomes aware in right perception. The senses afford only an indeterminate perception of
the object, a mere immediacy of objectivity, in the form of ‘This is an object.’ This can be said
to be bare abstract perception. Concrete and determinate perception of the nature of ‘I know
the object’ takes place further inside in the Antahkarana. The mind contemplates on the
material supplied by the senses and gives it order and definiteness by the act of synthesis
and deliberation on its part. Here arises the definite perception of the object as being of this
or not this kind.

Perceptual Complexity
‘A variety of patterns at different levels’ is a reasonable preliminary characterization of
perceptual complexity. For example, in case of a painting, Below the range of our perception,
there are patterns of protons, neutrons and electrons form specific chemical elements which
combine into hundreds of different molecules in the pigment, binder and support. The
mechanical and optical properties of these minerals, oils and fibers determine the painting’s
construction by the artist and its appearance to the viewer. At the visual level their crystalline,
fluid and woven textures combine to form a record of the artistic process which is revealed in
the layers of paint and the traces of brushstrokes. On the surface of a painting we perceive
forms, which may be abstract or representational, well-defined or ambiguous. These forms
have colour, texture and position relative to each other and to the whole picture. The way
that these formal relations have been handled by the artist may be recognised as a style.
From the visual level, we may notice themes in the content of the work – that which is
signified implicitly as opposed to being represented explicitly. We may also perceive the
relation of this particular work to the artist’s oeuvre, and see how it fits the pattern of the
artist’s output. Similarly, we may see how the work relates to its genre and the rest of the art
world, to art history, and if not also to current political or philosophical concerns, then almost
certainly to our own experience.
What is important here is to note how a perceptual experience can be extremely complex
from both the aesthetic ends. The perception of these complex aesthetic patterns and their
inter relations provides the basis of our understanding and appreciation of visual art and
design.
The question that one should ask here is, Is this applicable to our ordinary experience of the
world we live in? The answer is, Yes. At the center of them all is the level of visual perception,
and this is the focus of the current research project.
What we are trying to find out is how do we understand the perceptual complexity on all
ends, i.e , the creator and the subject.
Is the creator aware of the perceptual complexity of the perceiver of the work of art? Or does
the perceiver understand the perceptual complexity of the creator?
Before we go any further into the details of this project, it is necessary to clarify its
context to provide a foundation for the remaining research. The focus is visual complexity
– how it is used by artists and designers and perceived by an audience. Its context, therefore,
consists of the areas in which the making and perception of art are analysed and discussed.
These areas are united by the term aesthetics.
We have already understood Samkhya’s View of “Perception” or atleast by the definition of it.
We can now go on to understand the term “Beauty” in perspectives.

Beauty ; When we turn our attention to the senses, one of the first things we notice is that
some perceptions are pleasing and some are not. Our name for this sensory pleasure is
beauty, and the objects or events from which this pleasure is derived we call beautiful. As the
discipline of aesthetics develops, the idea of beauty is gradually transformed from being an
objective property of artefacts to a subjective property of perceptions. The objective-
subjective duality
of perception remains closely connected to issues in contemporary aesthetics.
The Aesthetic
Nick Zangwill (2008) argues for the primacy of aesthetic judgements, as
follows:
Aesthetic properties are those that are ascribed in aesthetic judgments; aesthetic
experiences are those that ground aesthetic judgments; aesthetic concepts are those
that are deployed in aesthetic judgments; and aesthetic words are those that are
typically used in the linguistic expression of aesthetic judgments.
Kant’s concept of the aesthetic is defined by disinterestedness in practical desires except for
an appreciation of the aesthetic experiences that art affords. Kant describes his aesthetic as
subjective (personal) and universal (normative). When we make an aesthetic judgement, it
cannot be anything other than subjective because it is not based on reason or ethics, but at
the same time it is also an evaluation. In this sense, aesthetic judgements are not just explicit
statements of preference; implicitly they are universal invitations for others to agree with us.
20
In philosophical terms, aesthetics tries to define the necessary and sufficient conditions of the
aesthetic, that is, to identify all the properties that things must have to be properly called
aesthetic.
We can say that the field is chiefly concerned with perceptions (which are natural
phenomena), properties (of art and nature), and practices (of making, perceiving and
understanding art).

