# "Se" paintings vs. "Si" paintings.



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

As a tertiary Si user, that second picture bugs the hell out of me.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

I think that I use Si, and I hate that second picture. I like realism in my paintings ... but I usually find one thing in the image that really grabs my attention. From that moment on, I don't care about the rest of the picture. The picture _is_ that one thing that caught my eye. (In this case, I ended up transfixed by the tunnel in picture #1.)

An Se user might enjoy the entire painting, and take in all of the different details. It sees everything. Si is selective, and it is personal. Not necessarily to the point of picture #2, but just that it subjectively zeroes in on something. 

For example, I remember a painting that I saw in the National Gallery of Art. It was by a Dutch artist, and the painting was a landscape at night. I don't recall much about it except for the moon. It was amazing! However he painted it, that moon _glowed_. I stared at it for at least 5 full minutes, and kept coming back to look at it some more.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

So, basically Si users pay more attention to parts(or details) of a painting that make a impression on them?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

WhoKnows said:


> I think that I use Si, and I hate that second picture. I like realism in my paintings ... but I usually find one thing in the image that really grabs my attention. From that moment on, I don't care about the rest of the picture. The picture _is_ that one thing that caught my eye. (In this case, I ended up transfixed by the tunnel in picture #1.)
> 
> An Se user might enjoy the entire painting, and take in all of the different details. It sees everything. Si is selective, and it is personal. Not necessarily to the point of picture #2, but just that it subjectively zeroes in on something.
> 
> For example, I remember a painting that I saw in the National Gallery of Art. It was by a Dutch artist, and the painting was a landscape at night. I don't recall much about it except for the moon. It was amazing! However he painted it, that moon _glowed_. I stared at it for at least 5 full minutes, and kept coming back to look at it some more.


OMG, I think I know the one that you're talking as I went about a month ago. Its one of Aert van der Neer's works https://www.google.com/search?q=moo...pw.r_qf.&fp=61e69b0f099cb3e7&biw=1540&bih=769

Either Moonlit Landscape with Bridge or this one with lots of shrubbery surrounding the moon in the foreground with a faint silhouette of a windmill closer to the background and this elongated reflection of light by the water. Yes, I also starred at several of these for a good few minutes trying to take it all in.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I'm Se dominant, and I love that second painting. It seems to use mainly the orange/blue color scheme. There is an other worldly quality about it and it has bold, obvious brush strokes. I perceive a powerful wind and a forbidding sky. It is delightfully surrealistic and it leaves much to the imagination, which I like. I could create a story from the images that I see in this second picture.
The first picture is pretty but lacks the drama of the second. It is less worthy of storytelling.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

MilkyWay132 said:


> So, basically Si users pay more attention to parts(or details) of a painting that make a impression on them?


That might be a good way to describe it, as far as I understand. However, that may only apply to Si users _viewing_ a painting. (I'm sorry, I think that I was too narrow in my first post.) I'd guess that Si likes a fair bit of realism, but you never know exactly what's going to catch the viewer's eye. He may find nothing of interest in a painting (i.e., nothing that sparks an internal reaction), and he'll just move on. ... And actually, now that I think about it, that may not be a bad way of looking at an Si-dom artist. He finds something of interest in the real world, and that's what he focuses on. 

Let's say that he wants to paint a landscape, and he goes to a beautiful field full of red flowers. An Se artist might paint it because it's so darn pretty and attractive to the eye. But as our Si artist is sitting there, holding a brush and staring at the field, nothing's happening inside of him. There's no spark of inspiration. So he just sits there for a while. Then some storm clouds move in, and the juxtaposition of the violent grey skies with the delicacy of the flowers triggers a reaction. He wants to preserve that moment, so he paints the scene as accurately as he can. But because his POV is colored by Si rather than Se, he doesn't see things exactly as they are. Instead, the grey skies look a bit darker and more ominous, and the red flowers almost seem to be wilting into a river of crimson. It's not what's _actually_ there, but instead is Si's interpretation of the external sensory data.

... Or, at least, that's how I see it right now. I'm open to other viewpoints. 

Here's a relevant bit about Si from Jung's _Psychological Types_:



Jung said:


> Sensation, which by its very nature is dependent on the object and on the objective stimuli, undergoes considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for besides the sensed object there is a sensing subject who adds his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus.
> 
> In the introverted attitude, sensation is based predominantly on the subjective component of perception. What I mean by this is best illustrated by works of art which reproduce external objects. If, for instance, several painters were to paint the same landscape, each trying to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will be different from the others, not merely because of differences in ability, but chiefly because of different ways of seeing; indeed, in some of the paintings there will be a distinct psychic difference in mood and the treatment of colour and form.
> 
> ...


