System Of Observation
TechnoCrate
to her. Besides: I like a little experiment with this NG and I have to
make my "Akallabeth" comeback.
Art happens in terms of the perceptual system. Certainly there's also
the "physical signature" (swing of the arm, violent strokes, etc.) but
it still remains an expression in perceptual terms since the signature
is also perceived and understood (the perceptual system is very good
at perceiving these kind of things and works closely together with the
body).
The terms of the perceptual system, concerning its visual part, are
lines, curves, shapes and their encompassing non-accidental shape
properties, color, brightness, spatial relations, all kinds of
relations, the groupings which are caused by the relations,etc. There
are some heuristics involved, some innate parts, some parts that
inevitably are formed due to the whole, etc (a complete survey takes a
book and I always want to keep things verbose ;-)
One of the major problems of an artist is to understand his
observation (I can smell a flame war by now ;-). The problem is that
an observation reveals itself to us at a conceptual level and that
these concepts don't directly explain themselves to us. Note that
concepts are NOT linguistical (and Chomsky is obsolete). Words,
however, do appeal to most of them just like everything else.
For example: We observe the following "Before us stands Brother
Alphabet". Certainly it would take hardly any effort to recognize the
Brother if we would have seen him before. We have the feeling that we
completely and sharply observe him before us. We are ofcourse
mistaken, for the mental representation which we actually see are
constellations of high level concepts, completely useless for drawing
his face (these mental representations fool us constantly but they are
not the real thing which we take them for, why does one need to
carefully count the stripes of the tiger if one states that he can
clearly see the tiger).
In order to draw his face we need to formalize those things that made
us recognize him, translating to movement one could argue. Our initial
observation done by the perceptual system which triggered
constellations of concepts (descriptions upon descriptions which
result in "The Brother") is quite useless because it doesn't explain
itself (we can't backtrack directly, the perceptual system made us
survive better but is awkward for art).
Children's scribblings are fine examples of how the art system starts
to work. The head is a _circle_ , the eyes are _dots_ located _within_
that circle and are _on_ the same _line_. The head is _above_ and
_attached to_ the body which is round as well and the limbs are
_lines_ which are attached to the body in a _symmetrical_ way. Two
_underneath_ and two _on the sides_.
This is an early scheme which tries to explain how recognition works
by utilizing the perceptual primitives and since the scheme ,which is
executed in the artwork, works closely with the memory it will look to
the child that the picture is pretty good (ofcourse it isn't!).
A complication is the following: we can focus on details (we're mostly
aware of what falls at the fovea) but have problems with getting the
bigger picture. A lot of us use the "grid method" or mirrors in order
to get the big picture right (or projectors which are even neater in
conjunction with a computer). We often don't see what's wrong with the
big picture because we only see the details and the rest is filled in
by the memory of the observation on which the artwork is based.
Flipping a picture upside down quickly gets rid of this "superimposed"
memory image.
Furthermore ,since our perceptual system is aided by the conceptual
one: this can result in generalized pictures (normalized viewpoint,
symmetry, etc.). In the worst case we draw every head in exactly the
same way, much like very young children do (although they quickly
introduce striking discriminating details like "long black hair" for
instance). There are distinct parts in the brain which deal with
categorical (the head is round) and individual (Brother's head has a
dent in it) features.
Worst of all: our fovea is notoriously bad at spotting brightness
differences (but squeezing the eyelids helps) for shadow/ light
patterns are extremely important for facial recognition (the "bar
code" of the face).
We can quite successfully focus on: lines and curves, shapes, color,
etcetera. But we have trouble with global features like light/ shadow
distributions, distances and angles between shapes, using negative
space, etc. And yet, these trouble spots are equally easily used by
the perceptual system for the recognition which we try to explain,
they are just less accessible to us with our attention to the fovea.
An artist's observational skills could be measured by the success at
which he is able to "get" the harder parts. These harder parts which
are often neglected without knowing, since our memory fills them in
and our scrutinizing fovea is unable to see them.
But we can hardly call squeezing eyes, using grids, turning pictures
upside down and de-objectifying (flat vision to get all the forms
which result in shapes) a system of observation. These are mere tricks
which aid us.
Our system of observation needs to satisfy the question _what_ exactly
makes us have the particular sensation caused by an observation.*What*
is it that makes me feel like I do when I observe that?
Art starts with observation. Trying to formalize the observation to
its core will be the source of the actual artwork. There's a lot of
trial and error involved as we all know since we can't exactly put the
finger on why something is beautifull (or ugly, or whatever). We need
to try out different approaches: is it the conelike shape? is it the
texture? the color? the relation between the two curves? what is the
relation anyway? Note how the questions are directed at properties
which are "primitives" of the visual system, not high level concepts.
Finding answers is all about asking the right questions.
I believe knowledge of the visual system (and it's one of the best
known parts of the brain by now) gives the artist the same advantage
as anatomy. It's an aid. Art making involves asking yourself
questions. We know that something is beautiful (conveyed by that
impenetrable perceptual system) but if we want to use this kind of
beauty in artwork then we need to ask ourselves questions about why we
think that something is beautiful. Knowledge about the visual system
helps one to ask the right questions.
Ofcourse there's more to art than just the observation, the making of
art is an integral part and while you're making it, you'll observe it,
resulting in new ideas. There should be an intimate feedback between
the idea and the implementation of it.
Okay, thus far my drivel for now. My statement (which is completely
obfuscated by the heap of text above) is that artists should have a
working knowledge about the visual system in order to aid them in
explaining their observations (which also encompass the accompanying
sensations ofcourse). Understanding one's own observation provides
frameworks for art.
Peter Nelson
TechnoCrate wrote in message <3742bbf8...@news.euronet.nl>...
>In order to draw his face we need to formalize those things that made
>us recognize him, translating to movement one could argue. Our initial
>observation done by the perceptual system which triggered
>constellations of concepts (descriptions upon descriptions which
>result in "The Brother") is quite useless because it doesn't explain
>itself (we can't backtrack directly, the perceptual system made us
>survive better but is awkward for art).
Keep in mind that only a few of us on this NG even bother
trying to paint what we see. Many (most?) of the artists
here celebrate totally nonrepresentational forms of art where
they're not trying to paint what they see.
>Our system of observation needs to satisfy the question _what_ exactly
>makes us have the particular sensation caused by an observation.*What*
>is it that makes me feel like I do when I observe that?
Okay. Although a corollary question for any artist who intends to
display/show/sell his work to others is, "What is it that makes
*someone* feel like they do when they observe that?" Or, (again,
for the artist who intends others to understand his work) at
least the assumption that *others* respond to the same things
as the artist. Sometimes when I'm drawing or painting something
I think, "*I* know what this is, but will someone else looking at
this understand it?" And then sometimes I change it to make it
more clear or obvious.
>Okay, thus far my drivel for now. My statement (which is completely
>obfuscated by the heap of text above) is that artists should have a
>working knowledge about the visual system in order to aid them in
>explaining their observations (which also encompass the accompanying
>sensations ofcourse). Understanding one's own observation provides
>frameworks for art.
I can't argue with that.
---peter
May Flowers
>Okay, thus far my drivel for now. My statement (which is completely
>obfuscated by the heap of text above) is that artists should have a
>working knowledge about the visual system in order to aid them in
>explaining their observations (which also encompass the accompanying
>sensations ofcourse). Understanding one's own observation provides
>frameworks for art.