The Working Model of Aesthetics
Now lets talk about the traditional model in which the whole field of Aesthetics exists.
This working model consists of three key elements ; The Artist, the work of art and the
audience. The model illustrates the idea that art is essentially a form of communication, and
that whatever the medium it always carries a message. We must understand that All in all, the
creative act is not performed by the artist alone. In this model, the aesthetic is identified as
residing in the interactions with an artwork – firstly by those who produce it and secondly by
those who perceive it. The aesthetic is an active process of experiencing art and making
judgments based on the evaluation of those experiences. The artist uses her judgment in the
production of an artwork to make decisions about how the creation of the work should
proceed.
Complexity
In aesthetic terms, what is woven together are the various patterns at different levels that are
available to visual perception, which we described at the beginning.
Subject’s Complexity: The Interpretation of Art
Now after we have a broad knowledge of Vedanta’s Th. Of perception, the perceptual
complexity, beauty, the Aesthetic and the working model of Aesthetics we can move on to
understand the whole theory of interpretation of art.
On the one hand, there are an infinite number of interpretations for any given piece of art,
any one of which may be considered valid. However, it may also be claimed that there really
is only one valid interpretation for any given piece of art.
The aesthetic theory that people approach art with different aims is called pluralism. People's
interpretations of art may be evaluated relative to these aims. The aim of some of these
interpretations is such that they may be said to be true or false and the aim of others do not
lend themselves to designating truth or falsity to art.
Among those theories which permit for interpretations being named as valid or invalid, are
ones which attempt to identify what the artist is trying to accomplish and interpret the art in
terms of whether or not the artist has succeeded. In this view there is a single correct
interpretation consistent with the artists intention for any given art work.
As we see from the explanation on art interpretation above there are several levels on visual
perception, this is what creates the complexity in observer’s perspective. As we know from
Samkhya’s explanation on perception, for the interpretation to take place apart from bare

abstract perception, Antahkarana or inner psychosis also plays an important role. For art
interpretation to be possible, it is important for the observer to have some knowledge about
the objects of perception.
Apart from this, it is very important for the observer to be submissive towards the work of art
in order to be able to interpret it in the right manner and further criticize it.
The perceptual complexity which an artist is encountered with can be understood by
following certain norms and respecting the work of art and the artist’s intention.
Even in case of a work of art left at an open interpretation or open for multiple aims, as in
case of pluralism, the observer cannot defy the basic aesthetic regulations.
It is only then the observer is able to find the true beauty or pleasure in the work of art he
perceives.
The concept of aesthetic disinterestedness is very essential in order to be one with the
artwork. Kant's formulation of disinterestedness is generally regarded as definitive:
"...[T]aste in the beautiful is alone a disinterested and free satisfaction; for no interest, either of sense or of reason, here
forces our assent...Taste is the faculty of judging of an object or a method of representing it by an entirely disinterested
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful."
Disinterestedness served to identify intrinsic normative experience. As first developed it was
used in a moral context to help the recognition of things and actions that were good in
themselves, apart from their usefulness. Thus Shaftesbury, who, along with Hutcheson and
Alison, was one of the principal contributors to this view, contrasted "the disinterested love of
God," a love pursued for its own sake, with the more common motive of serving God "for
interest merely." The disinterested love of God has, then, value that is entirely intrinsic. When
applied to the experience of beauty, it denoted the same recognition of intrinsic value. There
is a valid insight here, for we often find ourselves valuing a work of art for its own sake.
Somehow the value of good art seems to be self-contained. The work commands respect
and admiration in itself, apart from practical considerations such as monetary value, the
conferring of social status, or its association with the hand of genius.
According to J.N Findlay, aesthetic experience is consciousness taking a delight in itself. There
are particular objects that enhance our awareness. For there is a higher order of satisfaction
of consciousness in itself. An aesthetic contemplation is not self-absorbed, but it is object-
absorbed. Findlay’s own choice is to see object absorption, as in the end, a device for
achieving the delight in enhanced consciousness.
In the Indian context, Unity in consciousness of the subject, object and the means of
knowledge during the process of perception of an object pertains. In a way, this can be
compared to J.N Findlay’s consciousness taking a delight in itself in an aesthetic experience.

