aesthetics
Peter H.M. Brooks
it is quite so simple, but it does have a certain appeal. If it is true, I
wonder what extroverts liked before there was any abstract art:
"The great personality theorist Hans Eysenk did some work in this
area. He found that there were two categories in aesthetics
that could be measured, good taste and personal taste.
Good taste is things that almost everyone agrees on, and those
who dissagree with the majority can't agree with each other. An
example of this is colour harmony. Almost everyone agrees on which
colours go well together and which ones clash, while those people
who dissagree with the majority don't agree with each other on which colours
go well together. The same applies to balance. Eysenk created
a test to measure how good a person's taste is and then gave it
to art students - The better the student's score on the test the
higher his eventual mark in the course.
The other category in aesthetics is personal taste. This is all of
the things where there are more than one group of people who
agree with each other. For example, There is a group of people
(extroverts) who tend to prefer abstract art over figurative art,
while there is another group (introverts) who tend to prefer
figurative art over abstract art. And so on for other
personality characteristics. The point here is that introverts
all tend to agree that certain figurative paintings are better,
while extroverts all tend to agree with each other as well. So
there is no single standard, just a difference in taste depending
largely on one's personality.
So, things such as colour harmony, balance and
composition are a matter of good taste and the degree to which
you posess good taste can actually be measured.
Things such as figurative v. abstraction, emotional v. cool,
harmonious v. dissonance, on the other hand are a matter of
personal taste. Your personal preference mostly depends on
your personality.
"
Lance
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
See at the end of this message.
For what they are worth some remarks:
1. Taste is often something we acquire. Someone can start by not liking
(say) jazz, but work at it, and end up liking it. We can also change our
minds. A work that we thought beautiful when we were young may no longer
seem beautiful to us when we are old. This suggests greater malleability
both in "agreements" and in personalities than Hans Eysenk allows. Think of
Emily Dickinson's reaction when something formerly beautiful lost its
appeal:
It dropped so low -- in my regard --
I heard it hit the ground --
And go to pieces on the stones
At bottom of my mind --
2. The argument seems to be rather dependent on the existence of many
"genres" (to borrow a term from literary studies) of art so that different
personalities can choose the one that suits. But the simultaneous
availability of many genres of art is a very recent thing. How can he
explain artistic choices in a one genre world?
3. When a new form of art emerges (say impressionism) there are what you
might call "pioneers" who collect it and support it even when most others
are rejecting it. How does this relate to personality? Is their a pioneer
personality? And what about those who cling to an art form that others have
set aside?
4. One can admire different art works for different reasons. For example M C
Escher seems to me to offer wonderful embodiments of abstract ideas. But I
find his human figures and drawing style rather stiff and unaesthetic. Now I
can't recall Rembrandt ever offering the kind of mathematical pleasure that
M C Escher does, but his drawings and prints have a glorious spontaneity
entirely absent from Escher. And neither of these artists can offer the
experience of stillness - the unmoving centre of the turning wheel - that
one gets while viewing a Vermeer. Does this suggest Multiple Personality
Disorder?
5. In the end, works of art are liked for their particularity, their
uniqueness. Just because you like detective novels doesn't mean that you
will like every detective novel. And the one you think best is best because
of something unique, not because of its membership in a particular category.
Proust points out this error of synthesis when he writes,
"So it is that a well read man will at once begin to yawn with boredom when
one speaks to him of a new 'good book,' because he imagines a sort of
composite of all the good books that he has read, whereas a good book is
something special, something unforeseeable, and is made up not of the sum of
all previous masterpieces but of something which the most thorough
assimilation ... would not enable him to discover."
Lance
____________
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
news:bgheh5$3q2$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> See at the end of this message.
>
> For what they are worth some remarks:
>
>
> 1. Taste is often something we acquire. Someone can start by not liking
> (say) jazz, but work at it, and end up liking it. We can also change our
> minds. A work that we thought beautiful when we were young may no longer
> seem beautiful to us when we are old. This suggests greater malleability
> both in "agreements" and in personalities than Hans Eysenk allows. Think
of
> Emily Dickinson's reaction when something formerly beautiful lost its
> appeal:
>
I am learning to play the trumpet from a jazz trombonist. I love Dollar
Brand, but I have a lot more difficulty liking conventional jazz.
>
> It dropped so low -- in my regard --
> I heard it hit the ground --
> And go to pieces on the stones
> At bottom of my mind --
>
I have had that have disappeared like that. My memory may well be faulty -
indeed, I thought, as a child that, when I had money, I'd buy huge hoards of
mint humbugs, chocolates and suchlike, and my childish tastes were quite
gone when I could afford them - sadly as they would have been much cheaper
than adult tastes!
>
> 2. The argument seems to be rather dependent on the existence of many
> "genres" (to borrow a term from literary studies) of art so that different
> personalities can choose the one that suits. But the simultaneous
> availability of many genres of art is a very recent thing. How can he
> explain artistic choices in a one genre world?
>
> 3. When a new form of art emerges (say impressionism) there are what you
> might call "pioneers" who collect it and support it even when most others
> are rejecting it. How does this relate to personality? Is their a pioneer
> personality? And what about those who cling to an art form that others
have
> set aside?
>
as in literature, Ford Maddox Ford was an iconic figure in his time. I read
his famous 'The Good Soldier' and found it utterly dull and lacking in any
sort of redeeming quality. I suspect that it was because he was
fashionable - just like Walterh Scott, I battled with his tedious 'Rob Roy'
because I had found the character appealing, but he managed to make a good
story quite empty of delight. Apparently, I have read, that the Victorians
required a very long novel to keep away the tedium. J.M. Coetzee, on the
other hand, manages to get away with 'novels' that in previous generations
would have been lucky to have been accepted as short stories, let alone
novellas. So, to some extent it is a matter of fashion.