Does any of what you said have anything to do
with 'eye-hand coordination?'
Erik A. Mattila
I have no argument with this, only some supportive observations.
TechnoCrate wrote:
> Okay, Alison urged me to start a thread of my own so you can complain
> to her. Besides: I like a little experiment with this NG and I have to
> make my "Akallabeth" comeback.
Akallabeth? Sounds interesting....
> Art happens in terms of the perceptual system. Certainly there's also
> the "physical signature" (swing of the arm, violent strokes, etc.) but
> it still remains an expression in perceptual terms since the signature
> is also perceived and understood (the perceptual system is very good
> at perceiving these kind of things and works closely together with the
> body).
I'm glad you defined 'physical signature.' I kept reading "sig" on this
ng. and thought it was like signing your name. The older term was
something like 'personal style.'
> The terms of the perceptual system, concerning its visual part, are
> lines, curves, shapes and their encompassing non-accidental shape
> properties, color, brightness, spatial relations, all kinds of
> relations, the groupings which are caused by the relations,etc. There
> are some heuristics involved, some innate parts, some parts that
> inevitably are formed due to the whole, etc (a complete survey takes a
> book and I always want to keep things verbose ;-)
>
> One of the major problems of an artist is to understand his
> observation (I can smell a flame war by now ;-). The problem is that
> an observation reveals itself to us at a conceptual level and that
> these concepts don't directly explain themselves to us. Note that
> concepts are NOT linguistical (and Chomsky is obsolete). Words,
> however, do appeal to most of them just like everything else.
In my own experience I have encountered problems such as a form that I
wanted to draw but couldn't. I just wasn't seeing it right. I think
artists often encounter this. But if there is any flame war about this,
it would be over the idea that 'seeing' is a learned experience.
Overcoming the obstacle I've just cited required unlearning the way I saw
the object, and relearning 'seeing' from the ground-up. I've found this
to be very difficult. What is confronted is a tremendous bias.
> For example: We observe the following "Before us stands Brother
> Alphabet". Certainly it would take hardly any effort to recognize the
> Brother if we would have seen him before. We have the feeling that we
> completely and sharply observe him before us. We are ofcourse
> mistaken, for the mental representation which we actually see are
> constellations of high level concepts, completely useless for drawing
> his face (these mental representations fool us constantly but they are
> not the real thing which we take them for, why does one need to
> carefully count the stripes of the tiger if one states that he can
> clearly see the tiger).
Hilary Putnam used the example of the 'tiger' to illustrate his ideas on
the stereotype. His argument was that the popular notion of the
stereotype being a simplism, low-brow reduction was incorrect, but rather
it was simply language economy (and here we should stretch our idea of
language to include the visual). In that sense the presence of a large
cat with stripes is all that is necessary to 'clearly see the tiger,'
although from the perspective of a wildlife artist, who is participating
in a system of authenticity by virtue od declaring her/himself a wildlife
artist, careful counting is mandatory.
Personally I've had a lot of fun painting still lifes in which I explored
the 'minimum standard' of visual communication. Originally, since I've
always found representations of textiles to be empathic, I spent a lot of
time calculating the logic of folds and the distortions of patterns as
they flowed around the folds and creases. Ultimately I began to
understand that when one 'sees' such a representation, the very act of
seeing is quite abrubt, and only analytical to the extent of our average
everyday habit of seeing. We see very sloppily, I think - hardly with
the precision that may want to decide if an artist was successful in
transfering the visual phenomenology of a dishtowl thrown on a table to a
"T." So I began to create an alphebet of abbreviations, which were
reductions that were aimed at the minimum standard, so to speak. It was
very successful. In some ways the 'hinted' renditions were more
realistic than the heavily contrived ones.
> In order to draw his face we need to formalize those things that made
> us recognize him, translating to movement one could argue. Our initial
> observation done by the perceptual system which triggered
> constellations of concepts (descriptions upon descriptions which
> result in "The Brother") is quite useless because it doesn't explain
> itself (we can't backtrack directly, the perceptual system made us
> survive better but is awkward for art).
Something that impressed me greatly was reading about anthropologists
taking Poloroids of Papauan faces, and the Papauan's were unable to
recognixe the photos as a representation of their faces. However, once
they were told that it was a picture of their face, they learned to see
it as such. But the price they paid was heavy: after learning to see
their faces, they could not 'unlearn' the lesson, so they never again
could see a photograph as an arangement of values and colors on a white
leaf. It's somehow sad -- Paradise lost?
> Children's scribblings are fine examples of how the art system starts
> to work. The head is a _circle_ , the eyes are _dots_ located _within_
> that circle and are _on_ the same _line_. The head is _above_ and
> _attached to_ the body which is round as well and the limbs are
> _lines_ which are attached to the body in a _symmetrical_ way. Two
> _underneath_ and two _on the sides_.
>
> This is an early scheme which tries to explain how recognition works
> by utilizing the perceptual primitives and since the scheme ,which is
> executed in the artwork, works closely with the memory it will look to
> the child that the picture is pretty good (ofcourse it isn't!).
Oops. Be careful, Crate. This lessens your other statements about
British art -- not that you specified art crit and theory. What I'm
reading here is a restatment of Gombrich's 'schemata' from "Art and
Illusion.' (not to say thay you could not arrive at this indeplendantly
or from other sources). The addendum to this is the Italian Art
Historian Morelli's discovery. He discovered he could authenticate a
painting by studying how a particular artist handled the subtle and
insignificant aspects of the painting. The curve that was drawn to
represent a nostril or an earlobe, how finger nails were drawn, etc.
Here he found the artist's signature. The consequence of his discovery
was large, in that it became provable that many of the most importan art
collections in Europe around 1920 were full of forgeries.
> A complication is the following: we can focus on details (we're mostly
> aware of what falls at the fovea) but have problems with getting the
> bigger picture. A lot of us use the "grid method" or mirrors in order
> to get the big picture right (or projectors which are even neater in
> conjunction with a computer). We often don't see what's wrong with the
> big picture because we only see the details and the rest is filled in
> by the memory of the observation on which the artwork is based.
> Flipping a picture upside down quickly gets rid of this "superimposed"
> memory image.
I would like to hear more about computers in conjunction with projectors
- you've caught my curiosity here. In fact, since you like verbosity, I
think I would like to hear more about what you are saying in this
paragraph. It's not quite clear to me what you mean by the 'big
picture.'
But you know, the human body is always offered as the aesthetic standard,
i.e. the relation of the parts to the whole. I've been intrigured by how
selective the representation of the body is in western art (or any art,
for that matter). Do this. Hold your arm out before you, palm up, in
such a way that you can look down your arm. Bend your hand back so that
you can only see your thumb and little finger. What you will see is some
sort of an extraterrestrial alien crab-claw like sturcture that looks, at
least in my mind, quite ugly. I've looked at representations of the
human numbering in the tens of thousands, I'm sure, in the past 45 years,
and I've never seen this view represented. How many other views of the
body could be discovered that are absolutely ugly, irrational, etc.? At
any rate. that's what I would add to your observations -- that not only
do we over focus on detail in relation to the the visual field, but we
operate within a definable range of possibilities -- which somehow bear
on your question "what's wrong with the big picture'.
> Furthermore ,since our perceptual system is aided by the conceptual
> one: this can result in generalized pictures (normalized viewpoint,
> symmetry, etc.). In the worst case we draw every head in exactly the
> same way, much like very young children do (although they quickly
> introduce striking discriminating details like "long black hair" for
> instance). There are distinct parts in the brain which deal with
> categorical (the head is round) and individual (Brother's head has a
> dent in it) features.