As we know, Rasa experience is considered to be divine in nature, they say that the rasa
experience or art contemplation can be considered as an escape towards divinity and can be
equated to the notion of transcendent liberated experience or moksa. In a way art becomes a
medium for the observer to find herself one with divine. In this case, the artist or the creator
who makes us go through this aesthetic experience with the help of his creation as a
medium.
When we talk of divine God as the creator of the world, is nature nothing but the brush
strokes on a piece of canvas illustrated by God? Then, is what we see around us, term as
beautiful can we compare art perception to our natural perception of the world? We will take
the whole idea of nature as a piece of work of art created by God in the later section of my
research.
Creators Complexity: Creation of the work of art
When a painter sits down to paint, the several levels of perceptual complexity persist. Be it in
the inherent mind of the creator or the mechanical and visual level aswell.
An original piece of art is only the kind where it is spontaneous, without intent, without a
selfish motive or a purpose. The painter might not know what he is about to create at several
levels, is he aware of this complexity?
Here too, it is very important for the artist to be detached and disinterested while making this
work of art, she cannot have a selfish intent behind the creation. For the artist too it is about
being one with divine, because the power of creation of an object of beauty is said to be
residing only with the divine. In a way, the creator is not meant to be known as him but only
through is work of art. The same way, we do not know God, but only know of him due to his
creation, of nature, of beautiful living creatures.
An artist truly gives in himself, in order to create the desired piece of work; he adapts the
character and at times even destroys himself in the course of creation of his work. This work
does not complete after the creation by the artist but rather it begins here, it is the artist in a
way who dies post its creation in order to bring out the best possible experience for the
observer. The true meaning of a work of art is said to be in its art experience.
It is therefore said that the creator dies after creating his artwork, beyond this; the author is
only successful when the emotion, experience she was to evoke with the help of her work is
completed with the help of the art interpretation of the observer.
Speaking in favor of the creator, it is said, that a man becomes a critic when he cannot
become an artist, same way he comes an informer when he cannot become a soldier; here

one who criticizes beauty is one who is unable to understand the beautiful. It is only in the
hands of the artist to establish a sense of beauty left to be interpreted by the observer.
The moment an artist creates a work of art with an intention of appealing the observer is
where he fails to be an artist. The work of art has to be a spontaneous creation, with a sense
of detachment and disinterestedness to bring out the best in the work created. It is only then
when the work of art can be categorized as “beautiful” the Aesthetic or that which is capable
on enhancing simple ideas which are generated with the help of perception and our
knowledge.
In case of an artist too, Vedanta’s notions of abstract perception and Antahkarana are
applicable. Without having a prior knowledge it is not possible for an artist to be able to
perceive when he wishes to create at a later stage. It is the inner psychosis which gives rise to
the idea of the work of art, further with the help of skills & talent of the artists takes the form
of a work of art.
In an artists world, complexity resides in the creation, here at times even the artist is unaware
of his creation, due to the very essence of spontaneity. The disinterested and detached artist
aims to create a work which is without an intent and it too unconsciously has various levels of
complexity, but it at the stage of ideas, or moving ahead to taking a form of the work of art.
Here again, comes the question of equating the artist with the divine creator? Is God too an
artist? Does he exist? Is it right to equate his work of art with an aesthetic object. What we
experience in God’s creation is that too capable of evoking aesthetic experience in an
observer?
Object’s Complexity: Inherent Nature of the Object
A work of art, be it in domain of arts and design or in case of environmental aesthetics i.e
creation of God, is said to have consciousness of itself and according to Vedanta this
consciousness is same as of the one in the subject, the means of knowledge and according
to me even in the case of the creator.
Even though a work of art is an act of spontaneity, it is said to have an inherent meaning
which is unchangeable and it has an element which is always incapable of apprehending. This
inherent nature of an object is beyond reach of both the artist and the observer, a certain
element exists which is beyond our reach, this is the element of divinity.
Once the object is created, it registers in form of knowledge in all there vedantic objects of
perception.
The essence of divinity in an object is what makes it more complex, an object has material –
chemical complexity, formationpattern complexity, also the inherent meaning adds to the
complexity. An aesthetic object of perception holds an identity of itself, here too, the

