🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi, this is my first attemp to post this newsgroup. 

In article <1991Apr7.184708.22888@colorado.edu> ralex@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Repenning Alexander) writes:

 >>Maybe part of the problem with picture-oriented representations is
 >>that, in contrast to English, picture-oriented representations do not
 >>have any defined syntax. You can of course make up a syntax using
 >>color, spatial features, explicit relationships (e.g., arcs), etc. 

That is partially  true,  and maybe too  naive, because film-makers or
artists  have some kind of  techniques  to display their  feelings and
statements  in their  pictures,   drawings, or  motion-pictures.   For
instance, there is a certain  movie tech.  to  show  a girl in  mental
shock.   Paintings,  too,  does have its  own   grammer,  like certain
shadowing on a  figure  developes  some   kind  of effect  (depresion,
darkness, etc).  Oh, BTW, honestly speaking,  I don't often understand
what a  picture trying  to  state, and don't have  skills to tell what
technique developes what emotions :-) The thing is that those who have
not  been trained to  appreciate  arts  have difficulty in  describing
pictures   in  definitive  way;  on   the  other  hand,   most of  the
arts-critics conduct it, and  that is the  reason of their existence. 
Maybe one way to introduce syntax or  grammer  of pictures is to build
an expert-system on arts. But if we  go so  much into generalizing the
essence of arts, many of good information such as indescriable feeling
and emotion will be lost, however, that maybe the good starting point,
I think.

Well, the above is my impression. Anyone who has a good taste on arts,
please make commonts.

--
----  Satoshi Toyosawa
      Visual Media Lab., NTT Human Interface Labs.
      Take 1-2356, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 238-03, Japan
      e-mail: toyosawa%nttvdt.ntt.jp@relay.cs.net