Is there a technique, similar, say, to perspective, still to be discovered in art?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Warmers' to uk.philosophy.humanism.
I thought that artists in rec.arts.fine might have some interesting
ideas.
So far, I have come up with the following ideas:
- Something based on hologram techniques (my wife suggested this). Maybe
a way of creating holograms directly, or on a computer, without
capturing the image in advance.
- Taking the idea of op-art further. Op-art presents a three dimensional
image using blobs or dots of different sizes (and variants on this), but
it hasn't really been taken further than a novelty (OK, with some
impressive and brilliant examples) and absorbed into art practice.
- Using the idea of the computer generated images that appear to be
nothing, but spring into 3-D when you focus on them (or relax your focus
on them) for a while. If this technique could be improved so that the
3-D effect appears without the time taken to concentrate and so that
painting or drawing could use the effect to produce original perspective
type effects.
You probably have more ideas - and, probably, there are some interesting
examples of the above techniques already being explored.
I must say that I think that the op-art idea probably has the most
promise, from what I can see - pointillism anticipated the raw
technique, but also seemed to be a bit of a dead-end. Maybe, there is
some mileage in revisiting this area with some of the recent findings in
the psychology of vision.
Anyway, the main thing is that I think that this is an interesting
question to consider - even if there aren't tons of answers. I hope that
there are some better ideas than the few that have come to me!
--
Optimism, however slight, always relies on an element of the rational,
of realism. I don't believe we shall ever achieve valid art through
formlessness and unthinking hazard.
John Fowles 'Wormholes' pg 366
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
Lol
Many :-)
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B293249...@mb.sympatico.ca...
>
> Lol
> Many :-)
>
As important as perspective? I think you are optimistic - particularly
if you consider drawing alone. Anyway, do you have any ideas as to what
these might be?
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B293249...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > Lol
> > Many :-)
> >
> As important as perspective? I think you are optimistic - particularly
> if you consider drawing alone. Anyway, do you have any ideas as to what
> these might be?
I am not working with drawing but with painting and primarily with colour
fields/planes rather than pointillism as you mentioned previously. But
there will be other discoveries as to perspective. Every generation thinks
that they live in the all knowing age and all that history (in the case art
history shows us is that we are always wrong, eventually.)
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3B293249...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > Lol
> > > Many :-)
> > >
> > As important as perspective? I think you are optimistic -
particularly
> > if you consider drawing alone. Anyway, do you have any ideas as to
what
> > these might be?
>
> I am not working with drawing but with painting and primarily with
colour
> fields/planes rather than pointillism as you mentioned previously. But
> there will be other discoveries as to perspective. Every generation
thinks
> that they live in the all knowing age and all that history (in the
case art
> history shows us is that we are always wrong, eventually.)
>
Having made my point about drawing, I ought, in fairness, to say that,
for me, painting is really drawing by another means.
Andrew Werby
found) but there are certainly many new techniques the implications of which
have yet to be explored thoroughly by artists. The ability to model a scene
in 3d, for instance, and render instances of it from any angle, is a
revolutionary advance in image-making. But digital art is still in its
infancy, as far as serious fine art is concerned. So far, it has followed
the trajectory of most technological advances, generally being used as a
way to attain the effects of traditional media, but faster and cheaper. As
it matures, we will start seeing it being used for its own sake, with
artists finding out things to do with it that can be done in no other way.]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9gapts$hcf$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Chris
With reference to this, it might be worth considering the historical
contexts of other great artistic revolutions. For example, the
development of perspective was part and parcel of the scientific and
philosophical upheaval of the early Renaissance and in many ways was a
small reflection of the changes of attitude toward such broad ideas as
the nature of being, and mankind's place in the universe. More
immediately, it represented a one of the major unions of science and
art.
Similarly, we have the perceptual revolution that occurred in the late
1500's and early 1600's that is both illustrated and affected by great
artists (using the term broadly) as Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Descartes
and later Spinoza, rooted as they were in the in the predecessant
revolutions in activities as diverse as the rise of Humanism, and the
advent of free markets and international trade (especially those of
Holland).
Skipping forward (since this is "history lite", I just wanted to toss in
a few examples to think about), one has the Impressionist revolution,
which was to no small degree motivated by diverse social aspects ranging
from discoveries in optical science, the advent of a popular French mass
media, to the massive social tremors that were shaking French statism.
So if I were to argue for one or another particular direction to look
for the next artistic revolution, I'd say one would have to look at the
broad changes that are happening in the activities that tend to
represent our fundamental view of nature ( from particle physics and
cosmology to neuro-psychology) as well as those activities that more or
less represent the application of those fundamentals, such as changes in
the perception of the relationship between the individual and the state,
and then try to extract common or essential themes.
[Parenthetically speaking, I'd say that the last century in art could
pretty well be thought of as a sort of medieval position in the arts,
where the advances of the 19th century were refined and explored, but
not really extended. Rather like an intellectual little ice age. As
evidenced by any number of postings here, art has accreted a large
number of rules of behaviour during this period, which while originally
useful seem to have little more than a stifling and suppressive effect
now. (Shades of the Academy!). It's not a bad thing, this resting
period, as it puts a sufficient distance between contemporary thought
and roots of that which it will be challenging to allow productive
discourse.]
Several of the threads that I think will in the near future be highly
influential are our the abandonment of Rouseauian tyranny of culturalism
and cultural identity; the acceptance of chaos as a natural state (but
neutral with respect to good or evil); the reawakening of of the concept
that reason is our primary defence against barbarism.
Reflected on a purely technical level, perhaps the next great changes in
art will come from our greater understanding of how perception works -
for example, how truly effective portraiture art is far from
photographic, as it has to incorporate not only the features of the
sitter, but the way that our physical perception of those features
interact with our inherited and learned mechanisms. Those aspects range
from our natural focus on certain specific details of a face while
ignoring broad areas; our interpretation of the general asymmetry of
individual faces in terms of internal symmetric primitives; even our
understanding of how line and the separation of masses and three
dimensional solidity are more artifacts of inherited mechanism than any
real measure of reality. Former generations of painters have worked
through these ideas on an hit or miss basis, resulting in a canon of
Western portraiture that holds many clues to understanding these effects
that have yet to be well systematized. Once they are, then they can
become teachable and ingrained, much as perspective was 600 years ago.
Cheers;
Chris ( an unrepentant top poster :)
P.S. My server doesn't supply uk.philosophy.humanism. Is it a pretty
active group?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B2CA9A6...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> [ interesting points deleted]
>
> [Parenthetically speaking, I'd say that the last century in art could
> pretty well be thought of as a sort of medieval position in the arts,
> where the advances of the 19th century were refined and explored, but
> not really extended. Rather like an intellectual little ice age. As
> evidenced by any number of postings here, art has accreted a large
> number of rules of behaviour during this period, which while
originally
> useful seem to have little more than a stifling and suppressive effect
> now. (Shades of the Academy!). It's not a bad thing, this resting
> period, as it puts a sufficient distance between contemporary thought
> and roots of that which it will be challenging to allow productive
> discourse.]