You're opening the doors on the subject of the 'ideology of seeing.'
Personally, I can abide by that. We get trained to draw a circle, as
schemata, to render a human head, yet the human head isn't circular at
all. Proficiency in drawing, especially life drawing, often becomes a
simple matter of unlearning what we orignially were taught. The
remarkable thing is that a circle can always 'stand for' for a head -- in
art, advertising, cartoons etc. How interesting.
> Worst of all: our fovea is notoriously bad at spotting brightness
> differences (but squeezing the eyelids helps) for shadow/ light
> patterns are extremely important for facial recognition (the "bar
> code" of the face).
I don't know that term 'fovea.' I'm getting some contextual
understanding, however. But you seem to be getting into an area where
theory will actually have an impact. Color field theory, for example.
Learning this provides some sort of empowerment for an artist, I
believe. It's unfortunate that so many believe that theory has no
practical use. At any rate, my response to what you are saying is that a
purely intellectual involvement with the theoretical issues of vision,
even light physics, will empower an artist greatly. The discernment of
values is a skill that can be obtained with practice, I think, since we
do have the physiological appuratus to distinguish x number of value
gradations ( I can't remember the number, but scientists have figured out
how fine our seive is). There's even a number of colors that the average
human eye can distinguish, and I forget that number also (I remember that
it's in the thousands). What's really interesting is that most human
beings don't use all their equipment. I believe that the reason for this
is that 'seeing' is a learned experience, involving all sorts of filters,
and that few people ever arrive at a circumstance in their lives that
makes it profitable to stretch their power of vision. In my life, the
only place I've ever encountered that wanted to 'teach' seeing was in the
military. Isn't that remarkable. But modern soldiers are provided a
very sophisticated course in seeing. It's almost absurd. Why doesn't
the Department of Motor Vehicles offer drivers courses in seeing. (by the
way, for you anti-military folks out there, when Buckminster Fuller was
asked what his most valuable educational experience was, he answered that
it was his training as a Navel officer).
> We can quite successfully focus on: lines and curves, shapes, color,
> etcetera. But we have trouble with global features like light/ shadow
> distributions, distances and angles between shapes, using negative
> space, etc. And yet, these trouble spots are equally easily used by
> the perceptual system for the recognition which we try to explain,
> they are just less accessible to us with our attention to the fovea.
>
> An artist's observational skills could be measured by the success at
> which he is able to "get" the harder parts. These harder parts which
> are often neglected without knowing, since our memory fills them in
> and our scrutinizing fovea is unable to see them.
>
> But we can hardly call squeezing eyes, using grids, turning pictures
> upside down and de-objectifying (flat vision to get all the forms
> which result in shapes) a system of observation. These are mere tricks
> which aid us.
Why not? I've used the pin-hole I could make by rollling my index finger
into a tight ball to get a fresh view of thing for years. You can
squeeze tighter and distorte the field of vision into all sorts of
wonderful distortions. But you're right, these are tricks. The real
achievement is to understand the ideology of vision, and push the
envelope from there.
> Our system of observation needs to satisfy the question _what_ exactly
> makes us have the particular sensation caused by an observation.*What*
> is it that makes me feel like I do when I observe that?
Here you are jumping off the cliff, I think. It's one thing to talk
about vision from a physiological or idelological perspective, but now
you are delving into 'meaning.'
I also believe that you would have to deal with a lot of diversity to
encapsulate the reaction of visual stimulai that humans experience. Let
me give you a personal example. I have a particular empathic reaction --
it is a kind of standard physiological response that I have to certain
visual situations. If I see a child fall down on her/his knees, I
experience a feeling in my arms. The stimulation affects the nerves on
the inside of my arms, most pronounced around the elbows. It is a
tingling -- a feeling that exists somewhere between pleasure and pain (I
mean to say that it is not a pleasurable experience, but at the same time
it is not painful.) Whatever is happening here, it is always about
others injuring their knees. I think the clinical nomnative for this
kind of empathic reaction would be 'pathological.' But what is says is
that the human sensorium is a bi-directional affair. I mean, our five
senses can react to signals from the world, travel through our nervous
systems to our brain, there to be processed into a symbolic form which
ultimately translates as apprehension. But this process can reverse --
i.e. the original stimulus can come from the brain, and travel through
the nervous system to produce the proxy of sensory stimulation. The
grand example of this reversal is the hallucination. I don't mean an
illusion, but a full hallucination where the subject cannot distinguish
between a mental creation and something from the world. The empathic
reaction that I have experienced is somewhere in between.
With this in mind, the possible sensations caused by a work of art, or
any other visual stimuli, can resemble the situation I described above.
I concur with you 100% Another issue that I would like to add is that of
the human lens. The difference between human vision and that of a camera
is dramatic. Interestingly, in art, what stood for photorealism, or just
'realism', was a field of vision in which the total was in sharp focus
(see the French Academy for this). Then along came the philosophy of
French Naturalism, and a response in the artistic community was
Impressionism. How does that work. The impressionists created this
fuzzyness that flew in the face of the sharp focus school. All you have
to do to understand this is to go out doors and try your eyes out. If
you get analytical enough, you'll discover that the depth of field of the
human eye is rediculously short, but it is compensated for my a
remarkably rapid focus mechanism. So if you peer at the world up close,
then mid ground, then far vistas, you'll see that your eye focuses so
rapididly to the new distance that you are barely aware of it. But if
you intellectually discipline yourself to look at the roses in the vase,
and become aware of the background without focusing on it, you will have
recreated a Pisarro. Great fun.
Erik Mattila
TechnoCrate
<plne...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>TechnoCrate wrote in message <3742bbf8...@news.euronet.nl>...
>
>>In order to draw his face we need to formalize those things that made
>>us recognize him, translating to movement one could argue. Our initial
>>observation done by the perceptual system which triggered
>>constellations of concepts (descriptions upon descriptions which
>>result in "The Brother") is quite useless because it doesn't explain
>>itself (we can't backtrack directly, the perceptual system made us
>>survive better but is awkward for art).
>
>Keep in mind that only a few of us on this NG even bother
>trying to paint what we see. Many (most?) of the artists
>here celebrate totally nonrepresentational forms of art where
>they're not trying to paint what they see.
>
>
Yes, but the mere use of forms and lines alone already is a
manifestation of the perceptual system. It might be used in such a
fashion that it doesn't denotate anything in the "real world" (the
world is real ofcourse but we have a certain innate way of perceiving
it). But it still is the works of perception which is used to observe.
IMHO real abstract art should be the result of investigations in one's
own observations. A lot of the old abstract painters used to make
realistic art and eventually "boiled it down" to abstract work by
studying what they were actually seeing in the scenes they wanted to
depict.
Picasso said something along these lines: "Artist should always study
nature but shouldn't mistake a painting for nature". After all: in
nature there are no shapes, lines, etc. It is our perceptual system
which "discovers" them. Investigating how these discoveries affect us
(understanding our observations) is IMHO of paramount significance in
the process of creating art. Real abstract artists (well, I can try
;-) understand the terms of observations and use them to create art.
Ofcourse problems arise when others (probably looking at the huge
income of abstract painters) look at abstract work and think some
triangles and wild brushstrokes are all there is to abstract art. They
will no longer work after nature but after a painting. Often their
work lack depth because they don't realize that real abstract work
makes us recognize our observations of nature.