(I added paragraph breaks. That entire quote is actually a single paragraph. :shocked

Do you think that my interpretation fits with what he said? How would you interpret it within the context of this topic?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> OMG, I think I know the one that you're talking as I went about a month ago. Its one of Aert van der Neer's works https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+windmill&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=fWQaUOXsJPDI0AHs7YGoDw&biw=1540&bih=769&sei=f2QaUP-RJ8Ti0QGYx4CoBQ#um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Aert+van+der+Neer&oq=Aert+van+der+Neer&gs_l=img.3..0l2.17028.19363.6.19458.6.6.0.0.0.0.41.209.6.6.0...0.0...1c.GHCDUci0g-o&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=61e69b0f099cb3e7&biw=1540&bih=769
> 
> Either Moonlit Landscape with Bridge or this one with lots of shrubbery surrounding the moon in the foreground with a faint silhouette of a windmill closer to the background and this elongated reflection of light by the water. Yes, I also starred at several of these for a good few minutes trying to take it all in.


Ooh! You're right! I think it was _River View by Moonlight_ that really grabbed me. I thought about ordering a print, but they don't do it any justice. 

You've brightened up my day. And thank you for refreshing my memory. I always forget the artist's name.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

WhoKnows said:


> Ooh! You're right! I think it was _River View by Moonlight_ that really grabbed me. I thought about ordering a print, but they don't do it any justice.
> 
> You've brightened up my day. And thank you for refreshing my memory. I always forget the artist's name.


Indeed, most prints don't capture the oils and the reflective qualities of gloss at all. I hope someday, they make some laser scanning tech to reproduce these 3dish effects in a virtual environment.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

i like the second painting better because it allows more room for interpretation, the first one looks too correct and stiff


----------



## Anonynony (Jun 24, 2012)

There should be an Ne vs. Ni version of this


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

FigureSkater said:


> There should be an Ne vs. Ni version of this


There could only be interpretations of paintings from Ne, Ni perspectives due to their divorce from sensate representations.

In the dominant case, the former would assert the painting as extant and derive meanings or interpretations of it, the latter would try to explain away how the painting came to be from a set of symbols. 

In the cases where they are tied to another dom function (T/F/ie and exclude S/ie here), they may take on the following characteristics: (much speculation here)

Ti-Deconstruct the painting into elements and derive symbols from them (Ni), or find various contexts to place the elements in (Ne) to establish a subjective unity (Ti).

Te-Unsure of how this would manifest. If there were "rules" of painting that were regimented or established, these would be remarked on. The Ni/Ne follows how such rules (maybe forms of composition) were fudged to represent blah intention to subvert some symbol (religious for example) or maybe to infer a story directly from the composition itself (say in terms of edges). This is thin ice here as composition is generally fuzzy and its creation/understanding is more aligned with Ti.

Fi-More unsure here. Perhaps a personalization of the painting as Fi draw bonds between the self and various interpretations of what the painting means (Ne) v.s. what "you" symbolize w.r.t. the painting (Ni).

Fe-gah: A "politicization" of the painting as to what the current culture aspires to (Ne) v.s. a symbolic critique of culture itself (Ni).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Ne and Ni are conjoined with Si and Se so any painting that can be attributed to Se is also a Ni painting, any painting that can be attributed to Si is also a Ne painting.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

This is interesting. I see the paintings the same way the OP sees it. The first makes me think the painter is focused on what the external world would perceive as beauty. Not in a detailed way, more in a way of this is what i'm looking at so therefore i want to show you what i see. I don't make any correlation with details, only external visions.

The second painting seems focused on_ this is how i feel internally_. It isn't focused on how others would perceive it, more towards how the painter is feeling from the inside. I didn't get a sense the painter is concerned with how it looks externally. I get a sense of mystery , like there is something about the painting that is directly associated with the painter.

When i think of my inner model, i'm focused on how it makes me feel personally, internally. I see abstract visions , so for that reason i associate abstract art and images with introverted functions Si- Fi including Ne. So for that reason i see the first painting as Se, the second as Si. It's all a matter of our own perceptions, we can all look at the same painting and see different things. Se makes me think the painter would want everyone to see it the same way, beautiful. Si makes me think the painter has a more personal investment . The second painting wants the audience to see what they want to see, leaves it opened for perception. Maybe something beautiful, something strange, however you want to connect that with yourself personally.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Socialist realism and Social realism are Se-types of art.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't really know all that much about Se vs. Si, but I think it's hard to judge a style or period of art as Se or Si.