>
profound effect on the arts (not just visual arts) - think of the images
of the apocalypse that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided
for so many years.
> Several of the threads that I think will in the near future be highly
> influential are our the abandonment of Rouseauian tyranny of
culturalism
> and cultural identity; the acceptance of chaos as a natural state (but
> neutral with respect to good or evil); the reawakening of of the
concept
> that reason is our primary defence against barbarism.
>
That is an optimistic view! It is difficult to imagine that the 21st
Century will be even more barbarous than the 20th, which has reached a
pinnacle of barbarity way beyond anything before, but I certainly
wouldn't rule it out.
>
> Reflected on a purely technical level, perhaps the next great changes
in
> art will come from our greater understanding of how perception works -
> for example, how truly effective portraiture art is far from
> photographic, as it has to incorporate not only the features of the
> sitter, but the way that our physical perception of those features
> interact with our inherited and learned mechanisms. Those aspects
range
> from our natural focus on certain specific details of a face while
> ignoring broad areas; our interpretation of the general asymmetry of
> individual faces in terms of internal symmetric primitives; even our
> understanding of how line and the separation of masses and three
> dimensional solidity are more artifacts of inherited mechanism than
any
> real measure of reality. Former generations of painters have worked
> through these ideas on an hit or miss basis, resulting in a canon of
> Western portraiture that holds many clues to understanding these
effects
> that have yet to be well systematized. Once they are, then they can
> become teachable and ingrained, much as perspective was 600 years ago.
>
Yes, I agree. From a better understanding of perception, including the
evoluton of perception, a better way of deceiving it ought to be
possible!
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B2A3502...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3B293249...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > > >
> > > > Lol
> > > > Many :-)
> > > >
> > > As important as perspective? I think you are optimistic -
> particularly
> > > if you consider drawing alone. Anyway, do you have any ideas as to
> what
> > > these might be?
> >
> > I am not working with drawing but with painting and primarily with
> colour
> > fields/planes rather than pointillism as you mentioned previously. But
> > there will be other discoveries as to perspective. Every generation
> thinks
> > that they live in the all knowing age and all that history (in the
> case art
> > history shows us is that we are always wrong, eventually.)
> >
> Indeed, that is what people think and breaking the mould isn't easy.
>
> Having made my point about drawing, I ought, in fairness, to say that,
> for me, painting is really drawing by another means.
>
I used to feel that way about drawing and painting but I don't any more.
Both are now fundamentally very different for me. I treat paint as paint.
Everyone knows that a drawing doesn't have to have any painting in it but
not every one agrees to a painting not having any drawing in it.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
Why aim for deception when one can integrate?
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > Having made my point about drawing, I ought, in fairness, to say
that,
> > for me, painting is really drawing by another means.
> >
>
> I used to feel that way about drawing and painting but I don't any
more.
> Both are now fundamentally very different for me. I treat paint as
paint.
> Everyone knows that a drawing doesn't have to have any painting in it
but
> not every one agrees to a painting not having any drawing in it.
>
a painting sans drawing, though.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > Yes, I agree. From a better understanding of perception, including
the
> > evoluton of perception, a better way of deceiving it ought to be
> > possible!
>
> Why aim for deception when one can integrate?
>
for example, aims do deceive the eye into seeing 2-D as 3-D.
I don't think that the aim is deception, though, rather deception is the
tool through which the aim of producing a more accurate portrayal of
subjective experience may be realised.
Junie Buhg
and...@computersculpture.com says...
>
>[I'm not sure about "still to be discovered" (though doubtless some will be
>found) but there are certainly many new techniques the implications of which
>have yet to be explored thoroughly by artists.
I suspect that those working on the
various movies that employ the latest
in digital 3-D technology would refer
to themselves as "artists." Maybe some
in this newsgroup would disagree with
their labeling of themselves. If movies
are not an "art form" - I wonder what
else they should be called?
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B2D2A20...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > Yes, I agree. From a better understanding of perception, including
> the
> > > evoluton of perception, a better way of deceiving it ought to be
> > > possible!
> >
> > Why aim for deception when one can integrate?
> >
> All Art is deception, requiring a suspension of disbelief.
Why? I believe it should be the opposite.
> Perspective,
> for example, aims do deceive the eye into seeing 2-D as 3-D.
>
> I don't think that the aim is deception, though, rather deception is the
> tool through which the aim of producing a more accurate portrayal of
> subjective experience may be realised.
Art as plastic, (Plato philosophy). Why must art be regarded as such. Visual
arts have the ability for a truth beyond that of language. Yet artists
constantly subjectcate themselves to language. We shouldn't our medium is
far more powerful and universal.
What you say of deception is true if you take the traditional view of a
painting as a window like space, where one is invited to enter visually and
have a look around. However if one chooses a unification of space/form to
create a new entity rather than a copy of nature. How is that deception?
By this I am not suggesting that recognizable subject matter has to
eliminated a la abstract expressionist. On the contrary.....
I believe the painting as an entity should enter the viewer. Recognizable
subject matter helps that process as most people do not seem able to
immediately digest the non subjective.
Dale
mdeli
What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It explains
why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
filter of perception. There are infinite variations on the artistic
use of perspective. Perspective accounts for far more than just
explaining what happens to projections of parallel lines.
New discoveries are indeed upon us and I believe they all have to do
with images created on the computers but if the image appears three
dimensional it will always be explainable in terms of perspective.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Bob & Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
>
> Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It explains
> why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
> filter of perception.
How would you explain atmospheric perspective then??? It is illusionistic
space that relies on the viewers ability to perceive certain visual clues
such as size, position, diminishing detail (etc....) Perspective relies on
perception in order to exist.
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3B2D2A20...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > > Yes, I agree. From a better understanding of perception,
including
> > the
> > > > evoluton of perception, a better way of deceiving it ought to be
> > > > possible!
> > >
> > > Why aim for deception when one can integrate?
> > >
> > All Art is deception, requiring a suspension of disbelief.
>
>
> Why? I believe it should be the opposite.
>
impression that something is there when it is not. There were no great
snakes on the walls of caves - only paintings that intended to give the
impression of great snakes, and so it is with all art. Even architecture
attempts to make a building that is heavy enough to stand firm appear
gracefully light - the flying buttress is not necessary to create a
building of that size while it is necessary to give a building of that
size the appearance of elegantly light grace.
The opposite is a direct reflection of reality - one of the reasons,
indeed, why photography is not art.
>
> > Perspective,
> > for example, aims do deceive the eye into seeing 2-D as 3-D.