"Photo realistic" painters don't understand their own work if they
slavishly copy what they observe as beautiful. They merely make a
snapshot (which does take skill and time) while denying the
discoveries of perception that raised beauty in the first place. Not
even the eye itself works as a photocamera.
Ofcourse one could argue to work from imagination but imagination
itself finds its roots in observation. People born with color
blindness don't have a clue about the nature of color and can't work
with it, they can't even imagine it. Real creation in a godlike manner
is beyond us.
If art could be really non representational than what good could it
be?
>>Our system of observation needs to satisfy the question _what_ exactly
>>makes us have the particular sensation caused by an observation.*What*
>>is it that makes me feel like I do when I observe that?
>
>Okay. Although a corollary question for any artist who intends to
>display/show/sell his work to others is, "What is it that makes
>*someone* feel like they do when they observe that?" Or, (again,
>for the artist who intends others to understand his work) at
>least the assumption that *others* respond to the same things
>as the artist. Sometimes when I'm drawing or painting something
>I think, "*I* know what this is, but will someone else looking at
>this understand it?" And then sometimes I change it to make it
>more clear or obvious.
>
Personally I believe that an artist shouldn't be concerned too much
with how his (I'm doing it again, why doesn't nobody notice? ;-) art
is perceived by others. It's already hard enough to formalize one's
own sense of beauty, it's sheer impossible to do it for others. But
there are similarities between people (in core: biological ones, to
cultural ones and in the end the unique personal ones).
Ofcourse we also exaggerate to focus on certain features which is good
since it shows that one knows which features are more important (he
said while working on a woman whose breasts are twice the size of her
head ;-).
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com
"Peter Nelson" <plne...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> TechnoCrate wrote in message <3742bbf8...@news.euronet.nl>...
>In order to draw his face we need to formalize
those things that made
>us recognize him, (snip)
>PN Keep in mind that only a few of us on this NG even bother
trying to paint what we see. Many (most?) of the
artists
here celebrate totally nonrepresentational forms of
art where
they're not trying to paint what they see.
lauri: You never look at your canvas then? They paint what they see
until they see it.
(snip)
>Okay, thus far my drivel for now. My statement
(which is completely
>obfuscated by the heap of text above) is that
artists should have a
>working knowledge about the visual system in order
to aid them in
>explaining their observations (which also encompass
the accompanying
>sensations ofcourse). Understanding one's own
observation provides
>frameworks for art.
I can't argue with that.
---peter
lauri:
To see something is not a reconstruction of sensations. The other way
round;
we perceive *meanings* - hate, fear and safety mainly, and exclude all
that is not
relevant. We have the ability to deconstruct different elements
intellectiually, if we
work on it.
F.ex we see very little of perspective. Most of the time the vertical
perspective is
invisible. Look at cartoons, how little the illusion of space is created
by perspective.
You never see an outline.
We do not see colours, only relations of colours. There is no brown in
the spectrum.
A Chinese rule for portrait was that spend a day or two with the
subject, then go home and paint him/her.
About portraits, by the way. Have you noticed that relatives see the
differencies "She has her farthers nose, Uncle Fred's upper lip
and aunt Zelda's ears", while stranges notice similarities "she is just
a copy of her mother, you can't mistake".
If art is for you communication, telling to others what you see,
then study the means of visual language. Evade visual explanations like
symbols, forms
and shapes.
- lauri
--
lauri....@nokia.com //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
TechnoCrate
wrote:
>In article <3742bbf8...@news.euronet.nl>, usu...@euronet.nl says...
>
>>Okay, thus far my drivel for now. My statement (which is completely
>>obfuscated by the heap of text above) is that artists should have a
>>working knowledge about the visual system in order to aid them in
>>explaining their observations (which also encompass the accompanying
>>sensations ofcourse). Understanding one's own observation provides
>>frameworks for art.
>
>Does any of what you said have anything to do
>with 'eye-hand coordination?'
It wasn't intended to but I did mention that one could argue that art
making is translating observations (both within and exterior) into
movement.
I did bypass it almost completely (to keep things verbose) but it does
take a lot of effort of our brain to have muscular movement associated
with shape (the two are after all completely different).
We don't really notice this and don't think of it as much of an
achievement but both the visual cortex, motor cortex and cerebellum
are used to implement this. And they make up more than three quarters
of our brain. That's probably why it comes so easy to us.
We like to think arithmetic is an achievement but only because we have
a hard time doing it (our brains are quite unsuitable to perform real
calculations like these and both the visual cortex and linguistical
centre need to make them while they're not really made for it). A
computer has ofcourse no hard time at all to perform calculations ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Okay, Alison urged me to start a thread of my own so you can complain
>to her. Besides: I like a little experiment with this NG and I have to
>make my "Akallabeth" comeback.
Damn - a really decent post to get stuck into just as I have a
revolution to fight here in London ! The property developers are about
to swallow up our studios ... have to go fight/chain ourselves to the
rails/devise a business plan that will make them want to keep us here !
I'll be back ... hold off on the complaints for now.
a beerortwo
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
May Flowers
plne...@mediaone.net says...
>Keep in mind that only a few of us on this NG even bother
>trying to paint what we see. Many (most?) of the artists
>here celebrate totally nonrepresentational forms of art where
>they're not trying to paint what they see.
Who took THAT poll? and when? Did I miss something?
Your reference source please!
Marilyn
snip
The problem with the post being your use of the word 'art'
when you actually were referring to your version of
'drawing/painting.' Your system would not apply to all
the visual arts, nor the performing arts.
be more pacific, would you!
M.
TechnoCrate
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>> For example: We observe the following "Before us stands Brother
>> Alphabet". Certainly it would take hardly any effort to recognize the
>> Brother if we would have seen him before. We have the feeling that we
>> completely and sharply observe him before us. We are ofcourse
>> mistaken, for the mental representation which we actually see are
>> constellations of high level concepts, completely useless for drawing
>> his face (these mental representations fool us constantly but they are
>> not the real thing which we take them for, why does one need to
>> carefully count the stripes of the tiger if one states that he can
>> clearly see the tiger).
>
>Hilary Putnam used the example of the 'tiger' to illustrate his ideas on
>the stereotype. His argument was that the popular notion of the
>stereotype being a simplism, low-brow reduction was incorrect, but rather
>it was simply language economy (and here we should stretch our idea of
>language to include the visual). In that sense the presence of a large
>cat with stripes is all that is necessary to 'clearly see the tiger,'
>although from the perspective of a wildlife artist, who is participating
>in a system of authenticity by virtue od declaring her/himself a wildlife
>artist, careful counting is mandatory.
>
Ah, thanks. I didn't remember anymore where the tiger came from
although I often use it for the fine example it is. I discovered its
validity when I seriously began drawing the likeness in faces. We have
no problem recognizing faces but we realize we actually don't see the
face if we want to draw it.
>Personally I've had a lot of fun painting still lifes in which I explored
>the 'minimum standard' of visual communication. Originally, since I've
>always found representations of textiles to be empathic, I spent a lot of
>time calculating the logic of folds and the distortions of patterns as
>they flowed around the folds and creases. Ultimately I began to
>understand that when one 'sees' such a representation, the very act of
>seeing is quite abrubt, and only analytical to the extent of our average
>everyday habit of seeing. We see very sloppily, I think - hardly with
>the precision that may want to decide if an artist was successful in
>transfering the visual phenomenology of a dishtowl thrown on a table to a
>"T." So I began to create an alphebet of abbreviations, which were
>reductions that were aimed at the minimum standard, so to speak. It was
>very successful. In some ways the 'hinted' renditions were more
>realistic than the heavily contrived ones.