>
> 4. One can admire different art works for different reasons. For example M
C
> Escher seems to me to offer wonderful embodiments of abstract ideas. But I
> find his human figures and drawing style rather stiff and unaesthetic. Now
I
> can't recall Rembrandt ever offering the kind of mathematical pleasure
that
> M C Escher does, but his drawings and prints have a glorious spontaneity
> entirely absent from Escher. And neither of these artists can offer the
> experience of stillness - the unmoving centre of the turning wheel - that
> one gets while viewing a Vermeer. Does this suggest Multiple Personality
> Disorder?
>
have an Escher on the wall. Rembrandt's elephant and his rabbits are
drawings of a quite different order - delightful, precise (not loose, as you
suggest) and perfectly suitable for the wall above your desk - as
reproductions, of course. They don't give you a different universe, however.
I think that only an artist can really spend half an hour looking at a
Rembrandt drawing - Escher is more approachable to a non-artistic academic.
>
> 5. In the end, works of art are liked for their particularity, their
> uniqueness. Just because you like detective novels doesn't mean that you
> will like every detective novel. And the one you think best is best
because
> of something unique, not because of its membership in a particular
category.
> Proust points out this error of synthesis when he writes,
>
have indeed found it wearying to read more than a couple at a stretch.
However, after a decent interval, I'm quite happy to tuck into a novel of
hers that I haven't read.
>
> "So it is that a well read man will at once begin to yawn with boredom
when
> one speaks to him of a new 'good book,' because he imagines a sort of
> composite of all the good books that he has read, whereas a good book is
> something special, something unforeseeable, and is made up not of the sum
of
> all previous masterpieces but of something which the most thorough
> assimilation ... would not enable him to discover."
>
enjoyment of it. I may not be well read by the definition, and I'm happy to
accept that, but, if I ever were well read, I am certain that I'd still look
with delight at the possibility of another good book to read. Sadly really
good books are rare.
--
"We pride ourselves on our peace and stability" - Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Peter H.M. Brooks<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
True. I wonder, though, what it is that we like about jazz, when we like it.
I am learning to play the trumpet from a jazz trombonist. I love Dollar
Brand, but I have a lot more difficulty liking conventional jazz.
___________________
Reply:
A great deal of liking depends upon familiarity. Berlyne wrote quite
extensively on this idea. We tend to like what is a little different from
what we expect to hear. Too different and we reject it, to similar and it is
bland.
Lance
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Peter H.M. Brooks<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
Emily Dickinson's reaction when something formerly beautiful lost its
> appeal:
>
> It dropped so low -- in my regard --
> I heard it hit the ground --
> And go to pieces on the stones
> At bottom of my mind --
>
It's peculiar, though, isn't it. I can't recall any aesthetic delights that
I have had that have disappeared like that. My memory may well be faulty -
indeed, I thought, as a child that, when I had money, I'd buy huge hoards of
mint humbugs, chocolates and suchlike, and my childish tastes were quite
gone when I could afford them - sadly as they would have been much cheaper
than adult tastes!
>
________________
I think this is more common amongst practicing artists than among lay people. But certainly some forms of art - "chocolate box" type illustrations for example - often appeal to the young and then get fiercely rejected later in life.
Lance
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Peter H.M. Brooks<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> 3. When a new form of art emerges (say impressionism) there are what you
> might call "pioneers" who collect it and support it even when most others
> are rejecting it. How does this relate to personality? Is their a pioneer
> personality? And what about those who cling to an art form that others
have
> set aside?
>
Yes, there are pioneer personalities. There is also a deeper aesthetic. Just
as in literature, Ford Maddox Ford was an iconic figure in his time. I read
his famous 'The Good Soldier' and found it utterly dull and lacking in any
sort of redeeming quality. I suspect that it was because he was
fashionable - just like Walterh Scott, I battled with his tedious 'Rob Roy'
because I had found the character appealing, but he managed to make a good
story quite empty of delight. Apparently, I have read, that the Victorians
required a very long novel to keep away the tedium. J.M. Coetzee, on the
other hand, manages to get away with 'novels' that in previous generations
would have been lucky to have been accepted as short stories, let alone
novellas. So, to some extent it is a matter of fashion.
>
_____________
Reply:
Colin Martindale has written expensively on the "evolution" of art styles, and the relation between such evolution and psychological characteristics. For example he believes that it is much easier to make a contribution early in the development of a style, and not easy to do late in the development of a style. He draws quite extensively on Freud's distinction between primary and secondary processes when developing his theory.
Lance
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Peter H.M. Brooks<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> 4. One can admire different art works for different reasons. For example M
C
> Escher seems to me to offer wonderful embodiments of abstract ideas. But I
> find his human figures and drawing style rather stiff and unaesthetic. Now
I
> can't recall Rembrandt ever offering the kind of mathematical pleasure
that
> M C Escher does, but his drawings and prints have a glorious spontaneity
> entirely absent from Escher. And neither of these artists can offer the
> experience of stillness - the unmoving centre of the turning wheel - that
> one gets while viewing a Vermeer. Does this suggest Multiple Personality
> Disorder?
>
I am a great fan of Escher - it is interesting to not how many academics
have an Escher on the wall. Rembrandt's elephant and his rabbits are
drawings of a quite different order - delightful, precise (not loose, as you
suggest) and perfectly suitable for the wall above your desk - as
reproductions, of course. They don't give you a different universe, however.
I think that only an artist can really spend half an hour looking at a
Rembrandt drawing - Escher is more approachable to a non-artistic academic.
>
________________
Have a look a Rembrandt's brush drawings. I agree that they are precise - but they are also quick and spontaneous in an almost Zen fashion.
Lance
___________________________
> 5. In the end, works of art are liked for their particularity, their
> uniqueness. Just because you like detective novels doesn't mean that you
> will like every detective novel. And the one you think best is best
because
> of something unique, not because of its membership in a particular
category.
> Proust points out this error of synthesis when he writes,
>
True, up to a point. Agatha Christie produced many formulaic books and I
have indeed found it wearying to read more than a couple at a stretch.
However, after a decent interval, I'm quite happy to tuck into a novel of
hers that I haven't read.
_____________
Reply:
A formulaic book can't count as great art, I think. But I too have books I return to for comfort.
