Toward an Objective Value Scale of Creativity in Visual Art

ion 26 – 50 25% or 1/4 Imagination 51 – 75 25% or 1/4 Conceptualization 76 – 100 25% or 1/4 In the above example, each element acquires an equal range of values with weighted differences between elements according to the creative value of each element. If a work of visual art lacks substantial conceptualization, resulting value ranges reflect a substantial increase in distributed weight to account for that particular scenario. Consider the following distributions. Element Value Range Weight Representation 1 – 32 32% or 8/25 (~1/3) Abstraction 33 – 64 32% or 8/25 (~1/3)ion 33 – 64 32% or 8/25 (~1/3) Imagination 65 – 96 32% or 8/25 (~1/3) Conceptualization 97 – 100 4% or 1/25 Lacking significant conceptualization, the fraction of each weight that less creative values share increases from 1/4 to approximately 1/3 in this example. Weight is afforded the flexibility to change with differences in the distribution of values for three reasons. First, while a scale presupposes a range of values, it does not presuppose that values remain constant. Second, a value scale need not lose total value simply because a range of values exists. In other words, in the second example above, conceptualization is imagined to be essentially absent. If the distribution of values across elements remains static, the implication becomes that less creative elements equate to a less creative work of visual art, and this cannot be true because the creation of visual art is creatively bounded by outside limitations, limitations that do not directly reflect the creative value of the work as a whole when removed from those limitations, and all works of visual art are removed from those limitations at completion. Moreover, a work of visual art cannot be expected to maintain an explicit, exhaustive contextual reference of its initial creative environment for purposes of final interpretation. Third, if a value scale remains flexible to adjust its values based on their presence alone, it necessarily follows that elements in a given scenario containing a lesser number of values need not inherit lesser values or force less creative elements to become less valued because of this. The beneficial result of a weighted value scale is that present values add value to the scale, while absent values do not subtract from it. Any work of visual art can be objectively measured according to a value scale composed of the above four elements. To elucidate the implementation of such a scale, a well-known painting will be analyzed. Caravaggio, born Michelangelo Merisi, was a 16 century Italian painter who sought to humanize religious experience through poignantly realistic depictions of Biblical events. In his painting, David and Goliath, Caravaggio depicts the Biblical story of David, a young shepherd boy, decapitating a giant Philistine man named Goliath who David previously slew with a slingshot. In Caravaggio's painting, the value of representation is determined by comparing the artist's depiction of human form with one's visual perception of it. This form must then be associated with its environment to establish an intuited level of accuracy in accordance with one's present experience, implicit memories and their immediate associations. However, the background of this painting is indistinguishable in the absence of tonal variation from its foreground, so no environmental associations can be made. Thus, human form, which in this case comprises the entire foreground, is analyzed in a perceptual vacuum. Given this, one concludes that the artist's depiction accurately reflects visual perception. Therefore, this painting contains an overall high value of representation. David and Goliath, Caravaggio The value of abstraction in this painting is determined by identifying those aspects of representation that deviate from visual perception. First, as previously noted, in determining the value of representation, one realizes that background is indistinguishable. Since the absence of representation is the sole factor by which a work of visual art can be analyzed to determine the value of its abstraction, the absence of visual perception, which is in this case the background, must be associated with all aspects of visual perception, the latter of which in this case constitutes the foreground of human form. Given that the foreground is not perceptually integrated with the background, abstraction at least minimally exists. Abstraction also exists via the artist’s conscious manipulation of light to delineate the foreground. Here, Caravaggio uses a technique called chiaroscuro, an Italian Renaissance term roughly meaning “light and dark” whereby an artist boldly contrasts light and dark hues to induce an emotionally dramatic impression upon the viewer. Caravaggio is renowned for his facility with chiaroscuro and this painting demonstrates how he was able to use it for a purpose other than representing visual perception. Combining these two instances of abstraction, one concludes that abstraction is moderately employed. Therefore, this painting contains an overall moderate value of abstraction. As a metaphor for the aforementioned biblical story, the development of David and Goliath requires Caravaggio to use imagination. Caravaggio uses two human figures and a temporal instant of their imagined actions and inactions to depict this story. Regardless of resources, Caravaggio necessarily imagines his depiction, which is at least initially divorced from visual perception. However, the product of Caravaggio’s imagination is not completely divorced from visual perception. In fact, he purposely depicts his mental image according to visual perception in a highly realistic manner, using, as explained before, a technique called chiaroscuro to enhance realism through abstraction. Therefore, this painting contains an overall low value of imagination. As a metaphor for the aforementioned biblical story, the development of David and Goliath requires Caravaggio to use conceptualization. Although he is not forced to invent the concept of Christian values on which this painting is founded, he is forced to understand this concept to form his own concept of its depiction. In other words, Caravaggio could not depict this biblical story without first conceptualizing its most visually perceptive features and their relations to each other. Yet, it is true that Caravaggio’s conceptualization is secondary to that of the story from which it originated. Therefore, this painting contains an overall low value of conceptualization. To determine the creative value of Caravaggio’s painting, one must now assimilate each element’s estimated overall value into a value scale similar to those mentioned earlier. To maximize objectivity, one must, furthermore, assign all elements a value range that equals the largest number of overall values assigned to one or more elements in the valuation. This valuation produces three overall values, low, moderate and high. Therefore, there are three possible values for each element. Representation was assigned an overall high value, abstraction was assigned an overall moderate value, imagination was assigned an overall low value, and conceptualization was assigned an overall low value. An objective value scale can then be constructed as follows. Element Value Value Range Weight Representation 3 1 – 42.84 42.84% Abstraction 2 42.85 – 71.41 28.56%ion 2 42.85 – 71.41 28.56% Imagination 1 71.42 – 85.7 14.28% Conceptualization 1 85.71 – 99.99 14.28% This scale shows a distributed weight for each value range that approximately totals 100%. Accordingly,the number of values in each value range reflects the weight of each corresponding element. (1)Summing the total number of values, (2) dividing each value by the number of values and (3) multiplyingthat result by 100, it should be noted, calculate weight.There are certainly numerous objections to the implementation of such a scale, particularly given thataestheticians are not generally renowned for evaluating art through the lens of objectivity. However, asdemonstrated, it is possible to construct an objective value scale that can be applied by both individualobservers and groups of observers using the four elements of representation, abstraction, imagination,and conceptualization. Robert C. DawsonJuly 24, 2003ReferencesDictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.comShoham, S. G. (1999). Caravaggio: The Violent Enlightenment. Journal of Criminal Justice and PopularCulture, 6(3), 67-82.http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol6is3/shoham.htmlArtworkDavid and Goliath, undated; Oil on canvas; Prado, Madridhttp://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol6is3/david-goliath.html Copyright 2003 © Robert C. Dawson