> >
> > I don't think that the aim is deception, though, rather deception is
the
> > tool through which the aim of producing a more accurate portrayal of
> > subjective experience may be realised.
>
> Art as plastic, (Plato philosophy). Why must art be regarded as such.
Visual
> arts have the ability for a truth beyond that of language. Yet artists
> constantly subjectcate themselves to language. We shouldn't our medium
is
> far more powerful and universal.
>
Well, it communicates something that can be true, but the method isn't.
It makes sense that the means of communication is different from
language, but it isn't clear that it is 'more powerful' - though
clearly a pictorial road-sign can be more universal and, if well done,
quicker in getting a message across than a written one.
>
> What you say of deception is true if you take the traditional view of
a
> painting as a window like space, where one is invited to enter
visually and
> have a look around. However if one chooses a unification of space/form
to
> create a new entity rather than a copy of nature. How is that
deception?
>
A new form is more design - like the famous lemon squeezer.
>
> By this I am not suggesting that recognizable subject matter has to
> eliminated a la abstract expressionist. On the contrary.....
>
> I believe the painting as an entity should enter the viewer.
Recognizable
> subject matter helps that process as most people do not seem able to
> immediately digest the non subjective.
>
Up to a point - people are happy with pleasing design and pretty
patterns neither of which need to be representational in any way.
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3b2e96b...@news.psi.ca...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
>
radical.
>
> Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It explains
> why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
> filter of perception. There are infinite variations on the artistic
> use of perspective. Perspective accounts for far more than just
> explaining what happens to projections of parallel lines.
>
projection (one could see Mercator's or Peter's projections as forms of
perspective on the sphere - in fact this use of particular perspective
[in particular Peter's] might be an example of exactly what I am talking
about. I am not aware, on a brief thought of the matter, of anybody
useing Peter's projection for artistic effect.
Without an analysis of perception perspective is pointless.
>
> New discoveries are indeed upon us and I believe they all have to do
> with images created on the computers but if the image appears three
> dimensional it will always be explainable in terms of perspective.
>
I see. What is your explanation, in terms of perspective, for the image
that appears from those apparently formless multicoloured pictures from
which three dimensional objects appear when you look at them for long
enough in the right way?
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> mdeli wrote:
>
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
> >
> > Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It
explains
> > why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
> > filter of perception.
>
> How would you explain atmospheric perspective then??? It is
illusionistic
> space that relies on the viewers ability to perceive certain visual
clues
> such as size, position, diminishing detail (etc....) Perspective
relies on
> perception in order to exist.
>
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
Unification, integration of all elements of design leading to a more
powerful statement of reality. That unification is the future of art.
>
> >
> > By this I am not suggesting that recognizable subject matter has to
> > eliminated a la abstract expressionist. On the contrary.....
> >
> > I believe the painting as an entity should enter the viewer.
> Recognizable
> > subject matter helps that process as most people do not seem able to
> > immediately digest the non subjective.
> >
> Up to a point - people are happy with pleasing design and pretty
> patterns neither of which need to be representational in any way.
>
Aesthetics are very important to most but I am thinking art vs aesthetics.
Some works of art are "written" in a language that unless a person has a
background in the arts they find the language to difficult to understand so
they move on to some thing easier and some then mock what they do not
understand.
Art needs to be more universal rather than elitist. But in saying that I
have no time for commercial type decorative art a la Kincade. That work is
actually taking advantage of the sentimentality of people and hurting the
art market.
>
> --
> Optimism, however slight, always relies on an element of the rational,
> of realism. I don't believe we shall ever achieve valid art through
> formlessness and unthinking hazard.
> John Fowles 'Wormholes' pg 366
I take the stand that some art is real not artificial in the least. A
painting is just as real as the mountains. If it's goal is to communicate
and not deceive. That is also one reason why I work with a more shallow
space because my goal is not to trick but to provide insight. I want people
to always know that yes this is a painting.
Art is always direct reflection of reality, it just might not be the same
reflection or the same reality as anyone else's.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> news:3b2e96b...@news.psi.ca...
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
> >
> I mean similarly revolutionary, similarly fundamental and/or similarly
> radical.
> >
> > Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It explains
> > why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
> > filter of perception. There are infinite variations on the artistic
> > use of perspective. Perspective accounts for far more than just
> > explaining what happens to projections of parallel lines.
> >
> On the contrary, though perspective is an analysis of a mathemetical
> projection (one could see Mercator's or Peter's projections as forms of
> perspective on the sphere - in fact this use of particular perspective
> [in particular Peter's] might be an example of exactly what I am talking
> about. I am not aware, on a brief thought of the matter, of anybody
> useing Peter's projection for artistic effect.
Sphere is rotating or still?
>
>
>
> Without an analysis of perception perspective is pointless.
No pun intended right :-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > A new form is more design - like the famous lemon squeezer.
>
> Unification, integration of all elements of design leading to a more
> powerful statement of reality. That unification is the future of art.
>
last (Bach and Schubert were unifiers, Mozart and Beethoven innovators,
for example).
>
> >
> > >
> > > By this I am not suggesting that recognizable subject matter has
to
> > > eliminated a la abstract expressionist. On the contrary.....
> > >
> > > I believe the painting as an entity should enter the viewer.
> > Recognizable
> > > subject matter helps that process as most people do not seem able
to
> > > immediately digest the non subjective.
> > >
> > Up to a point - people are happy with pleasing design and pretty
> > patterns neither of which need to be representational in any way.
> >
>
> Aesthetics are very important to most but I am thinking art vs
aesthetics.
> Some works of art are "written" in a language that unless a person has
a
> background in the arts they find the language to difficult to
understand so
> they move on to some thing easier and some then mock what they do not
> understand.
>
claiming that they 'don't understand'. It is more difficult to explain
just what it is that they don't understand.
>
> Art needs to be more universal rather than elitist. But in saying that
I
> have no time for commercial type decorative art a la Kincade. That
work is
> actually taking advantage of the sentimentality of people and hurting
the
> art market.
>
they are, attempt to object to 'elitism', or things that are 'elitist.
However, all that is truly great is, almost by definition, elitist in
that the plebs cannot understand it - from a sociobiological point of
view, this is almost exactly the point, if a pleb in a bar can
understand and explain a piece of art exactly, then, what is the point
of art?
low
> space because my goal is not to trick but to provide insight. I want
people
> to always know that yes this is a painting.
>
Well, aim low, and you are likely to hit.
Peter H.M. Brooks
cop out, to be relative, like morality).
>
> >
> > Without an analysis of perception perspective is pointless.
>
> No pun intended right :-)
>
Sharon Barcone
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message <9gapts$hcf$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
(Snip)
>
>I must say that I think that the op-art idea probably has the most
>promise, from what I can see - pointillism anticipated the raw
>technique, but also seemed to be a bit of a dead-end. Maybe, there is
>some mileage in revisiting this area with some of the recent findings in
>the psychology of vision.
