• Replies 63 replies
  • Subscribers 89 subscribers
  • Views 12614 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Art

SallySeahorse

Ok, there's a decent chance this one's just me, but I'm curious.

I don't get art. I understand making it as an outlet, and I can appreciate beauty. However when I look at a painting/sculpture etc, I don't 'feel' anything. Either it looks pretty or it doesn't, it's done with skill or it's not. This seems to span all genres/movements.

As this is a sort of perception thing, and to do with connecting emotionally, I wondered whether it may be ASD related. Does anyone else feel the same? Negative responses welcome as this is just a point of interest, I'm not looking for reassurance.

Parents

  • I enjoy looking at art, and a fair few of the books in my collection are art books, though I don't get to galleries very much these days. I'm not sure that I really emotionally connect with art, though. I think I enjoy it more as a kind of visual stimming, just for the effects that the colours, patterns, textures, etc. make on my mind. There is a lot of figurative art that I do like, but I tend to enjoy abstract art more - and when I dabbled in a bit of painting myself, I mainly painted abstracts. I also have a liking for art where the "message" is more of an idea than a feeling - things like M.C.Escher's prints of impossible geometry, or Magritte's games with how we perceive images.

    However, I can get much the same pleasure from poring over a well drawn map or engineering drawing, and I enjoy dabbling with software for drawing fractals derived purely from mathematical equations. So I don't really distinguish between art which is meant to have emotional content and images which aren't meant to have any at all.

  • in reply to Trogluddite

    oh maybe Jackon Pollocks are like a visual stim oh my  thats spooky

  • in reply to aidie

    I've wondered whether even his method of painting has something in common with stimming - getting into that zone of hyper-focus and then making instinctive movements into an image.

  • in reply to Trogluddite

    just found this from beyondautismawareness.wordpress.com/.../

    "Even the seemingly random splashes of paint that Jackson Pollock dripped onto his canvases show that he had an intuitive sense of patterns in nature. In the 1990s, an Australian physicist, Richard Taylor, found that the paintings followed the mathematics of fractal geometry — a series of identical patterns at different scales, like nesting Russian dolls. The paintings date from the 1940s and 1950s. Fractal geometry dates from the 1970s. That same physicist discovered that he could even tell the difference between a genuine Pollock and a forgery by examining the work for fractal patterns."

Reply
  • in reply to Trogluddite

    just found this from beyondautismawareness.wordpress.com/.../

    "Even the seemingly random splashes of paint that Jackson Pollock dripped onto his canvases show that he had an intuitive sense of patterns in nature. In the 1990s, an Australian physicist, Richard Taylor, found that the paintings followed the mathematics of fractal geometry — a series of identical patterns at different scales, like nesting Russian dolls. The paintings date from the 1940s and 1950s. Fractal geometry dates from the 1970s. That same physicist discovered that he could even tell the difference between a genuine Pollock and a forgery by examining the work for fractal patterns."

Children
No Data