 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
A Comment on Ordering Ideas of Symmetry & Balance, by Jack Andersen, 2000
People not accustom to ordering ideas in design and spatial composition often mistakenly interchange the
word balance with symmetry and visa versa. Although the 2 words have similar meaning, they distinctly
describe two very different spatial relationships in design composition. Symmetry is from the Greek root
summetria translated means “of like measure”. Balance comes from the Latin word bilancia meaning “having
two scale pans” for balancing precious metals of the same material and overall weight but not necessarily of
the same shape or number of pieces.
Symmetry and balance are both formative ordering ideas in design which implicit or explicit equilibrium is
established between components of spatial relationships to create forms and design compositions. Both are
dependent on the use of equal units on each side of a line or point but achieve different results.
Symmetrical order is achieved when equal elements have the same but opposing relationship to or about a
real or implied axis. There are two fundamental types of symmetry, which are bilateral and radial. A third type,
translation is rare and used in very complex designs. In these schemas, symmetrical elements are repeated
along a bilateral axis thus being symmetrical and linear simultaneously.
Symmetry must be a balanced composition while balance may or may not be symmetrical and does not
necessarily need a strong orthogonal axis. Non-symmetrical balance can be achieved by configuration and
geometry. This is commonly referred to as point/counterpoint, which is the juxtaposition of specific elements
or masses without necessarily being referenced back to an axis.
Balance by configuration occurs when equilibrium is established between components that are different in
form and/or shape. One example is by balancing within a mass by creating one void with a counter balancing
solid. Another technique of creating balance is by geometry when components of two different languages
occur on opposite sides of an implied balancing datum. Lastly, balance can be achieved by configuration
within the overall composition of the mass; in this case, the spatial relationship is often established by
complex shape grammars usually about an abstract axis.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that symmetry depends on balance while balance, in a non-
symmetrical context, can exist on its own. When one speaks of “balance”, one must be careful to clarify the
context and have clear understanding of the difference between them in order to analyze, critique or comment
on spatial compositions of symmetry and balance.
People not accustom to ordering ideas in design and spatial composition often mistakenly interchange the
word balance with symmetry and visa versa. Although the 2 words have similar meaning, they distinctly
describe two very different spatial relationships in design composition. Symmetry is from the Greek root
summetria translated means “of like measure”. Balance comes from the Latin word bilancia meaning “having
two scale pans” for balancing precious metals of the same material and overall weight but not necessarily of
the same shape or number of pieces.
Symmetry and balance are both formative ordering ideas in design which implicit or explicit equilibrium is
established between components of spatial relationships to create forms and design compositions. Both are
dependent on the use of equal units on each side of a line or point but achieve different results.
Symmetrical order is achieved when equal elements have the same but opposing relationship to or about a
real or implied axis. There are two fundamental types of symmetry, which are bilateral and radial. A third type,
translation is rare and used in very complex designs. In these schemas, symmetrical elements are repeated
along a bilateral axis thus being symmetrical and linear simultaneously.
Symmetry must be a balanced composition while balance may or may not be symmetrical and does not
necessarily need a strong orthogonal axis. Non-symmetrical balance can be achieved by configuration and
geometry. This is commonly referred to as point/counterpoint, which is the juxtaposition of specific elements
or masses without necessarily being referenced back to an axis.
Balance by configuration occurs when equilibrium is established between components that are different in
form and/or shape. One example is by balancing within a mass by creating one void with a counter balancing
solid. Another technique of creating balance is by geometry when components of two different languages
occur on opposite sides of an implied balancing datum. Lastly, balance can be achieved by configuration
within the overall composition of the mass; in this case, the spatial relationship is often established by
complex shape grammars usually about an abstract axis.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that symmetry depends on balance while balance, in a non-
symmetrical context, can exist on its own. When one speaks of “balance”, one must be careful to clarify the
context and have clear understanding of the difference between them in order to analyze, critique or comment
on spatial compositions of symmetry and balance.
 | |  |