>
>Anyway, the main thing is that I think that this is an interesting
>question to consider - even if there aren't tons of answers. I hope that
>there are some better ideas than the few that have come to me!
>
>
>--
>Optimism, however slight, always relies on an element of the rational,
>of realism. I don't believe we shall ever achieve valid art through
>formlessness and unthinking hazard.
>John Fowles 'Wormholes' pg 366
>
When Dali moved out of the surrealist arena, one area he became interested
in and used frequently was the idea of the optical illusion. Thought often
seen as cute little images not as must have been "seen" in the area of fine
art. Some studies into this perception of the eye have concluded that the
reason behind this effect may have to do with the "dominate eye" reaction in
the brain. That at some point in viewing an image the brain may be switching
over from the dominate eye to the other eye. This may also be true in the
matter of contrast. I have notice myself that when looking at something for
a period of time at first the light patterns are most prevalent and at some
point there is a switching to the dark contract of what is viewed. The lower
key the lighting the more dramatic the effect. I find these visual
perceptions quite interesting.
The focal point of an image is most readily thought of as the most important
part and placement in a painting but focal point becomes an even more
interesting aspect when considering that it is the place where the eye
physically focuses and what the eye perceives in the area where it is not
focused but still perceives. I have often though of painting a large
painting while only focusing on one small area in the composition (at the
focal point, of course) while trying to include all the eye perceives as it
perceives it as extant before it actually is moved into the field of vision.
These are aspect I want to explore more fully in the field of fine art.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Peter H.M. Brooks
Sharon Barcone <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:3b320...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> The focal point of an image is most readily thought of as the most
important
> part and placement in a painting but focal point becomes an even more
> interesting aspect when considering that it is the place where the eye
> physically focuses and what the eye perceives in the area where it is
not
> focused but still perceives. I have often though of painting a large
> painting while only focusing on one small area in the composition (at
the
> focal point, of course) while trying to include all the eye perceives
as it
> perceives it as extant before it actually is moved into the field of
vision.
> These are aspect I want to explore more fully in the field of fine
art.
>
by, of a scene reflected in a cylindrical mirror - it was completely
impossible to see what the painting was until a similar mirror was put
in the middle and it could be seen in the mirror.
Brendan
> >
> Yes, that is interesting. I was interested by a painting,
I forget who
> by, of a scene reflected in a cylindrical mirror - it was
completely
> impossible to see what the painting was until a similar
mirror was put
> in the middle and it could be seen in the mirror.
I think these were the hidden portraits of Bonnie Prince
Charlie.
Brendan.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Brendan <bren...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:tj4fnfh...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
you have any more info or leads on that?
Owen F. Ransen
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Is there a technique, similar, say, to perspective, still to be
> discovered in art?
Maybe the question use of "the same importance as" rather than
"similar to"
I think that artists and designers would gain a lot of insight
and creative tools if they learned to program. This is difficult
given the complexity of modern operating systems...
To this end I'm putting together a course which is at a very early
stage (including the images produced) which hopes to teach programming
as a tool for creating 2D images, "generative art". The whole aim
of the course is to use programming as a *tool*, not for its own
sake.
(Currently most graphics programs are really only electronic paint
brushes, powerful and dazzling, but you can only do what the
programmer lets you.)
Any beta testers out there? Here's a FAQ:
http://www.ransen.com/Rapt/FAQ.htm
--
Owen F. Ransen
http://www.ransen.com/
Home of Gliftic & Repligator Image Generators
*Remove spam_me_not from email before replying by email*
mdeli
.whatever that means
>Some works of art are "written" in a language that unless a person has a
>background in the arts they find the language to difficult to understand so
>they move on to some thing easier and some then mock what they do not
>understand.
So tell us what's "written' in the language of say, Matisse. Rothko?
>Art needs to be more universal rather than elitist. But in saying that I
>have no time for commercial type decorative art a la Kincade.
Perhaps you just don't understand the "written language" of commercial
art.
> That work is
>actually taking advantage of the sentimentality of people and hurting the
>art market.
Perhaps the art market should take a pain killer.
>I take the stand that some art is real not artificial in the least. A
>painting is just as real as the mountains. If it's goal is to communicate
>and not deceive. That is also one reason why I work with a more shallow
>space because my goal is not to trick but to provide insight. I want people
>to always know that yes this is a painting.
The usual babble.
mdeli
>
>mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
>news:3b2e96b...@news.psi.ca...
>> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
>>
>I mean similarly revolutionary, similarly fundamental and/or similarly
>radical.
Then you don't mean "similar to perspective."
>> Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It explains
>> why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
>> filter of perception. There are infinite variations on the artistic
>> use of perspective. Perspective accounts for far more than just
>> explaining what happens to projections of parallel lines.
>On the contrary, though perspective is an analysis of a mathemetical
>projection (one could see Mercator's or Peter's projections as forms of
>perspective on the sphere - in fact this use of particular perspective
>[in particular Peter's] might be an example of exactly what I am talking
>about. I am not aware, on a brief thought of the matter, of anybody
>useing Peter's projection for artistic effect.
?
>Without an analysis of perception perspective is pointless.
Without ears music is pointless, so what?
>> New discoveries are indeed upon us and I believe they all have to do
>> with images created on the computers but if the image appears three
>> dimensional it will always be explainable in terms of perspective.
>>
>I see. What is your explanation, in terms of perspective, for the image
>that appears from those apparently formless multicoloured pictures from
>which three dimensional objects appear when you look at them for long
>enough in the right way?
>
What pictures are you referring to? Try looking at a 3D program and
you will see the broad extent which is covered by perspective and its
implications.
Owen F. Ransen
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>All Art is deception, requiring a suspension of disbelief. Perspective,
>for example, aims do deceive the eye into seeing 2-D as 3-D.
Even purely decorative purely abstract art?
Blade Runner
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Yes, that is interesting. I was interested by a painting, I forget who
>by, of a scene reflected in a cylindrical mirror - it was completely
>impossible to see what the painting was until a similar mirror was put
>in the middle and it could be seen in the mirror.
I remember a painting that includes an image of a skull, but the skull
is much elongated and unrecognisable as such until one views it at a
very acute angle.
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Temporary sig
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B2F9788...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > > A new form is more design - like the famous lemon squeezer.
> >
> > Unification, integration of all elements of design leading to a more
> > powerful statement of reality. That unification is the future of art.
> >
> Maybe. I think that art goes through phases, unification is one of the
> last (Bach and Schubert were unifiers, Mozart and Beethoven innovators,
> for example).
True but I think we are over due for a unification and with all the
innovation that has occurred in the late 19th to present. Innovation will
occur through unification.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > By this I am not suggesting that recognizable subject matter has
> to
> > > > eliminated a la abstract expressionist. On the contrary.....
