Why??? twitter.com/cuttingvids/st
Conversation
Replying to
that’s interesting - I’ve never read a good explanation of the “satisfyingness” quale (a visual that’s inexplicably satisfying to see)
3
8
Replying to
2
3
Why must you C.Alex everything 😐
Paradigm lock
1
4
it’s not “everything” it’s literally his independent aesthetic conclusion
1
2
Yeah yeah
Fun fact: car companies have design people specifically focused on making sure doors close with a satisfying thunk
I bet there’s product design literature on this. I suspect there’s a strong aural component. It’s a kind of anti-music, like anti-jokes.
2
6
The cinematic light dimming story sounds suspiciously made up though. I’m not sure that sheds much light (heh). It substitutes one descriptor (“oddly satisfying”) for another (“cinematic”). If true how did cinema people land on 3s?
Sorry I'm a little late here. The story might be made up, but I didn't make it up. It being apocryphal is fine with me as long as it illustrative.
2
As for how the 3 second rule was originally arrived at. It's a good question, but I guess I would say the number of seconds is arbitrary. Whatever number they picked would end up being the perfect number in other contexts. The perfect relation isn't innate. (1/2)
1
The relation is parasitic on our aesthetic engagement with film. The more we read purpose or design into the mundane (by anthropomorphizing or by picking up on someone's actual intent), the more we provide ourselves with normative standards.
1