>
Quite excellent. Texture is often called the signal property of shape
and plays a big role in recognition (the skin of an orange for example
is enough to recognize the orange). Unfortunately, although there are
brain areas which are devoted to texture, there is still little known
about this. Shapes and distribution certainly play a big role but we
also get our cues from the way a surface reacts to light: are there
sharp contrasts in light/shadow, what is the shape of the light areas,
how is the color and brightness transition from light to dark? etc.
Certainly you're doing a good job of understanding your observations
by grading it down to its minimum. At a minimum we do this by making
those quick sketches but, as you point out, there's a lot more to it.
This way it's also easier to understand what it is what makes
something beautiful. The "alphabet" is an excellent tool for making
art and it's always growing. I believe this alphabet is a main
contributor to an artist's style.
>> In order to draw his face we need to formalize those things that made
>> us recognize him, translating to movement one could argue. Our initial
>> observation done by the perceptual system which triggered
>> constellations of concepts (descriptions upon descriptions which
>> result in "The Brother") is quite useless because it doesn't explain
>> itself (we can't backtrack directly, the perceptual system made us
>> survive better but is awkward for art).
>
>Something that impressed me greatly was reading about anthropologists
>taking Poloroids of Papauan faces, and the Papauan's were unable to
>recognixe the photos as a representation of their faces. However, once
>they were told that it was a picture of their face, they learned to see
>it as such. But the price they paid was heavy: after learning to see
>their faces, they could not 'unlearn' the lesson, so they never again
>could see a photograph as an arangement of values and colors on a white
>leaf. It's somehow sad -- Paradise lost?
>
This is a very interesting example. If you think about it, it's
actually not so straightforward at all to recognize oneself from a
photo since a photo leaves out quite a big deal of other cues we
normally see (or smell, hear, touch, taste). The unlearning you write
about I've touched later on in my article by "de-objectifying". Surely
I should have giving it more attention, it's quite important in order
to use our eyes instead of our memory to observe. Our eyes (and the
first passes of the visual system) don't see humans at all, they see
forms (not even shape for this involves the additional and largely
learned apparatus of depth perception) and a limited number of other
properties.
It takes effort to see what the eyes see instead of what our
conceptual system makes from it. A good use of "negative space" is
already a start in this respect.
>> Children's scribblings are fine examples of how the art system starts
>> to work. The head is a _circle_ , the eyes are _dots_ located _within_
>> that circle and are _on_ the same _line_. The head is _above_ and
>> _attached to_ the body which is round as well and the limbs are
>> _lines_ which are attached to the body in a _symmetrical_ way. Two
>> _underneath_ and two _on the sides_.
>>
>> This is an early scheme which tries to explain how recognition works
>> by utilizing the perceptual primitives and since the scheme ,which is
>> executed in the artwork, works closely with the memory it will look to
>> the child that the picture is pretty good (ofcourse it isn't!).
>
>Oops. Be careful, Crate. This lessens your other statements about
>British art -- not that you specified art crit and theory. What I'm
>reading here is a restatment of Gombrich's 'schemata' from "Art and
>Illusion.' (not to say thay you could not arrive at this indeplendantly
>or from other sources). The addendum to this is the Italian Art
>Historian Morelli's discovery. He discovered he could authenticate a
>painting by studying how a particular artist handled the subtle and
>insignificant aspects of the painting. The curve that was drawn to
>represent a nostril or an earlobe, how finger nails were drawn, etc.
>Here he found the artist's signature. The consequence of his discovery
>was large, in that it became provable that many of the most importan art
>collections in Europe around 1920 were full of forgeries.
>
Hehe, well I've read Willat's "Art and Representation" and Kosslyn's
"Image and Brain" before I picked up Gombrich but since "Art and
Illusion" is way older than the two I guess Gombrich should get the
prize ;-) I've read quite some stuff about visual perception but I
believe that's a good thing since the only thing I got to
independantly was the notion that there are properties that account
for the basic shapes and that basic shapes are not the primitives
themselves, the properties should be. Later on I read that this was in
fact the case and that the properties (so called non-accidental shape
properties) are in fact largely viewpoint independant which
tremendously improves recognition (I didn't think of that part of the
properties, but neither did David Marr ;-)
IOW it's a good thing there are books and forums like these since
there's very little a single person could find out for him or herself
(I wonder if I ever would have though of the wheel ;-).
Concerning your example of the forgeries: apart from the alphabet you
already mentioned there's ofcourse also the physical signature caused
by how the body of the artist works. This too adds up to style. I've
taken up to train my lefthand (I can write with both now but the
righthand remains the better, as a small child I used to be
lefthanded) since there are certain things that are easier to do with
left than with right. Furthermore: I've the vague notion that having
them working at the same time aids a kind of physical symmetry. I've
to make it fluently yet but for now it looks very cool (the action
itself) and it might just make my stuff harder to forge if anyone
would bother ;-)
>> A complication is the following: we can focus on details (we're mostly
>> aware of what falls at the fovea) but have problems with getting the
>> bigger picture. A lot of us use the "grid method" or mirrors in order
>> to get the big picture right (or projectors which are even neater in
>> conjunction with a computer). We often don't see what's wrong with the
>> big picture because we only see the details and the rest is filled in
>> by the memory of the observation on which the artwork is based.
>> Flipping a picture upside down quickly gets rid of this "superimposed"
>> memory image.
>
>I would like to hear more about computers in conjunction with projectors
>- you've caught my curiosity here. In fact, since you like verbosity, I
>think I would like to hear more about what you are saying in this
>paragraph. It's not quite clear to me what you mean by the 'big
>picture.'
>
For some pieces I'm overly concerned with size and location of certain
objects in the composition and how they relate to each other. This
results in cut out pieces of sketches which I shuffle around on the
canvas. It's quite an awkward way but it would be worse if you start
shuffling in the process of painting itself. Making lots of sketches
until one strikes you particularly and transfer them onto the canvas
by the grid method is much used as well.
A LCD projector which can be connected to the computer is a great
solution. The shuffling and resizing can be done in a graphics
program. Such programs offer great facilities which are hard to do by
hand. Changing color at one click is one such a facility but changing
sizes and angles are done very easily while it takes a total "remake"
if you would do such a thing on the canvas.The objects which you
manipulate by the program can be sketches which are scanned in. After
all: the feel of the mouse is quite lousy compared to the brush of
pencil. I don't think a computer is good for making pictures but
excellent for manipulating them (perhaps tinman thinks otherwise).
Now, the projector can project this computer image onto the canvas and
you already get a feel whether you're on the right track. If you're
quite satisfied with it then you can trace it over (even easier than
the grid method) and it will serve as the framework of your painting.
Although it's only the framework, the framework is already quite hard
to cope with.
It's ofcourse not so that you slavishly copy the projection. It's only
a nifty aid just like the sketch is, only niftier ;-) The feedback one
experiences when doing the actual painting is still very important.
This feedback adds the final touch to the whole. I'm saving up my
money now to buy a good projector coz they are awfully expensive
(5-10,000 dollars is normal for good ones) although you can also rent
them.