> > > >
> > > > I believe the painting as an entity should enter the viewer.
> > > Recognizable
> > > > subject matter helps that process as most people do not seem able
> to
> > > > immediately digest the non subjective.
> > > >
> > > Up to a point - people are happy with pleasing design and pretty
> > > patterns neither of which need to be representational in any way.
> > >
> >
> > Aesthetics are very important to most but I am thinking art vs
> aesthetics.
> > Some works of art are "written" in a language that unless a person has
> a
> > background in the arts they find the language to difficult to
> understand so
> > they move on to some thing easier and some then mock what they do not
> > understand.
> >
> It is easy to mock people who object to something inaesthetic by
> claiming that they 'don't understand'. It is more difficult to explain
> just what it is that they don't understand.
So why not give people the tools to understand?
>
> >
> > Art needs to be more universal rather than elitist. But in saying that
> I
> > have no time for commercial type decorative art a la Kincade. That
> work is
> > actually taking advantage of the sentimentality of people and hurting
> the
> > art market.
> >
> I don't see this. I know that the politically correct, poor fools that
> they are, attempt to object to 'elitism', or things that are 'elitist.
> However, all that is truly great is, almost by definition, elitist in
> that the plebs cannot understand it - from a sociobiological point of
> view, this is almost exactly the point, if a pleb in a bar can
> understand and explain a piece of art exactly, then, what is the point
> of art?
Depends on your view of the purpose of art. If your art is meant for only a
select view to understand, fine. My own opinion is that art should be more
inclusive than exclusive.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
Really....... just when we were almost getting along.
What should my aim be, to perfect deep space illusion? ( Already
accomplished hundreds of years ago) To keep art in the realm of artifice?
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3B2F9788...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > > > A new form is more design - like the famous lemon squeezer.
> > >
> > > Unification, integration of all elements of design leading to a
more
> > > powerful statement of reality. That unification is the future of
art.
> > >
> > Maybe. I think that art goes through phases, unification is one of
the
> > last (Bach and Schubert were unifiers, Mozart and Beethoven
innovators,
> > for example).
>
> True but I think we are over due for a unification and with all the
> innovation that has occurred in the late 19th to present. Innovation
will
> occur through unification.
>
> > >
> > > Aesthetics are very important to most but I am thinking art vs
> > aesthetics.
> > > Some works of art are "written" in a language that unless a person
has
> > a
> > > background in the arts they find the language to difficult to
> > understand so
> > > they move on to some thing easier and some then mock what they do
not
> > > understand.
> > >
> > It is easy to mock people who object to something inaesthetic by
> > claiming that they 'don't understand'. It is more difficult to
explain
> > just what it is that they don't understand.
>
> So why not give people the tools to understand?
>
many people feel that the 'know what they like' and need no further
tools.
artist to decide with whom (if anybody) he wishes to communicate.
Those who purchase art (particularly that intended for public places)
have some responsibility (particularly if they are also spending other
people's money) to buy inclusive art - unless they can justify the
purchase of exclusive art as uplifting or educational.
I do think that there is a very important place for exclusive art. To
deny the elite that can understand the beauty and aesthetics of
difficult artistic expression would be a denial of the best that
humanity can produce - and would be both stalinist and philistine.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > low
> > > space because my goal is not to trick but to provide insight. I
want
> > people
> > > to always know that yes this is a painting.
> > >
> > Well, aim low, and you are likely to hit.
>
> Really....... just when we were almost getting along.
>
>
> What should my aim be, to perfect deep space illusion? ( Already
> accomplished hundreds of years ago) To keep art in the realm of
artifice?
>
aim - just as you are also free to ask for advice on the matter!
I don't think you can avoid keeping art in the realm of artifice - I see
it as part of the definition of art, as I have said.
However, I don't see that perfecting any particular technique (new or
old) need be an objective in itself (though it might be a sub-goal),
when the objectives is more likely to be what you are wishing to say and
how you are wishing to say it. If you wish to create art that will
communicate with children, as, say, illustrations for a new children's
book, then your objective (and choice of technique) is likely to be very
different from that you would have if you wish to fulfil a commission to
decorate a crematorium.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Owen F. Ransen <ransen_sp...@nemo.it> wrote in message
news:3b3245a...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:46:46 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Is there a technique, similar, say, to perspective, still to be
> > discovered in art?
>
> Maybe the question use of "the same importance as" rather than
> "similar to"
>
>
> I think that artists and designers would gain a lot of insight
> and creative tools if they learned to program. This is difficult
> given the complexity of modern operating systems...
>
was the name given to the 'turtle graphics') was designed to be
intuitive and, to some extent succeeded. Children are also being exposed
to computers much younger, which will grow the trend.
>
> To this end I'm putting together a course which is at a very early
> stage (including the images produced) which hopes to teach programming
> as a tool for creating 2D images, "generative art". The whole aim
> of the course is to use programming as a *tool*, not for its own
> sake.
>
Oh, I see the FAQ...
>
> (Currently most graphics programs are really only electronic paint
> brushes, powerful and dazzling, but you can only do what the
> programmer lets you.)
>
Yes, they mainly are. I have been impressed by the potential of some
that allow you to apply filters and morph the images (photoshop, for
example)
>
> Any beta testers out there? Here's a FAQ:
>
> http://www.ransen.com/Rapt/FAQ.htm
>
It looks fun! I am a little surprised that you don't provide something
written in python for linux, but that is probably not a discussion for
here.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:48:04 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> >All Art is deception, requiring a suspension of disbelief.
Perspective,
> >for example, aims do deceive the eye into seeing 2-D as 3-D.
>
> Even purely decorative purely abstract art?
>
Abstract art is an abstraction from reality, so it has some element of
representation about it - even if at one or two removes. So the famous
'nude descending the stair' is abstraction, but an op art poster (or
some of the examples on your site) are not.
Of course abstract art (pure or otherwise) may be decorative, or not,
but purely decorative art can't be abstract.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> >
> >mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b2e96b...@news.psi.ca...
> >> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "similar to perspective."
> >>
> >I mean similarly revolutionary, similarly fundamental and/or
similarly
> >radical.
>
> Then you don't mean "similar to perspective."
>
literal.
>
> >> Perspective in essence is really a mathematical discovery. It
explains
> >> why things look the way they do. It does not take into account the
> >> filter of perception. There are infinite variations on the artistic
> >> use of perspective. Perspective accounts for far more than just
> >> explaining what happens to projections of parallel lines.
>
> >On the contrary, though perspective is an analysis of a mathemetical
> >projection (one could see Mercator's or Peter's projections as forms
of
> >perspective on the sphere - in fact this use of particular
perspective
> >[in particular Peter's] might be an example of exactly what I am
talking
> >about. I am not aware, on a brief thought of the matter, of anybody
> >useing Peter's projection for artistic effect.