_________________
>
> "So it is that a well read man will at once begin to yawn with boredom
when
> one speaks to him of a new 'good book,' because he imagines a sort of
> composite of all the good books that he has read, whereas a good book is
> something special, something unforeseeable, and is made up not of the sum
of
> all previous masterpieces but of something which the most thorough
> assimilation ... would not enable him to discover."
>
Bullshit! I love to hear of a new good book - I relish the possible
enjoyment of it. I may not be well read by the definition, and I'm happy to
accept that, but, if I ever were well read, I am certain that I'd still look
with delight at the possibility of another good book to read. Sadly really
good books are rare.
_______________
Reply:
I think Proust is expressing an attitude of ennui very common at the time (think Oscar Wilde).
I think the idea of a good book not being a composite is correct.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lance Lachenicht" <Lache...@nu.ac.za> wrote in message
news:10601625...@osprey.und.ac.za...
New Zealand playgroup fellow mums reject cous-cous as strangely unfamiliar
stuff! Visual art, films (films even ten years old seem very slow in
comparison to the films of today), and novels. Though, fortunately, the
novel seems to have settled back into a more sensibly structured form.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Peter H.M. Brooks
enjoyed a visit to the Dali museum around five years ago, but it wasn't
quite such a wondrous delight.
It is just the fierce rejection that I'm not so sure about with aesthetics,
I see more of a slow disillusionment or ennui than a crashing to the ground
of former idols. Even with music, I find 'Peter and the Wolf' fairly simple
stuff, but I still enjoy it, though I wouldn't want to listen to it very
often.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> Colin Martindale has written expensively on the "evolution" of art styles,
and the relation between such evolution and psychological characteristics.
For example he believes that it is much easier to make a contribution early
in the development of a style, and not easy to do late in the development of
a style. He draws quite extensively on Freud's distinction between primary
and secondary processes when developing his theory.
>
for example) starts off with wide open boundaries, then, as these are filled
in, the work becomes tighter or, as in the case of cubism, everybody moves
onto something else as the field turns out to be smaller and easier to
explore than expected.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> _______________
> Reply:
> I think Proust is expressing an attitude of ennui very common at the time
(think Oscar Wilde).
>
--
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde
Steve Marshall
> >>> Peter H.M. Brooks<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> True. I wonder, though, what it is that we like about jazz, when we like
it.
> I am learning to play the trumpet from a jazz trombonist. I love Dollar
> Brand, but I have a lot more difficulty liking conventional jazz.
I think 'jazz' covers a mutitude of sins. There are too many types/ styles
to list here. Some of it indeed leads to the question, why would anyone
like that ? But the less avante garde is more acceptable. I think it is a
very personal thing and I often use art (painting) to illustrate the kind of
music. it is perhaps along similar lines that people like John Cage led the
music and perhaps art world into a sort of performance art which sometimes
has little to do with music, (to my mind at least).
But the majority of jazz isn't so. The general difference is that of swing
quavers. Where you have a set of quavers the first is played longer then the
first which gives that swinging rhythm. It is a bit similar to a heart beat
which is perhaps why it is attractive. This and much of jazz techniques can
be found in classical music however.
What kind of jazz do you like BTW ?
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Lance Lachenicht" <Lache...@nu.ac.za> wrote
> I am a great fan of Escher - it is interesting to not how many academics
> have an Escher on the wall. Rembrandt's elephant and his rabbits are
> drawings of a quite different order - delightful, precise (not loose, as
you
> suggest) and perfectly suitable for the wall above your desk - as
> reproductions, of course. They don't give you a different universe,
however.
> I think that only an artist can really spend half an hour looking at a
> Rembrandt drawing - Escher is more approachable to a non-artistic
academic.
> >
I think it is interesting to examine why someone would want an Escher on
their wall. I mean it doesn't really have the aesthetic appeal of a good
landscape. And people seem to be turning away from wanting or even liking
landscapes. Why go for the curious ? What does it say about the person that
wants to display such a drawing ?
Steve M
Jim Purdie
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:gjUYa.293$z7.6...@wards.force9.net...
emotions. To me he does have the aesthetic appeal of a good landscape. I
prefer the original landscape to a landscape painting, but Escher's
originals are in his mind.
Jim Purdie
Lance
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote:
> I think it is interesting to examine why someone would want an Escher on
> their wall. I mean it doesn't really have the aesthetic appeal of a good
> landscape. And people seem to be turning away from wanting or even liking
> landscapes. Why go for the curious ? What does it say about the person
that
> wants to display such a drawing ?
>
impossible figures), or surfaces that have only one side, or brilliant
representations of infinity.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
particular.
Peter H.M. Brooks
slightly more abstract pieces (mainly presents from artists) at home. I
thought his taste a little strange.
Steve Marshall
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote
> There is a fascination in such things as perpetual motion (throuhj
> impossible figures), or surfaces that have only one side, or brilliant
> representations of infinity.
>
Is the attraction like magic, where you try and work out how the trick is
done ? The particular line that makes the image seem impossible ?
In a way these images just show us that they are just drawings and are not a
proper image of reality. Is the joke then on us ?
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> >
> I am particularly keen on African Jazz - Dollar Brand (Abdullah Ibrahim)
in
> particular.
I don't know Dollar Brand but I do know Abdullah Ibrahim's work. Pretty good
from what I recall.
I remember when I worked in Nottingham we rented a piano to a jazz gig
featuring some South African guys with Chris McGregor on piano and a sax
player who may have been Dudu Pukwana. this was back in 1986 and they were
doing an antiapartheid concert. They were really nice guys who we chatted to
afterwards with the sax player playing piano in the background better than
the pianist. they played some great African jazz and I wish I could remember
what the band was called.
I do remember us mentioning they should come and look at one of our upright
pianos which were really good and the next day they turned up ! (People
usually didn't bother). there was half a dozen or more squeezed into an
estate car and a little Fiesta or something along with their instruments and
out they all piled.
We got Chris to play the upright and he jumped up shouting 'Nooooo! Youve
got another 6 foot hidden through the wall, haven't you?" He was convinced
it must be a grand.