Concerning the global picture:
IMHO there are two problems with the big picture: we are very
sensitive (in terms of being aware of) to details but not to larger
features (like how does the head relate to the feet?). Secondly: we
are also not aware of larger scaled transitions of color and
brightness (actually: even on a small scale we have trouble with
brightness because the locus of our attention is on the fovea where
there is mostly,if not only, color perception).
I have to add that grouping (the Gestallt law of common faith etc.)
however is perceived quite quickly and that bigger basic shapes, even
if they are incorporated by an arrangement of multiple objects, are
perceived quite easily. But then again: basic shapes are recognized by
non-accidental properties which are details (as a matter of fact: you
can get rid of the bulk of lines in a line drawing and still get away
with it as long as you preserve these properties).
We often fail to see directly what a big object like a human body
features as a whole (a typical curve from head, neck, back, leg, to
heel for example which happens to captures the character of the whole
stature). Although we are not directly aware of such a global feature,
it does influence our perception without us knowing it. Painters
always shift back and forth to look at their painting from a distance
(and a mirror can make this distance even bigger without need for
stepping back 20 yards or so). They do so to make the big small in
their eyes.
Our troublesome appreciation of global features can be worked around
and in fact one can use it in a composition. For example: how about a
painting of a field of flowers? The onlookers see the flowers and yet
they feel there's something with the painting. Our creative painter
has carefully manipulated the brightness of the flowers so that a
picture within a picture was made. The global brightness picture could
be some violent scene and although the onlooker feels somewhat
uncomfortable looking at the field, he only sees flowers (until he
steps back and squeezes his eyes, then the underlying picture will be
visible).
>But you know, the human body is always offered as the aesthetic standard,
>i.e. the relation of the parts to the whole. I've been intrigured by how
>selective the representation of the body is in western art (or any art,
>for that matter). Do this. Hold your arm out before you, palm up, in
>such a way that you can look down your arm. Bend your hand back so that
>you can only see your thumb and little finger. What you will see is some
>sort of an extraterrestrial alien crab-claw like sturcture that looks, at
>least in my mind, quite ugly. I've looked at representations of the
>human numbering in the tens of thousands, I'm sure, in the past 45 years,
>and I've never seen this view represented. How many other views of the
>body could be discovered that are absolutely ugly, irrational, etc.? At
>any rate. that's what I would add to your observations -- that not only
>do we over focus on detail in relation to the the visual field, but we
>operate within a definable range of possibilities -- which somehow bear
>on your question "what's wrong with the big picture'.
>
Very good point. Rene Magritte offered us little news when he made his
"Ceci n'est pas un pipe". We are aware that we are looking at a
painting and we want our expectations to be satisfied about how
something should be represented. We know that the alien crab-claw like
structure is our hand and we don't question that, for it is. A
painting of our hand however should encompass that what we expect our
hand to be.
Furthermore: a painting offers us only the cues it's able to do (form,
lines, dots and color). There's no depth, no different viewpoints, no
movement (also very important, we can even distinguish between a man
and a woman even if we only see the lights on their ankles, wrists and
neck while they're moving in the darkness), etcetera.
Luckily: you can also turn it around. The human body is very flexible
and within certain aesthetic standards (the ones you make yourself)
you can have parts of the body encompass big shapes.
>> Worst of all: our fovea is notoriously bad at spotting brightness
>> differences (but squeezing the eyelids helps) for shadow/ light
>> patterns are extremely important for facial recognition (the "bar
>> code" of the face).
>
>I don't know that term 'fovea.' I'm getting some contextual
>understanding, however.
The fovea is the most sensitive and fine grained part of the retina.
It is the center of the visual field. Mostly cones (the color
receptors of the eye) are here and hardly any rods (luminance
receptors, although they react the best to yellowish green light which
therefor seems to us as the brightest of all colors). It does about 5
degrees in the visual field (if you stick up your thumb on a stretched
arm then your thumbnail is about the area which is covered by the
fovea at that distance).
There's quite a lot to know about the eye itself and it explains many
phenomena like "ghost images", our color perception, our insensitivity
to larger scaled transitions of color and brightness, etc.
> But you seem to be getting into an area where
>theory will actually have an impact. Color field theory, for example.
>Learning this provides some sort of empowerment for an artist, I
>believe. It's unfortunate that so many believe that theory has no
>practical use. At any rate, my response to what you are saying is that a
>purely intellectual involvement with the theoretical issues of vision,
>even light physics, will empower an artist greatly. The discernment of
>values is a skill that can be obtained with practice, I think, since we
>do have the physiological appuratus to distinguish x number of value
>gradations ( I can't remember the number, but scientists have figured out
>how fine our seive is). There's even a number of colors that the average
>human eye can distinguish, and I forget that number also (I remember that
>it's in the thousands).
It's about 16 million but our perception of colors doesn't work in a
lineair way. Some colors might differ as much as 20 nanometers before
we see they're actually different and other colors are perceived as
different when they are as near as 2 nanometers. Brightness plays a
big role in color matching as well, as neural fatigue, etc.
Concerning the physics of light in the context of human vision I could
advise "Color Science 2nd edition" by Wyszecki and Stiles but I have
to warn that this is absolutely the dullest book I've ever read (it's
still the "bible" however).
> What's really interesting is that most human
>beings don't use all their equipment. I believe that the reason for this
>is that 'seeing' is a learned experience, involving all sorts of filters,
>and that few people ever arrive at a circumstance in their lives that
>makes it profitable to stretch their power of vision. In my life, the
>only place I've ever encountered that wanted to 'teach' seeing was in the
>military. Isn't that remarkable. But modern soldiers are provided a
>very sophisticated course in seeing. It's almost absurd. Why doesn't
>the Department of Motor Vehicles offer drivers courses in seeing. (by the
>way, for you anti-military folks out there, when Buckminster Fuller was
>asked what his most valuable educational experience was, he answered that
>it was his training as a Navel officer).
>
Yes, there's a lot of heuristics involved in vision (but based on
innate parts ofcourse). Knowledge of this can be used in art. Lineair
perspective is a very well known system we learned to use for depth
perception. You already gave the example of the Papauans which shows
there is something like a cultural part to vision. Therefor art is
also an expression of culture.
>> Our system of observation needs to satisfy the question _what_ exactly
>> makes us have the particular sensation caused by an observation.*What*
>> is it that makes me feel like I do when I observe that?
>
>Here you are jumping off the cliff, I think. It's one thing to talk
>about vision from a physiological or idelological perspective, but now
>you are delving into 'meaning.'
>
Hehe, I'm an agnostic. Meaning has very little meaning to me.
What I mean is this: we are affected by perception. We think of
something as beautifull, ugly, we feel angry or sad about something we
see, etc. We react to what we see.
The affective mechanisms rely on the perceptual system. What I meant
was that we know that something is beautifull if we see it but that we
need to investigate the observation in terms of the perceptual system
to discover the "nuts and bolts" of the stimulus upon which we reacted
with a sense of beauty.
Thus: not an investigation into the nature of beauty but an
investigation into what caused that sense
For (simplified) example: one could find out that he thinks of certain
women as beautifull because of their round curves. Having this
knowledge enables him to make beautifull women by executing them with
the round curves.
Ofcourse beauty is always extremely specific. That what makes a marble
beautifull might not necessarily make a woman beautifull.