>
> ?
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > >Without an analysis of perception perspective is pointless.
>
> Without ears music is pointless, so what?
>
>
> >> New discoveries are indeed upon us and I believe they all have to
do
> >> with images created on the computers but if the image appears three
> >> dimensional it will always be explainable in terms of perspective.
> >>
> >I see. What is your explanation, in terms of perspective, for the
image
> >that appears from those apparently formless multicoloured pictures
from
> >which three dimensional objects appear when you look at them for long
> >enough in the right way?
> >
> What pictures are you referring to?
>
to see them.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Blade Runner <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote in message
news:p175jtc9hipaf79i6...@4ax.com...
print to a number of scientific books.
That skull is so interestingly portrayed that it gives a gestalt 'aha'
when you see it.
For anybody who hadn't seen it, there is a URL:
http://philos.wright.edu/Dept/ENG/otherfaculty/anam.htm
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
Agree 100%.
>
>
> Those who purchase art (particularly that intended for public places)
> have some responsibility (particularly if they are also spending other
> people's money) to buy inclusive art - unless they can justify the
> purchase of exclusive art as uplifting or educational.
Agree again :-)
>
>
> I do think that there is a very important place for exclusive art. To
> deny the elite that can understand the beauty and aesthetics of
> difficult artistic expression would be a denial of the best that
> humanity can produce - and would be both stalinist and philistine.
>
Holy crap we have agreed on this thread. I think this calls for a
celebration :-) WhoooooHoooooo
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B322A0A...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > low
> > > > space because my goal is not to trick but to provide insight. I
> want
> > > people
> > > > to always know that yes this is a painting.
> > > >
> > > Well, aim low, and you are likely to hit.
> >
> > Really....... just when we were almost getting along.
> >
> I didn't think we had almost stopped!
> >
> > What should my aim be, to perfect deep space illusion? ( Already
> > accomplished hundreds of years ago) To keep art in the realm of
> artifice?
> >
> Again, there is no 'should' about it. You are free to decide on your
> aim - just as you are also free to ask for advice on the matter!
>
> I don't think you can avoid keeping art in the realm of artifice - I see
> it as part of the definition of art, as I have said.
>
So the only thing we are disagreeing about is whether art has to remain in
the realm of artifice. You won't be able to convince me on that one. I look
at art in more communication visual language based terms. To me art does not
belong in the realm of artifice any more than written language.
Dale
Blade Runner
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>That skull is so interestingly portrayed that it gives a gestalt 'aha'
>when you see it.
>
>For anybody who hadn't seen it, there is a URL:
>
>http://philos.wright.edu/Dept/ENG/otherfaculty/anam.htm
Thanks for that Peter. I've done my own version of the skull.
Slightly fuzzier but in rather better perspective.
http://www.beadmouse.com/geoff/images/skull.jpg
Chris
mdeli wrote:
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> >
> >I see. What is your explanation, in terms of perspective, for the image
> >that appears from those apparently formless multicoloured pictures from
> >which three dimensional objects appear when you look at them for long
> >enough in the right way?
> >
> What pictures are you referring to? Try looking at a 3D program and
> you will see the broad extent which is covered by perspective and its
> implications.
One of the images Peter is talking about provides a delightful sub theme
in a timeless and sensitive study of self perception and coming of age
movie produced in the mid `90's. The sub theme itself - that of a young
outcast desperately trying to unify, within himself, universal wisdom
(embodied in his re-enactment of sacred roles) with his position in
society as a the lone, silent warrior is mirrored externally in his
study of a mandelic image. The image itself is totemic, in the
expression of society's highest aspirations: the union of wind, water,
and the hand of man. Superficial comprehension of this image is easily
available to the innocent (such as children), or to the morally blind,
such as the elders who have apparently never chosen to challenge their
spiritual natures; and yet, in a truly Shakespearean turn, is denied
those who struggle to be one with their universal selves. It is a theme
often repeated in other indigenous cultural heritances.
For readers of this list, this living object is used to explore the
transformational power of the artist to reflect society, and by doing
so, provide others the means to improve their own lot.
So Mani, if you want to get a true grasp of the best, and deepest, art
of our age, be sure to rent, or buy, the film - it's available both in
VHS and DVD. Just ask for "Mallrats".
Cheers;
Chris
Owen F. Ransen
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> Any beta testers out there? Here's a FAQ:
>>
>> http://www.ransen.com/Rapt/FAQ.htm
>>
>It looks fun! I am a little surprised that you don't provide something
>written in python for linux, but that is probably not a discussion for
>here.
Actually I have designed the course to be easily portable to Mac
and Unix, but only when I have recovered from finishing the Windows
version!
Owen F. Ransen
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>> Even purely decorative purely abstract art?
>That is a contradiction in terms.
You're right. What do we call images which do not
represent anything, are not abstracted from anything?
I am thinking of Jackson Pollock, is "abstract" a misnomer
for his paintings?
Chris
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> >
> Yes, this is fair. Though I think that the two world wars had quite a
> profound effect on the arts (not just visual arts) - think of the images
> of the apocalypse that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided
> for so many years.
>
That's an interesting point, especially the images of the bombs. For one
group of people - especially Americans who carried the brunt of the war
in the Pacific - the images, though terrible were quite symbolic of
many positive aspects. While the bombings represented the death and
destruction of a hundred or two hundred thousand Japanese, they also
represented the an end to Japanese totalitarian aspirations and the
saving of a roughly equal number of Allied lives. I remember talking ot
a former soldier in that war who was destined to be dropped behind
Japanese lines to monitor shipping traffic - these spotters had an
average life span of something like six weeks from the time they were
dropped - and the vast relief he felt when the the bombing happened.
And, needless to say, since the the bombing of Japan, we have had no
world wars. So it is a symbolism that is well worth exploring, from
various viewpoints.
> That is an optimistic view! It is difficult to imagine that the 21st
> Century will be even more barbarous than the 20th, which has reached a
> pinnacle of barbarity way beyond anything before, but I certainly
> wouldn't rule it out.
Sometimes I am far from optimistic bout the 21st Century. It looks that
to a large extent we are intent on repeating the mistakes of the early
part of the twentieth Century, and in many aspects are paralleling their
development.