Anyway, they were the nicest jazz guys I think I've met and they certainly
played some good stuff.
I like a range including
Chris Barber - trad jazz
Stan Getz - Not the bossa nova stuff, the ballads etc
Jan Garbarek - Norwegian sax player. Produces soundscapes - quite eerie !
That kind of thing plus some fusion and acid jazz. Each is quite different
and enjoyable in different ways.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > >
> > I am particularly keen on African Jazz - Dollar Brand (Abdullah Ibrahim)
> in
> > particular.
>
> I don't know Dollar Brand but I do know Abdullah Ibrahim's work. Pretty
good
> from what I recall.
>
muslim name about ten years ago, maybe a few more.
>
> I remember when I worked in Nottingham we rented a piano to a jazz gig
> featuring some South African guys with Chris McGregor on piano and a sax
> player who may have been Dudu Pukwana. this was back in 1986 and they were
> doing an antiapartheid concert. They were really nice guys who we chatted
to
> afterwards with the sax player playing piano in the background better than
> the pianist. they played some great African jazz and I wish I could
remember
> what the band was called.
> I do remember us mentioning they should come and look at one of our
upright
> pianos which were really good and the next day they turned up ! (People
> usually didn't bother). there was half a dozen or more squeezed into an
> estate car and a little Fiesta or something along with their instruments
and
> out they all piled.
> We got Chris to play the upright and he jumped up shouting 'Nooooo! Youve
> got another 6 foot hidden through the wall, haven't you?" He was convinced
> it must be a grand.
>
> Anyway, they were the nicest jazz guys I think I've met and they certainly
> played some good stuff.
>
>
> I like a range including
> Chris Barber - trad jazz
> Stan Getz - Not the bossa nova stuff, the ballads etc
> Jan Garbarek - Norwegian sax player. Produces soundscapes - quite eerie !
> That kind of thing plus some fusion and acid jazz. Each is quite different
> and enjoyable in different ways.
>
Lance
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote:
> In a way these images just show us that they are just drawings and are not
a
> proper image of reality. Is the joke then on us ?
>
Lance
Steve Marshall
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote
> Should art just be a mirror of nature?
>
Of course not, but the majority is a representation of it in some form. The
Escher pictures are quite different as they set out to challenge or distort
our view of nature. Or perhaps it displays through nature our flaws ? It is
us that are fooled by a drawing that seems to depict water flowing in
impossible directions, staircases that have no end etc. So what does putting
an Escher on your wall say ?
Steve M
Jim Purdie
That you enjoy the mental stimulation of experiencing an impossible world?
That you accept that the world is not so simple as many of the cliches
concerning it?
Jim Purdie
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Jim Purdie" <jimp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:avhZa.10381$9f7.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
Escher prints, a stark orderliness that some might find alien and
frightning, but others comforting.
--
'It's a trifle if twenty millions or so die.' - Lenin on the 1921 Soviet
famine, reported in is Obituary in The Times
Lance
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote:
I think you don't really have a clue what M.C. Escher is on about!
I remember as a child looking at an illustration in a child's Bible of Moses
crossing the Red Sea. The artist had depicted the water as held apart to
form a passage for Moses as if by invisible walls. Now clearly that is a
painting against nature - for it is plain that it could not happen without
some kind of divine force. Now consider Escher's perpetual motion waterfall:
There is nothing obviously "wrong" with the drawing - no point at which God
seems to have intervened. As your eye traces the flow of the water it always
seems to be going downhill, just as it does in nature. Yet it flows in a
perpetual cycle. So the painting of the Red Sea in the Children's Bible
merely depicts something impossible. Escher depicts something deeply
mysterious, and the mind is engaged in trying to unravel the mystery. Before
your eyes, and through no immediately apparent magic or divine intervention,
the impossible has been achieved.
He is not alone in engaging the mind this way. Durer, for example, also
depicted impossible figures, often held by some ancient philosopher, with
various platonic solids in the background. Escher was just much more
ingenious in the use he made of his fascination with these figures.
Escher not only shows drawings of "impossible" things, but also visual
depictions of concepts. Nowadays "conceptual art" is all the rage, yet I
have never seen any modern conceptual art that tried to depict "infinity" as
Escher did numerous times. In many ways Escher is much more a conceptual
artist than any of the modern pretenders. Or again think of how he explores
those mysterious curvaceous borders of vision - what we see from the corners
of our eye - to show us what the world would look like if we could really
see in 360 degrees. Another wonderful concept drawing is his depiction of
objects that have only one side. They are wonderfully illustrated with ants
crawling over them so that you can trace the path of the ant and see that
the ant covers every part of the surface (front and back) and yet never
crosses an edge to go to another side.
Escher was fascinated with "tiling" and space-filling patterns. Again he is
not alone in such a fascination - taking his inspiration from the Islamic
art of the 9th century. And again his ingenuity in using repeated tillings
far surpasses the ancient examples he studied. Think, for example, of the
wonderful angels and devils intricately locked together in an endless -
infinite - tiling pattern, each form creating in its "ground" the "figure"
of the other form. Visual intelligence of this kind has seldom been
equalled. And the eye of the beholder is delighted and enthralled as figure
and ground change places in a kind of eternal - infinitely repeated -
Manichean hymn.
Despite the wondrous visual intelligence of his prints, and the marvellous
visions he had in his dreams, Escher had limited ability to imagine the
little things of vision - like people or animals. Consequently he used his
frog paper weights, and his artist's manikin, and other objects given to him
and left on his desk, to create many of the people and animals and "things"
depicted in his visual exploration of ideas. This gives a kind of weird
oriental feel to some of the drawings, but also a stiffness and
unnaturalness to others. The artist manikins striding up and down his
multiply oriented staircases, for example, are all identical, all not quite
real, all rather stiff.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> >
> Despite the wondrous visual intelligence of his prints, and the marvellous
> visions he had in his dreams, Escher had limited ability to imagine the
> little things of vision - like people or animals. Consequently he used his
> frog paper weights, and his artist's manikin, and other objects given to
him
> and left on his desk, to create many of the people and animals and
"things"
> depicted in his visual exploration of ideas. This gives a kind of weird
> oriental feel to some of the drawings, but also a stiffness and
> unnaturalness to others. The artist manikins striding up and down his
> multiply oriented staircases, for example, are all identical, all not
quite
> real, all rather stiff.
