“…The term “visual” indicates concentration on the visual sense, which is the central human sense, occupying “almost half the brain” (Ware, 2008, ix).” – Tractinsky

This quote just reminds me of all those times when people comment that you are either more left brain or right brain dominant. I think left brain is science and right brain is more art related, correct me if I’m wrong. All the times, because I do have a bit of an artistic background, I hear that I’m more right brained… but I’ve also heard the “myth” that if you are right handed, your left brain is the more dominant… so I should be oozing out science.

I don’t like this distinction because in a way, I am both. I like the side that can think logical and I like the side that doesn’t need to be logical but can still be wonderful.

Kind of like how Jeff Bardzell critiques Tracktinsky for separating the scientific “visual” from the definition of aesthetics, I don’t like how they are separately defined.  For “visual aesthetics” to work, I think that they have to work together. Some times the collective goes towards the aesthetics that’s more towards the philosophy or “it just is” and sometimes, it is because of some scientific reason that it is visually aesthetic.

An example of the first for me is historical architecture. Sometimes a building can look extremely plain, because of it’s history, there is a sort of visual aesthetic to it. It kind of makes me think of some very old churches that were very simple and plain. To me, they beat out the contemporary, elaborate, convention center-like churches in visual aesthetics of the building. An example of the the second, to me, is like fibinocci in nature, like the shells, ferns, tree branches, etc. There are probably other good examples but they are avoiding me… probably because I’m still badly jet lagged.