At the level of the particular, we - at least here in North America -
have to deal with an increasing level acceptance in both the public and
private realms of what is essentially superstitious nonsense. The
debacle concerning the corpse of "Kennewick Man" is typical of our
culture that has elevates notions of racial and cultural belonging to a
level equal, and often above, that of individual rights and free,
scientific inquiry, mirroring the European reversion of culturalism -
with its invention of innocent peasant Edens - that occurred around the
turn of the last century. We have "New Age" thought (and I use that term
guardedly) that mirrors the idiocy of theosophy and similar confections;
we even have abandoned the notion of self government - based as it is in
notions of individual responsibility - to government by those who
promise to act in our best interests, but without principles or ideas to
which they can be held accountable. So we get the spectacle of a Bill
Clinton, who supposedly befriended the poor and underprivileged, while
waging a relentless war against them (including the doubling of the
prison population to two million), or the Liberal party here in Canada,
entrenching itself in power through acts such as the fabrication of
supposed anti-group incidents, a la Hedy Fry or Elinor Caplin, secure in
the knowledge that a a gullible, superstitious, and unquestioning public
will not raise questions and thereby themselves risk be labelled racist,
or sexist, or any other undesirable trait-of-the-day that happens to be
in vogue. How sadly this echoes the fabrications of nationalists a
century ago, resulting in a devastation we are familiar with.
> .... From a better understanding of perception, including the
> evoluton of perception, a better way of deceiving it ought to be
> possible!
>
I like the concept of art as deception, or the necessary role of
deception in art; someone coined a phrase along the lines that all great
art is a self-sustaining lie (in the sense that while being a mirror,
albeit imperfect, of truth, it is not truth itself.)
Regards,
Chris
(still an unrepentant, but never over-zealous, top poster )
"...I am contending for the rights of the living, and against their
being willed away, and controlled and contracted for, by the manuscript
assumed authority of the dead..." - Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man"
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
but you could have an introductory version.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> Holy crap we have agreed on this thread. I think this calls for a
> celebration :-) WhoooooHoooooo
>
Mind you, it doesn't do to agree too much - if you agree on everything,
then there isn't anything to learn.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> So the only thing we are disagreeing about is whether art has to
remain in
> the realm of artifice. You won't be able to convince me on that one. I
look
> at art in more communication visual language based terms. To me art
does not
> belong in the realm of artifice any more than written language.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B3355BE...@ns.sympatico.ca...
atom bomb, he would have been killed in the jungle war against Japan, we
disagree on this point.
>
>
>
> > That is an optimistic view! It is difficult to imagine that the 21st
> > Century will be even more barbarous than the 20th, which has reached
a
> > pinnacle of barbarity way beyond anything before, but I certainly
> > wouldn't rule it out.
>
> Sometimes I am far from optimistic bout the 21st Century. It looks
that
> to a large extent we are intent on repeating the mistakes of the early
> part of the twentieth Century, and in many aspects are paralleling
their
> development.
>
Empire - at the start of the 20th it was the start of the end of the
British Empire.
>
>
> > .... From a better understanding of perception, including the
> > evoluton of perception, a better way of deceiving it ought to be
> > possible!
> >
>
> I like the concept of art as deception, or the necessary role of
> deception in art; someone coined a phrase along the lines that all
great
> art is a self-sustaining lie (in the sense that while being a mirror,
> albeit imperfect, of truth, it is not truth itself.)
>
deception need not be malicious.
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B32E8DE...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > So the only thing we are disagreeing about is whether art has to
> remain in
> > the realm of artifice. You won't be able to convince me on that one. I
> look
> > at art in more communication visual language based terms. To me art
> does not
> > belong in the realm of artifice any more than written language.
> >
> I would say that written languages are a supreme example of artifice.
>
Then I would say that we are working with too many definitions of artifice.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
Chris wrote:
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Yes, this is fair. Though I think that the two world wars had quite a
> > profound effect on the arts (not just visual arts) - think of the images
> > of the apocalypse that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided
> > for so many years.
> >
>
> That's an interesting point, especially the images of the bombs. For one
> group of people - especially Americans who carried the brunt of the war
> in the Pacific - the images, though terrible were quite symbolic of
> many positive aspects. While the bombings represented the death and
> destruction of a hundred or two hundred thousand Japanese, they also
> represented the an end to Japanese totalitarian aspirations and the
> saving of a roughly equal number of Allied lives. I remember talking ot
> a former soldier in that war who was destined to be dropped behind
> Japanese lines to monitor shipping traffic - these spotters had an
> average life span of something like six weeks from the time they were
> dropped - and the vast relief he felt when the the bombing happened.
> And, needless to say, since the the bombing of Japan, we have had no
> world wars. So it is a symbolism that is well worth exploring, from
> various viewpoints.
Have a nice large water colour (wet on wet) of a solider in the foreground
apathetically having his face melt off while the mushroom cloud blazes
beautifully in the background.
Why is art a lie? To me it exists in it's own realm, a new creation that takes
into account the perception an interpretation of the artist. In doing so a new
"truth or lie in some cases" is created. All depends on your view point.
I think this all comes down to the old philosophical argument of what is
truth, what is reality? And are either a set concrete thing. Does perception
dictate the reality or the reality dictate the perception?
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B32E78C...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
> > Holy crap we have agreed on this thread. I think this calls for a
> > celebration :-) WhoooooHoooooo
> >
> Well, it is Friday!
>
> Mind you, it doesn't do to agree too much - if you agree on everything,
> then there isn't anything to learn.
>
Well I think I hear Mephistopheles coming now, got to fly........... ;-)
Dale
Owen F. Ransen
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>> Actually I have designed the course to be easily portable to Mac
>> and Unix, but only when I have recovered from finishing the Windows
>> version!
>>
>Have you considered open-source?
No. And I don't want to get deep into that argument here! ;)
Chris
Though it's just a quibble, my dictionaries have "lie" as acting with
intent to deceive (among other meanings). With "lie", the emphasis is on
the author of the action, with "deceive", the emphasis is on the effect
of the action. Someone who deliberately creates a deception is lying; if
he is unfortunate enough to have only a greenburgian audience, unable to
be beguiled into something more than an imitation of two dimensionality
- then he may well not be deceiving. In neither case is the sense of
maliciousness greater or less.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> I see deception and lies as different - though lies are deception,
> deception need not be malicious.
>
> --
Cheers;
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
against it.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3B32E8DE...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > So the only thing we are disagreeing about is whether art has to
> > remain in
> > > the realm of artifice. You won't be able to convince me on that
one. I
> > look
> > > at art in more communication visual language based terms. To me
art
> > does not
> > > belong in the realm of artifice any more than written language.
> > >
> > I would say that written languages are a supreme example of
artifice.
> >
>
> Then I would say that we are working with too many definitions of
artifice.
>
--
Si latet ars, prodest - Ovid
Art is a lie that makes us see the truth - Picasso
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Why is art a lie? To me it exists in it's own realm, a new creation
that takes
> into account the perception an interpretation of the artist. In doing
so a new
> "truth or lie in some cases" is created. All depends on your view
point.
>
I agree. Art may be a lie - look at Soviet 'Realism' or Nazi 'art'.
>
> I think this all comes down to the old philosophical argument of what
is
> truth, what is reality? And are either a set concrete thing. Does
perception
> dictate the reality or the reality dictate the perception?