>
good imaginations (or at least the part that can be used to imagine things
to draw) don't draw, so the problem doesn't arise for them.
Steve Marshall
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za>
> Despite the wondrous visual intelligence of his prints, and the marvellous
> visions he had in his dreams, Escher had limited ability to imagine the
> little things of vision - like people or animals. Consequently he used his
> frog paper weights, and his artist's manikin, and other objects given to
him
> and left on his desk, to create many of the people and animals and
"things"
> depicted in his visual exploration of ideas. This gives a kind of weird
> oriental feel to some of the drawings, but also a stiffness and
> unnaturalness to others. The artist manikins striding up and down his
> multiply oriented staircases, for example, are all identical, all not
quite
> real, all rather stiff.
So maybe his works are a demonstration to show that the world does not work
in a mechanical way ?
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote
> I think you don't really have a clue what M.C. Escher is on about!
I know his works and what he was doing. I'm trying to get you to explore
what our appreciation of such things says about us.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote
> I remember as a child looking at an illustration in a child's Bible of
Moses
> crossing the Red Sea. The artist had depicted the water as held apart to
> form a passage for Moses as if by invisible walls. Now clearly that is a
> painting against nature - for it is plain that it could not happen without
> some kind of divine force. Now consider Escher's perpetual motion
waterfall:
> There is nothing obviously "wrong" with the drawing - no point at which
God
> seems to have intervened.
Actually there is. You can spot it . The Escher depicts something that makes
our mind boggle - and apparently we are the only animal where this happens.
The pictures usually depict things from nature - such as the flow of water
but uses a trick to make it appear that something impossible is happening.
The fact is it is a trick and the thing connot occur as it is depicted.
(With the exception of those that have made some 3D obects, like the
impossible trianle. These can only be viewed from one angle though so the
flaw is a bit more obvious. ) You can spot the flaw. You can see the line
that is 'wrong'.
The real truth is that there is NOTHING wrong. It is a drawing. It is our
own senses and perseption that are bing fooled just as they are with any
(other) optical illusion.
So if you can't spot the flaw, it is you that is flawed !
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
What about the famous drawing of a hand drawing itself - a mechanical act, a
comment on drawing and a clever pointing to the recursive theme that the
tiling presents to us. I don't see how that could fit with that thesis.
Why would he wish to say that the world is not mechanical anyway?
--
"A contour line between two interlocking figures has a double function, and
the act of tracing such a line therefore presents a special difficulty. On
either side of it, a figure takes shape simultaneously. But, as the human
mind can't be busy with two things at the same moment, there must be a quick
and continuous jumping from one side to the other. The desire to overcome
this fascinating difficulty is perhaps the very reason for my continuing
activity in this field". - M C Escher 'Exploring the Infinite'
Lance
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote:
> The real truth is that there is NOTHING wrong. It is a drawing. It is our
> own senses and perseption that are bing fooled just as they are with any
> (other) optical illusion.
>
The strange thing is you can say the same thing about any representational
drawing.
Indeed you can say the same thing about a photograph.
See that picture of Steve Marshall? Fool, it is not Steve Marshall - it is a
photograph!
Indeed the same point applies to the bland landscapes you have been
recommending.
> So if you can't spot the flaw, it is you that is flawed !
>
Well we are creatures of flesh and blood, and we live within the limitations
of our anatomy and out brains. So what is new?
Lance
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote
> > So maybe his works are a demonstration to show that the world does not
> work
> > in a mechanical way ?
> >
> You've lost me there - how could they be that?
>
> What about the famous drawing of a hand drawing itself - a mechanical act,
a
> comment on drawing and a clever pointing to the recursive theme that the
> tiling presents to us. I don't see how that could fit with that thesis.
>
That is a mechanical process but it is an impossible scenario. It is an
impossible image showing a kind of mechanism that cannot work.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote
> The strange thing is you can say the same thing about any representational
> drawing.
> Indeed you can say the same thing about a photograph.
A drawing is more removed from reality. We can draw animals in clothing,
walking and talking and find it perfectly acceptable. There are all kinds
of images we find acceptable that are clearly worng and yet our mind doesn't
question it. With a photo it is a snap shot of what we see (almost ) so
there isn't much of a reason to question such an image. Escher shows us how
far we can stretch our perceptions. He draws clearly impossible imagary
which our brains try very hard to accept. We may realise some bits of the
image are wrong yet we can't always spot what actually is wrong. Often
people studying the water moving upwards, (for instance), fail to notice the
columns that are also impossibly placed. He deliberately tricks us in a way
that makes use of the way we trick ourselves into believing other images.
> Indeed the same point applies to the bland landscapes you have been
> recommending.
I didn't recommend any bland landscapes - or any other kind either !
> Well we are creatures of flesh and blood, and we live within the
limitations
> of our anatomy and out brains. So what is new?
We don't know what our limitations are. We think we can do things and don't
believe we are wrong until it is proven to us. A recent program took a tour
group to Loch Ness. Out of sight they pulled a post up out of the water for
a few seconds and then let it go back below the water. They asked the people
to draw what they saw and most drew something quite different to a post. You
see the brain kicks in and makes us think we see something we haven't
actually seen. Escher is making us do this. It isn't exactly a limitation so
much as an attribute, but one that we seemingly know little about. Escher
creates an illusion within an illusion. It takes us some time to figure out
that the water is running up hill. If you look you'll see it isn't. It goes
up hill - which is impossible !
What's new ? Not Escher. These kind of visual tricks have been known to us
for some time. there are all sorts of images such as that of a vase that
appears to be two faces. What might be new would be if you address the
issue I'm trying to raise which is why these visual conundrums appeal to us
so much. These things point out to us our limitations. Why is that appealing
?
