Space oddity?

[John Fairbairn]

A couple of weeks ago came across an intriguing piece about Japanese calligraphy. The writer asserted that the Japanese have a different kinetic sense of space from westerners. The implication was that this may have been the result of learning to write characters. No evidence was given, and I just filed it away in my head, but I could give credence to it for a couple of reasons. One is a memorable experience when I showed a Japanese artist a go fan and he showed his delight at the way the characters were written by dancing them out. More significantly, I have seen a calligraphy class in which western beginners, who were all accomplished artists, struggled immensely to get the right balance between the left and right portions of a character. Essentially they were trying to make them the same size instead of keeping one side small and using white space for balance.

But I took my thinking no further. This morning, however, I was reading the GoGoD Names Dictionary entry for Guo Bailing, and it said that Guo's prodigious talent was recognised early on and when he was 11 he already understood "territory, void spaces, sente and gote".

It had not occurred to me before that this choice might be significant. I had previously assumed it was just the usual Chinese love of opposites (yin/yang, full/empty, etc), but in the light of my first remarks I am beginning to wonder whether it is appreciation (and treatment) of void space on the go board that gives oriental players an advantage.

One of my earlier postings on magusaba, the common pasture, may be relevant here.

Your thoughts?

[RBerenguel]

The most visually neat creations in Western 19th century calligraphy flourishings are aesthetically pleasing when the void (emptiness, space) is right and in balance, too.

[Bill Spight]

A couple of weeks ago came across an intriguing piece about Japanese calligraphy. The writer asserted that the Japanese have a different kinetic sense of space from westerners.

Oh, yes. Sense of space is one thing that varies greatly among cultures.

Along those lines, one of my fond memories is overhearing an African-American high school girl ask her teacher what race I was. The teacher told her that I was White, and the student said, "He don't move like a White man."

The implication was that this may have been the result of learning to write characters.

Blah, blah, blah. (Not entirely so, perhaps.)

No evidence was given,

As I just said.

I have seen a calligraphy class in which western beginners, who were all accomplished artists, struggled immensely to get the right balance between the left and right portions of a character. Essentially they were trying to make them the same size instead of keeping one side small and using white space for balance.

I wrote a paper as an undergraduate about Chinese calligraphy. As I recall the "dynamic asymmetry" of the characters, as one writer put it, is a recognized difference in the esthetics of East and West. Marshall McLuhan, in Through the Vanishing Point, says that there is a discontinuity in Western cognition, including esthetics, between ancient and modern times. Modern Western thought is highly rationalized. One example of that rationalization is the feeling that two sides should be equal. I expect that that was reinforced for the artists in their instruction. Whether young children would have picked that up, I don't know.

Anyway, it's nothing that peyote wouldn't cure.

[RobertJasiek]

Void space (which might be what I call 'neutral regions' if only the bad space is meant or classify into neutral versus valuable regions if everything outside territory is meant) are not under-appreciated by Western players but, IMO, by kyu players, who tend to make the mistake of playing in neutral regions too much.

[John Fairbairn]

Void space (which might be what I call 'neutral regions' if only the bad space is meant or classify into neutral versus valuable regions if everything outside territory is meant) are not under-appreciated by Western players but, IMO, by kyu players, who tend to make the mistake of playing in neutral regions too much.

It's unlikely that the Chinese sense of void space is anything like yours as there's nothing neutral about it. Indeed, that's the point. It's like yin/yang. Testosterone-fuelled westerners who first encounter yin/yang often make the mistake of thinking yang is dominant. The truth is that yin and yang complement each other. One may be regarded as positively charged and the other as negatively charged, but they are both charged.

It is clear from the commentaries by the ancients on, say the games of Huang Longshi, that the bipole of solid/empty is important, if for no other reason than the terms are mentioned often. I haven't got a clear grasp of the terms myself, although it is quite obvious that 'solid' covers much of what we understand by thickness and influence. But 'emptiness' (which is probably better than void space as it is not limited to space but has a time element, too) is more elusive. It seems that the best players could see how empty could transform into solid (and vice versa), and this may well be what distinguishes Yi Ch'ang-ho today - at least in the empty -> solid direction. Taking a cue from Go Seigen, however, it may also be the case that Huang's ability in this area is what prompted him to call Huang the inventor of amashi strategy. Amashi is, of course, the reversal of solid --> empty.

Modern Chinese players have in a sense neglected their heritage and have followed Japanese go theory, but I have a sense that they are now rediscovering their heritage, and that - and not just sheer numbers - may be giving them an edge. At any rate I hope something like that is happening.

Macelee's view on this would be interesting.

[RobertJasiek]

A distinction between "solid" (as in territory or thickness) and "empty" (as in space other than solid territory) is too simplistic. Philosophic talk on such a rough level of abstraction hardly helps becoming stronger. It requires a distinction of different kinds of empty spaces because they require different uses. E.g., neutral (or almost-neutral) space adjacent to a strong wall requires a different use than a wide open empty space (a valuable space) adjacent to a strong wall. E.g., place all your stones in neutral (or almost-neutral) regions and you lose while the opponent, who places his stones in valuable regions wins.