>
Pontius Pilate asked 'what is truth'.
Reality clearly dicates perception - otherwise we would all have been
eaten by sabretooth tigers a long time ago (or our ancestors would have
been).
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3B32E78C...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > >
> > > Holy crap we have agreed on this thread. I think this calls for a
> > > celebration :-) WhoooooHoooooo
> > >
> > Well, it is Friday!
> >
> > Mind you, it doesn't do to agree too much - if you agree on
everything,
> > then there isn't anything to learn.
> >
>
> Well I think I hear Mephistopheles coming now, got to fly...........
;-)
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Hi Peter;
>
> Though it's just a quibble, my dictionaries have "lie" as acting with
> intent to deceive (among other meanings). With "lie", the emphasis is
on
> the author of the action, with "deceive", the emphasis is on the
effect
> of the action. Someone who deliberately creates a deception is lying;
if
> he is unfortunate enough to have only a greenburgian audience, unable
to
> be beguiled into something more than an imitation of two
dimensionality
> - then he may well not be deceiving. In neither case is the sense of
> maliciousness greater or less.
>
I agree with your point. A painting gives the lie to your perception.
However, in common parlance, a lie (at least not a white one) is an
intent to deceive maliciously. Hence my pont.
Sharon Barcone
Owen F. Ransen wrote in message <3b3245a...@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:46:46 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
><pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Is there a technique, similar, say, to perspective, still to be
>> discovered in art?
>
>Maybe the question use of "the same importance as" rather than
>"similar to"
>
>I think that artists and designers would gain a lot of insight
>and creative tools if they learned to program. This is difficult
>given the complexity of modern operating systems...
>
>To this end I'm putting together a course which is at a very early
>stage (including the images produced) which hopes to teach programming
>as a tool for creating 2D images, "generative art". The whole aim
>of the course is to use programming as a *tool*, not for its own
>sake.
>
>(Currently most graphics programs are really only electronic paint
> brushes, powerful and dazzling, but you can only do what the
> programmer lets you.)
Just as a note, I have a bit of experience with Owen's "Glific 2" program.
It is a graphics generating program where the user has input over color,
form and interpretation of the image. It is great fun and I use it often.
Images created may be saved and I use them for everything from wallpaper for
my monitor (I frequently change my wallpaper, it's easier than moving around
the furniture), backgrounds for greeting cards, note paper, banners for
stationary and just to inspire my imagination.
I am interested in seeing how Owen's new project turns out as well as what
this thinking man will turn out next!
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Brendan
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9gtjks$7tv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Brendan <bren...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:tj4fnfh...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> > I think these were the hidden portraits of Bonnie Prince
> > Charlie.
> The one I was thinking of wasn't, but that is an
interesting idea - do
> you have any more info or leads on that?
Sorry to take so long to get back to you...
The painting that I was thinking about was the "Anamorphic"
painting of Charles Edward Stuart, which is in the West
Highland Museum in Fort William in Scotland. It consists of
a panel with a scene of what looks like abstract circles;
when a polished cylinder in placed in the middle circle, a
likeness of Bonnie Prince Charlie is seen in the reflection.
It was painted in the middle of the 18th century, and the
museum couldn't name the artist, though due to the nature of
the painting this isn't surprising. The Victorians made
copies of the paintings, the museum knowing of two others.
Donald Nicholas, in his collection, The Portraits of Bonnie
Prince Charlie, maintains that similar portraits of Charles
I also exist.
The museum will send you a postcard of the painting for 25
pence and an SAE.
The address is:
West Highland Museum,
Cameron Square
Fort William
Inverness-Shire
PH33 6AJ
HTH
Brendan.
Brendan
> The one I was thinking of wasn't, but that is an
interesting idea - do
> you have any more info or leads on that?
Further to my last message...
see:
http://www.princes-square.com/portraits.html
and
http://www.kellyhoule.com/artwork.htm
for examples.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:9gtjks$7tv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> > The one I was thinking of wasn't, but that is an
> interesting idea - do
> > you have any more info or leads on that?
>
> Further to my last message...
>
Geoff Berrow
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>> Further to my last message...
>>
>Thank you for all that!
Indeed. They are breathtaking, especially the Escher drawings.
--
Geoff Berrow
.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> West Highland Museum,
>
'The empty archway at the top of the escalator represents notable
Glaswegians in the future.'
I wondered a bit about the above comment - does it mean that they know
something about the future of Glasgow that the rest of us don't?
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:9gtjks$7tv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> > The one I was thinking of wasn't, but that is an
> interesting idea - do
> > you have any more info or leads on that?
>
> Further to my last message...
>
>
>
I particularly liked the hand holding the sphere - presumably part of
the trick is easier than with films, where filmmakers love showing
people looking in mirrors to show how clever they are in keeping the
film-crew out of the mirror!
Brendan
>
> Thank you for all that!
It was a pleasure. I have to admit that until I checked it
up, I thought that it was only applied to portraits of the
Stuarts: now I see that it was only an application of a well
known technique.
Brendan.
Bob & Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:18:49 -0500, Bob & Dale Ford
> >Aesthetics are very important to most but I am thinking art vs aesthetics.
>
> .whatever that means
You KNOW what that means.
BTW You should do some studies in aesthetics and aesthetic education. Very
fascinating stuff.
>
>
> >Some works of art are "written" in a language that unless a person has a
> >background in the arts they find the language to difficult to understand so
> >they move on to some thing easier and some then mock what they do not
> >understand.
>
> So tell us what's "written' in the language of say, Matisse. Rothko?
Two very different things.
Any way you just prove my point that those that do not understand will mock the
piece of work and refuse to learn or be touched by the piece because of the lack
of clearly recognizable subject matter.
>
>
> >Art needs to be more universal rather than elitist. But in saying that I
> >have no time for commercial type decorative art a la Kincade.
>
> Perhaps you just don't understand the "written language" of commercial
> art.
Perhaps I do and it has to do with marketing and little to do with pushing the
boundaries of art and furthering the lines of art history. Are you forgetting I
did a stint at college for graphic design?????
>
>
> > That work is
> >actually taking advantage of the sentimentality of people and hurting the
> >art market.
>
> Perhaps the art market should take a pain killer.
>
> >I take the stand that some art is real not artificial in the least. A
> >painting is just as real as the mountains. If it's goal is to communicate
> >and not deceive. That is also one reason why I work with a more shallow
> >space because my goal is not to trick but to provide insight. I want people
> >to always know that yes this is a painting.
>
>
> The usual babble.
See this is why people hide their art like Bosch because they have to fight with
close minded people. All I really want to do is paint, but putting up with crap
like this is why I haven't been in a gallery for ten years. How many others are
doing the same?????
Dale
PS It is so easy to destroy but difficult to create. You need to spend some more
time creating Mani.
>
> ...no skill no art
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
>
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/