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> Why would he wish to say that the world is not mechanical anyway?
I didn't say whether he was or wasn't. I'm posing questions to try and see
what you guys think about this topic in a more philosophical or
psychological way, but you just see to be avoiding the issue.
OK they're black and white images that appeal to the intellect. That's it !
Thanks guys.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
that works well at a number of different levels. At a metaphorical level it
says that we can't make ourselves, we can't draw our own story - at least
not completely. It, to me, invites, initially, an amused response for the
antics of the hand and then a consideration of what it might be, if it were
true. There are, of course, many such self-refereential conundra, sometimes
quite simple comic strips use self-referential jokes like that - a character
might converse with the person drawing or with somebody in the box next
door. Some might even see metaphysical points about creators and their
impossibility. I don't see that the explanation of what Escher is saying
lies at a single level, nor that he is simply saying one thing.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > Why would he wish to say that the world is not mechanical anyway?
>
>
> I didn't say whether he was or wasn't. I'm posing questions to try and see
> what you guys think about this topic in a more philosophical or
> psychological way, but you just see to be avoiding the issue.
>
might by saying about a mechanical world and why he might wish to say that.
When I have looked at the drawings in the past I have found that, unlike
simpler, more realistic, drawings they can reward inspection for some time.
They'd be the ideal material for a dentist's ceiling (now that they have us
lying down), or a doctor's waiting room (maybe not a psychiatrists!). The
drawing of the birds and powder horns in a cube, each face of which is an
arch in a different orientation - impossible, of course, since the horns
wouldn't hang down in each arch, nor the birds happily stand on a flat
surface - leads me to thinking about what sort of universe could be created
to satisfy the drawing (now, I suppose, I'd consider how you could move the
picture from a drawing to a virtual reality scenario). So, in this example,
I'd follow (in the same way as you'd do ray tracing of a lens in optics) a
trajectory of an imaginary person moving into one arch, through the centre
and out of another. This gives me a picture of the gravitational surface
that would have to be - naturally you'd need to be in a virtual reality as
such a field would tear you apart as you passed through the centre (or at
least give you a very nasty feeling).
The same exercise is interesting in the hall of the ascending and descending
stairs - what happens if one of the trudging mummies (for they look like
mummies with smoothed wrappings) took it upon himself to jump straight up,
or dive into the body of the hall.
Funny, really, that, to my knowledge, Escher didn't try any of that. I think
that a boatman on the circular river shooting a water pistol at his friend
on the other side might make the picture more intriguing.
The circular river also is the perfect place to construct a perpetual motion
machine that really works - at least in virtual reality - so, maybe, this
explains the desire for inventors to file patents for perpetual motion
machines, they have drawings that show them possible.
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> I certainly wasn't wishing to avoid any issues!
Sorry that should have been directed at Lance.
> I was puzzled as to what you
> might by saying about a mechanical world and why he might wish to say
that.
Well there are those that think that the world works in a mechanical way -
technocrats. It's been shown that this isn't the case. I was wondering if
there was any relationship between such arguments/ views and the works of
Escher which show mechanical systems that are impossible or don't work. the
perpetual motions in his drawings are not what occurs in our world.
> The same exercise is interesting in the hall of the ascending and
descending
> stairs - what happens if one of the trudging mummies (for they look like
> mummies with smoothed wrappings) took it upon himself to jump straight up,
> or dive into the body of the hall.
What mummies ? There are hooded monks on "Ascending and Descending".
The figures are key to the effect. The stair to the right are going downhill
at the wrogn angle. If the figures were real they would be standing at 90
degrees to their position.
Look at the corner of the tower - the stairway corner that is lowest down on
the page. The stairway going up to the left is at an angle which could be
correct. But the angle to the right is completely wrong. To go downhill it
should be about 60 degrees from what it is. Take a line from the upright !
The stairs to the right are going up hill and the architectural feature on
the outside wall helps add to the impress they go the other way. This
feature is too going in the opposite direction. It is going uphill.
It is essentially the same trick used on the Waterfall. From the waterfall
itself the water appears to flow downhill but infact the angle is wrong and
the water is going up hill. If the water flowed downhill you should be able
to see it at all.
> Funny, really, that, to my knowledge, Escher didn't try any of that.
I think Escher was just exploiting a fascinating technique. What I was
asking about was what it said about people that wanted to put such images on
their wall. What did it say about them. Also why it is that we are so
intrigued by such false images ?
> The circular river also is the perfect place to construct a perpetual
motion
> machine that really works - at least in virtual reality - so, maybe, this
> explains the desire for inventors to file patents for perpetual motion
> machines, they have drawings that show them possible.
Just how long does a machine have to go for it to be a perpetual motion
device ? In the past it might have been a week or maybe a month. I don't
think that would count now as we have things that can easily keep going for
that amount of time. Do we now have to show that the machine doesn't drain
energy or something ? What is the criteria ?
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
downhill
> at the wrogn angle. If the figures were real they would be standing at 90
> degrees to their position.
> Look at the corner of the tower - the stairway corner that is lowest down
on
> the page. The stairway going up to the left is at an angle which could be
> correct. But the angle to the right is completely wrong. To go downhill it
> should be about 60 degrees from what it is. Take a line from the upright !
> The stairs to the right are going up hill and the architectural feature on
> the outside wall helps add to the impress they go the other way. This
> feature is too going in the opposite direction. It is going uphill.
>
imagine it as a virtual place and see it moving and consider what would
happen if a person, or bird, in the place did something.
>
>
> > Funny, really, that, to my knowledge, Escher didn't try any of that.
>
> I think Escher was just exploiting a fascinating technique. What I was
> asking about was what it said about people that wanted to put such images
on
> their wall. What did it say about them. Also why it is that we are so
> intrigued by such false images ?
>
imagine what such a place would be like if it weren't an optical illusion,
but another universee - or a specially set up set with artificial gravity
(hence virtual reality).
