I often come across objects and compositions that seem to demand to be photographed, frequently for reasons that elude me. Pairs of forms are one category of these photo lures, and I have recorded many: doors, signs, windows, people, cannons, even hoses. Click here for a few examples. I assume that I am attracted to things that come in two’s because they mirror our anatomy. Our ears, eyes, arms, breasts, feet and such come in pairs, and we apparently like to see things in our own image. The happy unions of couples or the idea of animals going into Noah’s Ark two by two might be equally valid as a justification for my attraction to pairs. Our fondness for symmetry is another rationale. Some say that symmetry is the bedrock of beauty, and studies have shown that the faces we find the most beautiful are the most symmetrical. Denzel Washington is often used as a poster boy for this theory, though the sculpted features of Audrey Hepburn or Angelina Jolie will do just as well.
This latter rationale doesn’t work for me. I am often drawn to unmatched pairs because of the tension between two different forms and the intrigue and energy it generates more than symmetric beauty. Seeing the nuances between two similar but not mirror forms creates another fascination. This is particularly true with the human figures I have used as visual examples. To be interesting they have to share some unique bond, such as clothing, posture, gender, or hair. Underneath this attraction may be the fact that no two forms, whether snowflakes or twins, are really identical, underlying the respect we have for individuality and diversity and our appreciation for differences.
In the end, I don’t really know why pairs attract me. I do know that finding a compelling visual twosome is not so easy. See for yourself. But finding compelling visuals of three forms is much tougher. And when things come in fours they become another type of pattern altogether. I would be grateful for any elucidation on this topic and any images you might send along that help me sort this out.
I encourage you to make comments that can be shared with the public by using the Post Comments section below.
Ah, the mystery of couplings, things that fit together. Are not all three of your suppositions valid, even intertwined? Can anatomy and beauty (symmetric or not) be separated? Surely both play a role in the happy union of couples, or at least in the initial attraction.
Those face studies also show that while we may be attracted to the perfectly symmetric face in an aesthetic way it is similarity that draws us to mates. We are naturally attracted to those who resemble us in some way, who mirror our anatomy. (We can always hope that we might find similarities of mind and spirit as well…the union to strive for)
What applies to the visual aught to hold true of the compelling couple as well. Sharing some unique bond would make them interesting.. It is like the design theory that when you introduce an element to a space there need be at least one other of like kind. They explain one another.
So I suppose that the ideal pair would share some similarity yet be somewhat mismatched- for tension, intrigue, energy and individuality- and would succeed in somehow explaining one other.
One may not be enough. Two may be intriguing. But consider that three points, making a tripod, is known to be the most stable form of all. Hmmm.
Posted by: Kathleen Bouvier | November 12, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Interesting article Rob,
Here are my thoughts on this subject matter.
I don't think the appeal of pairs of images has to deal with symmetry either. Because human beings are biologically & socially highly evolved organisms that through the course of time have learned to respond to certain external stimuli & the idea of pairs of things, I think, might possibly have more to do with the "lizard brain" in our cerebral cortex that maybe going back to the caveman days wanted, or more importantly needed some visual confirmation that our minds weren't playing tricks on us. It's a certain degree of visual reinforcement in a manner of speaking. Objects don't have to be identical, but similar enough to inspire our confidence with matter in the outside world and allow us as human beings to draw certain conclusions from them.
Posted by: Duncan | November 10, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Interesting observation and nice pictures. I guess there's something mentally intriguing by all of us about a pair. One is too little, 3 is too much, 2 is just the right amount :-)
Posted by: thomashan | November 07, 2007 at 06:19 PM