[John Fairbairn]

A distinction between "solid" (as in territory or thickness) and "empty" (as in space other than solid territory) is too simplistic. Philosophic talk on such a rough level of abstraction hardly helps becoming stronger

First, you are imposing an unwarranted definition that is not in the original Chinese, typical of your attempts to twist everything into your own framework.. That is one fault in intellectual rigour. Second, you are closing your mind to new views. That is a bigger fault in intellectual rigour.

As I have said before, Orientals teach the "way" of go, emphasising the learning of the right attitude to the game rather than absorbing a restricted list of "facts". But that concept is not actually alien to us. Recall the parable about "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, you feed him for life."

Learn the right attitude about abstraction such as solid and empty and you will not only benefit your go, but you will become better at martial arts and flower arranging.

[Uberdude]

“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.” -- Terry Pratchett

[Nyanjilla]

The term "negative space" is often used in photography.

[RobertJasiek]

First, you are imposing an unwarranted definition that is not in the original Chinese, typical of your attempts to twist everything into your own framework.

While you try to keep us within only the Chinese framework? Do not criticise my preference for a particular framework as long as you insist on yours.

As I have said before, Orientals teach the "way" of go, emphasising the learning of the right attitude to the game rather than absorbing a restricted list of "facts". [...] Learn the right attitude about abstraction such as solid and empty and you will not only benefit your go

I will not become better with "the right attitude" because such an empty phrase tells me exactly nothing. "Look that those pros are strong at using empty space! Become strong simply by appreciating their attitude!" gives me no hint whatsoever HOW those professionals use empty space well. Since you mention Orientals' teaching, what do they teach us about how to use empty space well? This is important - not the attitude (other than the presumed willingness to learn about such at all).

My list of facts (here: that space should be classified into 1) territory or almost-territory, 2) neutral or almost-neutral, 3) valuable) is not restricted because a) it relies on additional specifications for what those phrases mean and b) it is open for interaction with other, or more detailed, theory.

I do not oppose abstraction and I do not oppose the concepts 'solid' and 'empty'. In fact, I use both concepts for quite a few more sophisticated concepts. However, such has nothing to do with attitude. It has to do with understanding more concepts and more details of the abstraction.

[Cassandra]

Learn the right attitude about abstraction such as solid and empty and you will not only benefit your go, but you will become better at martial arts and flower arranging.

I will not become better with "the right attitude" because such an empty phrase tells me exactly nothing.

Dear Robert,

You forgot about "Learn ..."
This is practising, and doing, and practising, and doing again. As long as you have grasped "it".

It might give you some assistance, or hints, if you watch other people practising, but this will not really benefit your progress.

In Ikebana, an arrangement is not called "perfect", as long as cropping, or removal, enlarges harmony.

[RobertJasiek]

You forgot about "Learn ..."
This is practising, and doing, and practising, and doing again. As long as you have grasped "it".

Learning is not that simple, or my 30,000 - 50,000 played games would have sufficed. Practise is necessary but insufficient. I need theory in order to know WHAT to practise.

[John Fairbairn]

While you try to keep us within only the Chinese framework? Do not criticise my preference for a particular framework as long as you insist on yours.

Once again you are thoroughly blinkered. Where have I said anyone must stay within the Chinese framework? I haven't even defined a Chinese framework.

What I have tried to do, in two or three recent postings, is to try to wake up this rather somnolent (dying?) forum by putting forward something for discussion. Read that again. I am not posting MY (non-existent) framework. I am trying to get views from OTHER people.

As ever, you disrupt the threads and kill off discussion. You have already occupied a third of this thread and have told us NOTHING about the subject at hand. As ever you tell us nothing new. As ever you have only told us, ad nauseam, that you apparently like go theory, though in reality you only like your own untested go theory. Some of us would like to learn from people with more experience. Huang Longshi probably knew more about go than any German amateur, Go Seigen likewise, Sakata Eio likewise, etc, etc. One way to find out what they may have to tell us is discussion, which means listening carefully to what other people have to say, whether you agree with it or not.

I am close to giving up on this forum entirely. You are a big part of the reason why.

[RobertJasiek]

Instead of joining your meta-discussion about your opinion on L19, me, my posts and my discussion, let me point out that I have understood your initial post as a quest for discussion and therefore offered my opinion and a bit of theory on how to perceive and use empty space:

viewtopic.php?p=183617#p183617
viewtopic.php?p=183708#p183708
viewtopic.php?p=183729#p183729

[Cassandra]

You forgot about "Learn ..."
This is practising, and doing, and practising, and doing again. As long as you have grasped "it".

Learning is not that simple, or my 30,000 - 50,000 played games would have sufficed. Practise is necessary but insufficient. I need theory in order to know WHAT to practise.

DOING several 10,000 games is not sufficient for progress. You should know that.

I do not suppose that there is much THEORY available on "pruning leaves". The same will be true for "taking a superfluous stone off the board".

What do you need ?

-- Study the result of someone more experienced than you pruning your arrangement, especially compare the pictures before, and after.
-- Accept that the more experienced person's judgement (that "after" has more harmony than "before") will be true in the overwhelming majority of cases.
-- Practise pruning your arrangements on your own.
-- Ask a third party for their opinion. No special education is needed for this third party, as the principles of harmony are universal. Accept this party's opinion in 90 per cent of cases without thinking.
-- For walking on the last few per cent of your path, ask the more experienced person for advice again.