>I also believe that you would have to deal with a lot of diversity to
>encapsulate the reaction of visual stimulai that humans experience. Let
>me give you a personal example. I have a particular empathic reaction --
>it is a kind of standard physiological response that I have to certain
>visual situations. If I see a child fall down on her/his knees, I
>experience a feeling in my arms. The stimulation affects the nerves on
>the inside of my arms, most pronounced around the elbows. It is a
>tingling -- a feeling that exists somewhere between pleasure and pain (I
>mean to say that it is not a pleasurable experience, but at the same time
>it is not painful.) Whatever is happening here, it is always about
>others injuring their knees. I think the clinical nomnative for this
>kind of empathic reaction would be 'pathological.' But what is says is
>that the human sensorium is a bi-directional affair. I mean, our five
>senses can react to signals from the world, travel through our nervous
>systems to our brain, there to be processed into a symbolic form which
>ultimately translates as apprehension. But this process can reverse --
>i.e. the original stimulus can come from the brain, and travel through
>the nervous system to produce the proxy of sensory stimulation. The
>grand example of this reversal is the hallucination. I don't mean an
>illusion, but a full hallucination where the subject cannot distinguish
>between a mental creation and something from the world. The empathic
>reaction that I have experienced is somewhere in between.
>
You're quite right. Perception works bi directional and there are many
advantages to this. For the visual system they're outlined in
Kosslyn's "Image and Brain". Experiments in the 70s showed that a
human detached from any sensory stimuli will experience hallucinations
as real as life itself. The brain enhances perception by altering its
sources (the V1 area of the visual cortex is a happy target for this).
It even looks like that the experience of us having a body is an image
or mental representation as well. Ofcourse, the body is real but the
experience is generated. People with missing parts sometimes suffer
from phantom parts (the notorious rash or pain in a no longer existing
leg etc.). These parts can still be generated as an image by the brain
and they even change by motion (which is senseless ofcourse coz the
parts no longer exist). That guy from India whose name eludes me at
the moment wrote an interesting book about his experience with such
patients. BTW "with image of the body" I ofcourse don't refer to a
visual phenomenon. Our body has a lot of additional sensory which
informs our brain about the state of our body.
>With this in mind, the possible sensations caused by a work of art, or
>any other visual stimuli, can resemble the situation I described above.
>
This certainly is true. We always strive to capture it and hopefully
onlookers will react in a similar manner but in order to communicate
such a thing we need to empathize with the onlooker. Here we will have
a use for high level concepts since these are largely shared amongst
the members of a culture.
There is a lot of debate in whether the artist should only focus on
himself (looklook I'm doing it again! why doesn't nobody notice?) or
also take the onlooker into account. You already mentioned this
problem earlier in this post. Art is also conveying ideas and
feelings.
Gee, talking 'bout verbose! ;-)
TechnoCrate
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <3742bbf8...@news.euronet.nl>, TechnoCrate
><usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>>Okay, Alison urged me to start a thread of my own so you can complain
>>to her. Besides: I like a little experiment with this NG and I have to
>>make my "Akallabeth" comeback.
>
>Damn - a really decent post to get stuck into just as I have a
>revolution to fight here in London ! The property developers are about
>to swallow up our studios ... have to go fight/chain ourselves to the
>rails/devise a business plan that will make them want to keep us here !
>I'll be back ... hold off on the complaints for now.
>
Amazing, I saw a documentary on the television about it. Do the
developers already own the whole of London? Does the police enforce
their company rules on the streets or do they have their own security
service? They at least have a great number of cameras.
Reminds me of Verhoeven's "Robocop" with a dash of Orwell's "1984"
Peter Nelson
>>Keep in mind that only a few of us on this NG even bother
>>trying to paint what we see. Many (most?) of the artists
>>here celebrate totally nonrepresentational forms of art where
>>they're not trying to paint what they see.
>>
>>
>Yes, but the mere use of forms and lines alone already is a
>manifestation of the perceptual system. It might be used in such a
>fashion that it doesn't denotate anything in the "real world" (the
>world is real ofcourse but we have a certain innate way of perceiving
>it). But it still is the works of perception which is used to observe.
>
>IMHO real abstract art should be the result of investigations in one's
>own observations. A lot of the old abstract painters used to make
>realistic art and eventually "boiled it down" to abstract work by
>studying what they were actually seeing in the scenes they wanted to
>depict.
True, this was what abstract art USED to mean. There was a
time when abstract art literally referred to abstracting visual
elements of what the artist was looking at as he painted.
He might paint a figure abstractly by concentrating on just
certain curves, or textures or whatever. The result might
not look like a figure but it would have recognizable
visual components from the original subject, just the way
a jazz improvisation of, say "Greensleeves" doesn't
necessarily sound like "Greensleeves" but you can hear
recongnizable components of it. "Nude Descending a
Staircase" doesn't look like a nude descending a staircase,
but it was inspired by the photographic motion studies
of Edward Muybridge and the visual influence of Muybridge's
work is clear in the painting.
But modern abstract expressionists dispense with such
visual observation. They are not "abstracting" anything
from the visual world. Instead, the "observations" they are
making are of their inner world.
>>Okay. Although a corollary question for any artist who intends to
>>display/show/sell his work to others is, "What is it that makes
>>*someone* feel like they do when they observe that?" Or, (again,
>>for the artist who intends others to understand his work) at
>>least the assumption that *others* respond to the same things
>>as the artist. Sometimes when I'm drawing or painting something
>>I think, "*I* know what this is, but will someone else looking at
>>this understand it?" And then sometimes I change it to make it
>>more clear or obvious.
>>
>Personally I believe that an artist shouldn't be concerned too much
>with how his (I'm doing it again, why doesn't nobody notice? ;-) art
>is perceived by others. It's already hard enough to formalize one's
>own sense of beauty, it's sheer impossible to do it for others. But
>there are similarities between people (in core: biological ones, to
>cultural ones and in the end the unique personal ones).
Then why bother to ever show your work? It would follow
from not being concerned about how others perceive your work
that there's no point in your art ever leaving your studio or
home.
---peter
TechnoCrate
<plne...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>TechnoCrate wrote in message <37426eab...@news.euronet.nl>...
>>Personally I believe that an artist shouldn't be concerned too much
>>with how his (I'm doing it again, why doesn't nobody notice? ;-) art
>>is perceived by others. It's already hard enough to formalize one's
>>own sense of beauty, it's sheer impossible to do it for others. But
>>there are similarities between people (in core: biological ones, to
>>cultural ones and in the end the unique personal ones).
>
>Then why bother to ever show your work? It would follow
>from not being concerned about how others perceive your work
>that there's no point in your art ever leaving your studio or
>home.
>
Yes, I did polarize too much here and the onlooker/ artist issue is
subject to debate.
Artists might be worried about whether the onlookers comprehend his
work (looklooklook! I did it again, where's the flamewar?). Whether
the work of art was executed in such a way that it's able to convey
his ideas to others. Erik already stated his concerns about this in
his excellent post in this thread.
However, I don't think this issue should be influencing the work too
much and certainly not the idea which lies at the source of it. An
artist should mainly focus on himself since he's able to determine
whether the execution of art conveys the idea pure and clear to
himself. After all: he gets the results of the evaluation first hand
(that is: he either feels it sucks or is perfect ;-)
The artist shouldn't be too worried because he has the same "biology"
as the onlookers (a line is a clear thing to all of us although it's a
feature of our perceptual system and hasn't got its counterpart in
nature). Also, the artist is subject to the same influences as the
onlookers in the same cultural environment. He is exposed to the same
things (television, fashion, ideologies, religions, etc.). A very
interesting discovery is that not all cultures have the same basic
colors (we have green, red, yellow and blue: the Hering opponent
colors). Our language gives us strong clues about how we categorize
the world in concepts which form the terms of our ideas (these terms
are important enough to us to be denotated by a special words but
although there are lots of similarities amongst cultures, there are
also differences and these terms do make up our ideas).
