What is the Meaning of Shape? - Gestalt Theory

389
Pinna, What is the Meaning of Shape?
3.2.2. Rotated Square
Fig. 2b represents an intermediate but crucial step in answering the previous
questions. This figure is mostly described as a rotated square. Under these
conditions, subjects introduced spontaneously information about orientation,
thus, creating a two-word description. The rotation becomes now visible, noticeable
like a figure. The exact orientation is, instead, not specified spontaneously in
words. Only after asking them to describe the apparent direction and degree of
rotation, our subjects reported ~10° anticlockwise.
These results suggest a twofold perception: a “true” square plus something that
happens to it, namely, the rotation. In other words, unlike Fig. 2a the square is,
now, not only a square, but also a square with a “happening” (Pinna, 2010b)
defined in terms of rotation. The anti-clockwise rotation suggests some kind of
minimum rotation pathway starting from the “true” square of Fig. 2a.
Structurally, this happening is similar to those described for Figs. 1c-i.
Linguistically, the rotation is an adjective that describes the noun, which is the
square. Phenomenally, it is what happens to the shape. The primary role of the
shape (square) in relation to the adjective (rotation) can be clearly perceived
by comparing the two following possible descriptions: “a rotated square” and
“a rotation with a square shape”. The second description appears meaningless
and odd. A rotation cannot have a shape, while the shape can have a rotation.
This suggests a clear asymmetrical hierarchy between the two terms. The shape
is primary, earlier in time and order than the rotation. Therefore, the shape is a
noun and as such it is a word generally used to identify a class of elements. As a
noun, the shape is like “a thing”, which can appear in many different ways, and
the rotation is one of this ways of being of the shape, i.e. the attribute of that
specific thing.
These phenomenal observations suggest the following methodological note:
the asymmetrical descriptions represent a useful method of understanding the
primary role of one visual component over another, e.g. of the shape over the
rotation and, more generally, of something that becomes the primary thing over
another perceived like its attribute. Another example useful to understand the
effectiveness of this method is represented by the relation between shape and
color: we say “a red square” and not “a square-shaped red”. The distinction
between things and attributes can also be demonstrated through the position
of the words one relative to the other and through the phenomenal invisibility,
i.e. an attribute (way of being of a thing) can be invisible or unnoticed like a
background much more than a thing.
Despite this asymmetry, rotation and square define themselves reciprocally. The
rotation is defined by the shape, i.e. the rotation can be perceived if and only
if the square as a singularity is also perceived. Conversely, the rotation defines