Like, I think some Social Realism uses a lot of Se, like Dorathea Lang's photography. But Diego Rivera and Jose Orozco use a lot of symbolism in their paintings--and they really aren't that realistic--and I don't think they utilized Se that much.

Also, the impressionist Claude Monet used a lot of Se, as evident by his fixation with the lighting on the haystacks. He wanted to capture a physical event perfectly--in all the subtle detail. He painted the same haystacks over and over again--just to study the light and physical phenomena at that moment. That's why I would think that impressionism utilized Se more than most periods/genre's of art--because it was all about the impression of the physical on the eyes.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

meltedsorbet said:


> That's why I would think that impressionism utilized Se more than most periods/genre's of art--because it was all about the impression of the physical on the eyes.


Wow, that's a really interesting perspective that I never thought of before! I only thought of it in Si terms before, i.e. the impression of the artist of the scene.


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I think that I use Si, and I hate that second picture. I like realism in my paintings ... but I usually find one thing in the image that really grabs my attention. From that moment on, I don't care about the rest of the picture. The picture _is_ that one thing that caught my eye. (In this case, I ended up transfixed by the tunnel in picture #1.)
> 
> An Se user might enjoy the entire painting, and take in all of the different details. It sees everything. Si is selective, and it is personal. Not necessarily to the point of picture #2, but just that it subjectively zeroes in on something.
> 
> For example, I remember a painting that I saw in the National Gallery of Art. It was by a Dutch artist, and the painting was a landscape at night. I don't recall much about it except for the moon. It was amazing! However he painted it, that moon _glowed_. I stared at it for at least 5 full minutes, and kept coming back to look at it some more.


^ You took the words out of my mouth.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Owfin said:


> Wow, that's a really interesting perspective that I never thought of before! I only thought of it in Si terms before, i.e. the impression of the artist of the scene.


Thanks, I just kind of made that up about "impressionism" meaning the physical impression on the eye. The term probably doesn't even refer to that.

But, overall, if you compare many impressionists to other artists, there is an emphasis on the having all the information contained in the first impression.

Like, if you look at Renaissance paintings like Leonardo's paintings, they are realistic but they also contain layers of meaning. There are symbols in them, and the colors probably have cultural/symbolic significance (so would the flowers). They are painstakingly designed--everything about them is planned, from the composition to the forms.

But I don't think that's very common with impressionism. It's much more about capturing a moment isolated in time and space. It's not about contemplating layers of meaning, IMO, but contemplating the beauty of the physical world culminating with the emotional world in one burst of impression.

I think this is Se, but it's also maybe related to other functions. The loose brushstrokes and the way color is used (especially complementary colors) draws attention to the physical details of the painting--to the pigments and the texture...this could also be more attractive to view for Se. 

But impressionism is my favorite type of art--so I think I am a little biased.

Edit:

Also, I think some confusion might arise from terms like "realistic." Many people might see a painting of a white shirt that is white as more realistic than a white shirt speckled with colors.

However, the concept of the "white shirt" is really an abstraction of the object. If you use Se and look at the white shirt--it isn't really white at all. It will have colors of the lighting on it--and other reflections of colored objects around it. And it may have other colors mixed in just because of the way the eyes perceive colors next to other colors (like if you stare at a red paper and then look at a white paper, supposedly the paper will appear the complement--green).

So really, common sense might tell you that a white shirt is really white--but Se might tell you that it's got tons of other colors in it. I think impressionists tried to amplify this suitableness, and so sometimes impressionism looks abstract when it's really very realistic.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

meltedsorbet said:


> I don't really know all that much about Se vs. Si, but I think it's hard to judge a style or period of art as Se or Si.
> 
> Like, I think some Social Realism uses a lot of Se, like Dorathea Lang's photography. But Diego Rivera and Jose Orozco use a lot of symbolism in their paintings--and they really aren't that realistic--and I don't think they utilized Se that much.
> 
> Also, the impressionist Claude Monet used a lot of Se, as evident by his fixation with the lighting on the haystacks. He wanted to capture a physical event perfectly--in all the subtle detail. He painted the same haystacks over and over again--just to study the light and physical phenomena at that moment. That's why I would think that impressionism utilized Se more than most periods/genre's of art--because it was all about the impression of the physical on the eyes.


 Agree. Si is "impressionism of the mind and of the subconscious" (So, I dont think its rly impressionism, but you get the picture... see what I did there)... Se is impressionism of the senses.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Was the second painting Van Gogh? Really sweet brushstrokes.


----------