consciousness takes a delight in itself, and this is only due the unity in the consciousness of
the three kinds of perception discussed in the Vedanta theory of perception i.e the
consciousness of the object, the subject and the means of knowledge. According to the
Sankhya theory of knowledge, the validity or the invalidity of knowledge is self-evident and
does not stand in need of any external conditions. These characters are inherent in the
nature of knowledge itself. For, I say, an aesthetic object, is similar to this self-evident
knowledge, it has its inherent nature which does not stand in need of any other external
conditions but is beautiful in itself.
In perception, acc. To Vedanta, the functioning of the sense-organs is not absolutely
necessary, it is not an unavoidable condition of perception. Whether there is the operation of
the senses or not, when there is an identity brought about between the consciousness
particularized by the object and that modified by the Vritti, there is admitted to be
perception.
The supreme consciousness transcends reality and acts as an escape route for the perceiver
for him to go through the aesthetic experience.
We conclude that the aesthetic object of perception too has complexity in itself.
Scope of Error in perception of “Beauty”
According the Vedanta theory of error, knowledge, ordinarily, presupposes a subject of
knowledge and an object corresponding to it. The nature of this knowledge is dependent
upon the mind and the cognitive organs of the subject, as well as upon the conditions in
which the object is situated in relation to the subject. The knowledge of color through eyes
which are affected with jaundice may be incorrect, since there is every possibility of its being
the perception of an apparently objective yellow color, though what is really objective may
be some other color. In the same manner, a distant object may be mistaken for something
different from what it is, though the organs of perception may be in a healthy condition, and
this error may be caused by a peculiar relation obtaining between the percipient and the
position of the object. Our perceptions of things greatly influence what we infer and decide,
which means that our life is judged by us in accordance with the modes of our perception
and the knowledge based on them. As every inference is based on previous perception,
erroneous perception will nullify the value of the inferences built upon it.
For Vedanta two kinds of erroneous perception may be distinguished from each other: the
mistaken identification of an object really experienced at a given moment with another object
which is at the same time in contact with the sense-organ, and the erroneous attribution of
an object of memory to another object which is in contact with the sense-organ.