>
> > The circular river also is the perfect place to construct a perpetual
> motion
> > machine that really works - at least in virtual reality - so, maybe,
this
> > explains the desire for inventors to file patents for perpetual motion
> > machines, they have drawings that show them possible.
>
> Just how long does a machine have to go for it to be a perpetual motion
> device ? In the past it might have been a week or maybe a month. I don't
> think that would count now as we have things that can easily keep going
for
> that amount of time. Do we now have to show that the machine doesn't drain
> energy or something ? What is the criteria ?
>
possible.
What is not possible is a perpetual motion machine. The difference is that a
machine does work.
Inventors, of a particularly optimistic persuasion, realise that, if there
is no friction, perpetual motion is possible [just consider Newton's Law of
motion], then they make the next tempting, but mistaken, step and think,
'what if I could tap this perpetual motion and get energy from it?'. Sadly
in this sense there is no free lunch.
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Steve Marshall<s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote:
> I certainly wasn't wishing to avoid any issues!
Sorry that should have been directed at Lance.
______________
Reply:
I thought I gave a reasonable account of why people like looking at Escher prints.
_____________________
S Marshall writes:
I think Escher was just exploiting a fascinating technique. What I was
asking about was what it said about people that wanted to put such images on
their wall. What did it say about them. Also why it is that we are so
intrigued by such false images ?
________________
An image surely can't be either false or true. (Only sentences or
propositions can be false or true).
If you mean that images can produce illusions then all representational art
partakes in that property. After all, that was the big excitement about
the discovery perspective, and the like.
What odes your enjoyment of art say about you? Why would you want
an Escher print on your wall?
I'm not sure there are any easy answers to this question. People get
many different things from looking at a work of art - even if it is only to
think 'Now that will appreciate in value!" The various pictures on my walls
have not come from any single motive. Some were inherited from various
parts of the family, some were gifts, some were created by myself or
other family members, and a few were bought. Some I like, some other
people in the house like, some just fill in a space on the wall. I'm not sure
that you could discover anything terribly interesting about me just from
seeing the selection of pictures in my home...
Lance
Malcolm
> "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:gjUYa.293$z7.6...@wards.force9.net...
> >
> > "Lance Lachenicht" <Lache...@nu.ac.za> wrote
> >
> > > I am a great fan of Escher - it is interesting to not how many academics
> > > have an Escher on the wall. Rembrandt's elephant and his rabbits are
> > > drawings of a quite different order - delightful, precise (not loose, as
> you
> > > suggest) and perfectly suitable for the wall above your desk - as
> > > reproductions, of course. They don't give you a different universe,
> however.
> > > I think that only an artist can really spend half an hour looking at a
> > > Rembrandt drawing - Escher is more approachable to a non-artistic
> academic.
> > > >
> >
> > I think it is interesting to examine why someone would want an Escher on
> > their wall. I mean it doesn't really have the aesthetic appeal of a good
> > landscape. And people seem to be turning away from wanting or even liking
> > landscapes. Why go for the curious ? What does it say about the person
> that
> > wants to display such a drawing ?
> >
> My bother had Escher's on the wall at work, but had realistic and some
> slightly more abstract pieces (mainly presents from artists) at home. I
> thought his taste a little strange.
Your 'bother' :-) Nice Freudian slip. In this humorous mood, i'd like
to point out that much of Escher's work is interesting because it is
amusing. Why do people like humour so much? Does it have any genetic
basis? If a hunter-gatherer threw a spear at an antelope shaped tree
then the tribe is likely to roll about laughing. He would have done a
stupid thing but instead of him and the tribe feeling sad about it
they would laugh & feel happy. This happiness might result in the
immune system being boosted. They would also remember it and not do it
again (as the perpetrator felt silly as well as, hopefully, laughing
at himself). If this kind of non-catastrophic error was looked at
sadly that would be one sad tribe (given that humans are major klutzes
at the best of times). Your probably laughing at this theory, get
flaming!
Peter Ashby
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote:
> The real truth is that there is NOTHING wrong. It is a drawing. It is our
> own senses and perseption that are bing fooled just as they are with any
> (other) optical illusion.
>
> So if you can't spot the flaw, it is you that is flawed !
>
I vividly remember being in the Louvre in Paris and looking at Monet's
picture of the woman in a garden. From close you can see it as a rather
blurred collection of coloured dots, but step gradually back and there
is a precise point where the picture 'snaps' into focus and you can see
it clearly. I didn't need to know theories of how he had extreme short
sightedness to feel the wonder of this fusion of art and my biology. I
get exactly the same sense of wonder with Escher's art, but with the
added interest of an intellectual puzzle.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> Yes, that's true - rather than working out the trick, though, I try to
> imagine it as a virtual place and see it moving and consider what would
> happen if a person, or bird, in the place did something.
Answer A. It might spoil the illusion a bit as some of the images are
twisted round so the different bits can join up.
Answer B. It'll turn into a frog of the opposite colour.
> I suspect, to some extent, people do what I have been suggesting, and try
to
> imagine what such a place would be like if it weren't an optical illusion,
> but another universee - or a specially set up set with artificial gravity
> (hence virtual reality).
So is the appeal then that it can be considered a doorway into another realm
?
> You can have something that goes on for ever - that is perpetual motion is
> possible.
Such as ? The natural order of things is to change from one state to
another.
>
> What is not possible is a perpetual motion machine. The difference is that
a
> machine does work.
A machine needs to remain in the same state, but things naturally alter.
> Inventors, of a particularly optimistic persuasion, realise that, if there
> is no friction, perpetual motion is possible [just consider Newton's Law
of
> motion], then they make the next tempting, but mistaken, step and think,
> 'what if I could tap this perpetual motion and get energy from it?'. Sadly
> in this sense there is no free lunch.
Does a PM machine have to have proper mechanical moving parts then ? My
digital watch chugs away for years, but then it doesn't have to contend with
driving a wheel round .
