Light creates visual interest. Why?

[Jonsson]

Hello there,

Recently I have been faced with a problem that I find challenging. I am a photographer, and I work with light every time I work with photography, but I cannot make out why viewers of art feel that what light does to a scene (other than make it visible) is beautiful.

Annoyingly, I cannot post images because I am a new user, so please do the following: go on google and do an image-search for "light visual interest"

To me, the images that appears are visually interesting. they depicts nothing out of the ordinary, but I feel a strongly that the lighting of the scenes make them beautiful.

Are anyone aware of any work that has been carried out to find the reason for my observation?

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Marius

[wanabe]

You can see the picture better because it is lit up better, or lit up in a way that highlight its good aspects.

In general We like what we can see/know more than what we can see/know.

Now there is at least some work being done on the issue.

[Jonsson]

Where can I read the work done on this? Who is doing it? I would love to get more involved.

Thanks! M

[wanabe]

My guess would be to search psychological journals maybe at a library or Google scholar.

Perhaps a good search input would be "psychology+aesthetics"

My comments("Now there is at least some work being done on the issue.") about the work being started was a joke: by making a thread and posting in it we are doing some work to find an answer to your question.

Ultimately though, I think you will be able to answer this question for your self, but not necessarily others.

[Jonsson]

Oh, hehe.

Thanks, for the joke. I am not a humorous person, but I can see your joke as you pointed it out

Ideally I'd like to find evolutionary reasons for this. That is my ultimate goal.

Kind regards,
Marius

[Wooden shoe]

Hello Jonsson.

For today's first lesson go look a some pictures of Rembrant's paintings or if possible go see the real thing.
Next compare these to some painters of his time,from Italian painters.
Rembrant is credited as being the first to use light in his paintings.
Perhaps an absence of light will help.
If you have witnessed a snow storm you will have heard the term "whiteout", but that was not the original use of the word.
The condition it originally was used for occurred in Arctic regions where there are no trees. at times when there is no sunlight and with absolutely no shadows forming, it becomes almost impossible to move because of the total lack of depth perception or of distance or direction. In fact it is all the same grey/white nothing.
So we need light and shadow to properly grasp depth and contrast.
I think it a stretch to imagine it has anything to do with genetics or evolution.
I think it would fall under physics.

Regads, John.

[Jonsson]

I made some progress on the subject today. In my opinion, evolutionary explanations are fantastic.

If you want to see what I am on about, go to YouTube and search for "Denis Dutton: A Darwinian theory of beauty".

This talk describes Denis Dutton (whom sadly died last year) hypothesis of what makes something aesthetically pleasing.M

[stormy phillips]

Because eventually it appears to matter.

[Zatoichi]

Light as well as collor, sound or form is a weapon of art... And art is atractive... Also light is phisical. It has form and matter. Light can be used as well as brushes or spray. In some 3D programs it presented in atmosphere section... And
it can give you a nessesary feeling of comfort. (If you would define art as something that has been created for the comfort of "eyes and ears"(c) Maxima Artis Kosmopolites)