Whereas, according to me, when we talk about error in perception in aesthetic domain, we
are talking about interpretation of art. Here what is beautiful might be different for different
people; an aesthetic experience is only thing that is real when one perceives the object of art.
Therefore, we can claim that here there is no possible error to occur. If we talk about the two
erroneous perception; Firstly, the mistaken identification of an object really experienced at a
given moment with another object which is at the same time in contact with the sense organ
is exactly what an art experience gives scope for, in my opinion. An aesthetic experience
gives scope for going beyond what an artist is trying to manifest, it allows your consciousness
to take delight in itself. An aesthetic experience allows the perceiver to have dual identity and
also to unleash ones imagination when it comes to interpretation of art, therefore the whole
notion of error fails in this case. Secondly, the erroneous attribution of an object of memory
to another object which is in contact with the sense-organ. Here two things are known at one
and the same time, both of which are real experiences, but due to the one being
superimposed on the other, there is erroneous perception. But, is this applicable in the
aesthetic domain? Remember the point of pluralistic interpretation of one work of art? I
believe this too is not an error when we consider it in aesthetic domain. Here, it is important
to have knowledge of various other experiences in order to identify our own personal
interpretation of art, afterall, the author is dead after writing his work of literature.
Beauty itself according to me, is a very subjective term. What is pleasurable to me might not
be pleasurable to you? Therefore, we can safely conclude that in domain of aesthetic
perception, the scope of error remains suspended.
God as the Creator of the world
Here is when we address the two questions from both the Subject and the creator of art I
mentioned earlier.
“When we talk of divine God as the creator of the world, is nature nothing but the brush strokes on a
piece of canvas illustrated by God? Then, is what we see around us, term as beautiful can we compare
art perception to our natural perception of the world?”
“Secondly, the question of equating the artist with the divine creator? Is God too an artist?
Does he exist? Is it right to equate his work of art with an aesthetic object. What we
experience in God’s creation is that too capable of evoking aesthetic experience in an
observer? “
If we first talk from the divine creator’s perspective, the work of art by him is the environment
we live in. It is the blueness of the ocean and sky, the greenness of the grass, the beauty of
weed, and the mobility of every creature, the redness of the sun and the various feelings of
heat and cold which is created by him, which we experience. But is this experience an
aesthetic experience?

There are various similarities we can draw when it comes to aesthetic contemplation and
attaining liberation, Moksa. As we have seen earlier, Vedanta asks for a sense of detachment,
forgetting the lower self to be closer to reality. For Vedanta, Brahman is the only reality and
the world is an illusion. If we compare Brahman to the artist and the world to the painting,
just as Brahman is the only reality and the world is an illusion, the work of art is unreal too!
What is real then? It is only the aesthetic experience which is real. The brush strokes and
colors of a painting are mere formation and are only material substances. What is important
is only the aesthetic experience any work of art evokes.
The world is the work of art created by God, and to the art contemplation is permanent in
this case. This can be attained only after one has gone beyond the illusions of the unreal
world. The world as we see too can be aesthetically beautiful, here we can introduce the
Environmental aesthetics, it originated as a reaction to this emphasis, pursuing instead the
investigation of the aesthetic appreciation of natural environments. At the same time, the
discipline has also come to include the examination of that which falls within such
environments, giving rise to what is called the aesthetics of everyday life. This area involves
the aesthetics of not only more common objects and environments, but also a range of
everyday activities. It is important for us, who are the perceivers of the work of art created by
God as well as the object of art created by the divine. The concept was given its classic
formulation in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgment, in which nature was taken as an
exemplary object of aesthetic experience. Kant argued that natural beauty was superior to
that of art and that it complemented the best habits of mind. It is no accident that the
development of the concept of disinterestedness and the acceptance of nature as an
ideal object of aesthetic appreciation went hand in hand. The clarification of the notion of
the aesthetic in terms of the concept of disinterestedness disassociated the aesthetic
appreciation of nature from the appreciator's particular personal, religious, economic, or
utilitarian interests, any of which could impede aesthetic experience.
Thus, the world as we see, is an aesthetic object of perception here God is the artist and
the only reality is the art contemplation or moksa. Here too, the perceptual complexity is
valid.

Conclusion
In this research paper, we have tried to answer the perceptual complexity in aesthetic
domain. We have been inspired from Vedanta’s theory of perception and applying the same
notion of perception to the aesthetic model. We also understood the aesthetic model which
has three main parts to it, the artist, the work of art and the audience. Understanding notion
of The Aesthetic, notion of “Beauty” and understanding the term complexity from the the
subject, object and the creator’s point of view gave us an understanding of the perceptual
complexity of the aesthetic work. We have also rejected scope of error in perception when it
comes to art interpretation reaching to drawing a comparison between the artist and God
and understanding the concept of environmental aesthetics.

Perceptual Complexity_AparajitaMisra

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Perceptual Complexity_AparajitaMisra (20)

More from Aparajita Misra (7)

Perceptual Complexity_AparajitaMisra