Steve M
"Time is an illusion. Lunch-time doubly so !" - Douglas Adams
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > Yes, that's true - rather than working out the trick, though, I try to
> > imagine it as a virtual place and see it moving and consider what would
> > happen if a person, or bird, in the place did something.
>
> Answer A. It might spoil the illusion a bit as some of the images are
> twisted round so the different bits can join up.
>
after all, this is a case where simple experiment is possible. I just need
to print off a few copies of the relevant drawing and then interpolate
various changes to see how it effects the overall impression.
>
> Answer B. It'll turn into a frog of the opposite colour.
>
>
> > I suspect, to some extent, people do what I have been suggesting, and
try
> to
> > imagine what such a place would be like if it weren't an optical
illusion,
> > but another universee - or a specially set up set with artificial
gravity
> > (hence virtual reality).
>
> So is the appeal then that it can be considered a doorway into another
realm
> ?
>
>
> > You can have something that goes on for ever - that is perpetual motion
is
> > possible.
>
> Such as ? The natural order of things is to change from one state to
> another.
>
with uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.
> >
> > What is not possible is a perpetual motion machine. The difference is
that
> a
> > machine does work.
>
> A machine needs to remain in the same state, but things naturally alter.
>
>
> > Inventors, of a particularly optimistic persuasion, realise that, if
there
> > is no friction, perpetual motion is possible [just consider Newton's Law
> of
> > motion], then they make the next tempting, but mistaken, step and think,
> > 'what if I could tap this perpetual motion and get energy from it?'.
Sadly
> > in this sense there is no free lunch.
>
> Does a PM machine have to have proper mechanical moving parts then ? My
> digital watch chugs away for years, but then it doesn't have to contend
with
> driving a wheel round .
>
have to have moving parts, the idea of a computer that worked forever
without any power source would also be a perpetual motion machine.
--
Only very sophisticated organisms like philosophers fail to be naive
realists! - David H.M. Brooks How to Solve the Hard Problem: A Predictable
Inexplicability 1999
Malcolm
As you can never watch a machine forever you could never know if you
had a perpetual motion machine. If the universe is expaning forever
wouldn't the machine stop when entropy goes to a minimum (then again
guess it could be powered by quantunm fluctuations). If the universe
collapses wouldn't the machine be broken by being sucked into the
singularity?
Then again, who cares. Excessive metaphysical speculation is bad for
you (I'm still in recovery).
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Peter Ashby<p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> The real truth is that there is NOTHING wrong. It is a drawing. It is our
> own senses and perseption that are bing fooled just as they are with any
> (other) optical illusion.
>
> So if you can't spot the flaw, it is you that is flawed !
>
I vividly remember being in the Louvre in Paris and looking at Monet's
picture of the woman in a garden. From close you can see it as a rather
blurred collection of coloured dots, but step gradually back and there
is a precise point where the picture 'snaps' into focus and you can see
it clearly. I didn't need to know theories of how he had extreme short
sightedness to feel the wonder of this fusion of art and my biology. I
get exactly the same sense of wonder with Escher's art, but with the
added interest of an intellectual puzzle.
Peter
__________________
Reply:
Nice example. Lance
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> > Answer B. It'll turn into a frog of the opposite colour.
> >
> I wasn't suggesting it for the tilings!
Ah, I thought that was quite funny. Then again, maybe that sort of thing is
how a universe would work. You've got to fit those extra planes in
somewhere, so a bit of changing state midflight may work !
> > Such as ? The natural order of things is to change from one state to
> > another.
> >
> No, it isn't. Newton pointed out that a body will remain at rest or
continue
> with uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.
But if it sits there long enough it will rot, rust, breakdown or go mouldy.
It will not stay them same. Nothing does ! That was a law of motion.
> Perpetual doesn't mean 'for a long time', it means forever. No, it
wouldn't
> have to have moving parts, the idea of a computer that worked forever
> without any power source would also be a perpetual motion machine.
When it was first introduced I don't think they meant forever. It meant a
few weeks or so. I read some stuff about this years ago. There was some sort
of rogue that went round embezzling funds from various rich people before
being found out to be a bit of a con man, where upon he had to flee to find
his next place. He did have some plans for a big wheel that he said was a PM
machine but he was killed by some angry chap before completing the machine
or explaining it. I can't remember all the details but the machine was
supposed to have run for quite some time and been the best attempt at a PM
machine. It was one of those curious tales you never know if there is any
fact in there or if it is completely fictitious. Very fascinating though.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > > Answer B. It'll turn into a frog of the opposite colour.
> > >
> > I wasn't suggesting it for the tilings!
>
> Ah, I thought that was quite funny. Then again, maybe that sort of thing
is
> how a universe would work. You've got to fit those extra planes in
> somewhere, so a bit of changing state midflight may work !
>
>
>
> > > Such as ? The natural order of things is to change from one state to
> > > another.
> > >
> > No, it isn't. Newton pointed out that a body will remain at rest or
> continue
> > with uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.
>
> But if it sits there long enough it will rot, rust, breakdown or go
mouldy.
> It will not stay them same. Nothing does ! That was a law of motion.
>
earth's gravity wasn't a factor - so, no rust or mould either.
>
> > Perpetual doesn't mean 'for a long time', it means forever. No, it
> wouldn't
> > have to have moving parts, the idea of a computer that worked forever
> > without any power source would also be a perpetual motion machine.
>
>
> When it was first introduced I don't think they meant forever. It meant a
> few weeks or so. I read some stuff about this years ago. There was some
sort
> of rogue that went round embezzling funds from various rich people before
> being found out to be a bit of a con man, where upon he had to flee to
find
> his next place. He did have some plans for a big wheel that he said was a
PM
> machine but he was killed by some angry chap before completing the machine
> or explaining it. I can't remember all the details but the machine was
> supposed to have run for quite some time and been the best attempt at a PM
> machine. It was one of those curious tales you never know if there is any
> fact in there or if it is completely fictitious. Very fascinating though.
>
one. It's along with selling London Bridge to Texans as a standard scam.
--
Men don't pay you to sleep with them. They pay you to go home - Philip Roth
'The Human Stain' pg 236