These are two things which the artist and the onlooker have in common
and both perceive and understand.
However, there are also unique influences. Erik pointed that out in
his fine example in this thread. It is here that the artist should
ponder about how this personal idea could be conveyed to the onlooker.
Apart from this one, I don't believe the artist should devote too much
attention to the fact that his art will be looked upon. For, if he
does this, he might run the risk of his art encompassing nothing more
than the flat, stereotypical and straightforward symbols which are
used in commercials (there's nothing wrong with using them but there
should be something more to art than to commercials).
Ofcourse, this isn't the same as ignoring the onlooker altogether.
Now comes an interesting part (I hope ;-)
Humans don't come with an instruction manual. We're not aware of our
feelings until we experience them. Over time we will get to know
ourselves and can manipulate ourselves by the knowledge we have about
ourselves. We will be able to supress impulses and counter unwanted
emotions (and the behaviour that comes with it) because we know how to
do this. After all: we can manipulate our perceptual system both by
imagery and attention. The society of mind (copyright: Marvin Minsky)
will be regulated by something we perceive as "I".
But my point is the following and Erik touched this subject as well:
Our memory is very unlike a computer's memory. Every memory we have is
in terms of earlier ones (it's all associative) and they go all the
way back to the barebones of the terms of the perceptual system.
The memory of the observation which revealed to us strong and formely
not experienced feelings is very strong and colors all other memories
which are associated with those feelings.
We can't paint feelings but we can paint the observations which led to
those feelings. Ofcourse the onlooker has other basic memories
connected to the feelings we try to convey. And it is here that we
need to place ourselves inside the onlooker and use similarities
(cultural and physical symbols) to clarify why this work of art is in
fact something that moves you deeply.
Those basic memories are in fact fetishes for you which always will
have strong feeling connected to them. The problem is ofcourse to
clarify what kind of feelings you experience with these fetishes, how
they work. The fetish can be painted (if it is an appropriate one,
that is a visual one) but it takes quite some effort to explain how
they work for you. Explaining something to others means using the same
language and this is mostly a cultural and biological one.
Ah! I still have the clear memories of when my rotten sadism was
revealed to me at the age of six, it felt darn good and it is in the
locus of what I'm making ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Amazing, I saw a documentary on the television about it. Do the
>developers already own the whole of London? Does the police enforce
>their company rules on the streets or do they have their own security
>service? They at least have a great number of cameras.
>
>Reminds me of Verhoeven's "Robocop" with a dash of Orwell's "1984"
>
TC: The developers are like a forest fire across London, especially in
the East End... property prices are soaring. Last year the studios in
Battersea (south west) were closed and redeveloped - we had one months
notice and the landlord did a runner with a month's rent from all of us
in his pocket. Now these ones are being threatened - Cable Street
Studios are one of the oldest studio blocks in London - 150 studios and
50 in process of being built, well over 200 artists of which at least
100 are full time professionals. The news just arrived that they are
about to process plans for redevelopment. The building fails all fire
and health regulations (rat infested and appalling rest room hygiene
with roofs leaking and no fire exits) and yet we are paying five pounds
a square foot with most studios average size four hundred sq. feet. And
the landlords want to increase the rent to eight pounds a sq. foot. We
had a meeting this week and were given the news and now have to find a
way of making the building fail the planning permission. Just spent the
entire day on the phone trying to find out about funding to turn part of
the studios into an educational resource on the grounds that if we could
operate an educational centre from here then it would definitely fail. I
managed to find out that London City Council and the local education
authorities will not only support us but will also fund us to make
improvements to the building in order to operate. One thing that is in
our favour is that the National Association of Artists have their
offices here also - and they aren't in a hurry to move.
Maybe there is hope - one thing I know for sure (and am trying to get
this through to the young revolutionaries here) we need to talk
*business* with them - not antagonise them. Rich people don't care about
poor people's rantings. We have to convince that being an artist is a
profession and that we are entitled to the same treatment and rights as
any other business person.
Regards --- love your post, just haven't time to give it a decent
response right now. Damn it !
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>It takes effort to see what the eyes see instead of what our
>conceptual system makes from it. A good use of "negative space" is
>already a start in this respect.
Interesting this. On my first day at Graphic Design School I was taught
to focus on negative space - after a year of this it is now impossible
for me to think any other way when considering space and form - it is
now a form of dual viewing. For my Fine Art degree work the negative
space became the work - not like Rachel Whiteread's solids- but in
providing a surface that the viewer could either focus directly on or on
the reflection in the opposite painting. I did a series of Alice in
Wonderland jabberwocky verses in backward writing that referred to the
art world - six paintings set at angles to each other so that the
writing could be read in the reflection. Most people were determined to
read it backwards and didn't seem to observe the reflection whilst
others figured it out immediately. Most just wanted to touch !
1.Artists are obliged to make an appearance but score only if it
deceives.
2.The Artist who cannot answer the questions they have asked themselves
will be tortured and publicly executed.
3.An artist who is way ahead is often behind.
... and three others similar
Me thinks maybe I was very angry !!!!!!!
That was the end of the conceptual stuff ... back to the process of
painting.
a beerortwo
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
s
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com
> 2.The Artist who cannot answer the questions they have asked
themselves
This is the most important branch of this thread, maybe in whole
ng. at the moment.
Considering the way an artist sees (or anybody else) we must
keep clearly separated
- the physics of light and color (nanometers has nothing to do
with color perception). Pure color is a laboratory artifact.
- physiology of vision, where the eye plays only one role.
(fovea, rod and three different kinds of cones, each sensitive to
the full sprctrum but with slightly different sensitivity distribution.)
- psychology of seeing, how we reconstruct a scene of sensory
and mental material. Not to mention the intellectual analysis when
we try to explain ourselves what we see.
Our consciousness - what you use when you try to understand
what you see - has a bandwidth of 16 bits/ second. The optic nerve,
from the eye to brain has a mbandwith of megabit class.
( I check the figures tonight). The input to the optic nerve is
some 10 times more, our brains receive only a preprocessed part
of the picture. Someone, somewhere in the middle executes severe
censorship deciding what we are allowed to see of the scene.
How this agent decides what of the innumerable details of
Brother A's face are given us to recall him, and which details
are given us to draw him, is a mystery.
The other way round is even more complex: What we see of Brother A in
the picture and what we see *as a picture* of brother A.
True vision is a philosophical abstraction.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
P.S.
The big picture of TechnoCrate is difficult partly because the
world out there is an unbound collection of details. To make a
drawing we have to add edges of paper, make some kind of composition
that alters what we are looking at. That is why the teachers tell
us to work out from the middle.
--
lauri....@nokia.com //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not imply that
my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here.
Hutto
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> We have to convince that being an artist is a
> profession and that we are entitled to the same treatment and rights as
> any other business person.
You aren't entitled to squat.
If you were any other business you'd still be losing your place in that
building, or you'd be coughing up more rent money per month. The rent rate
is the property owner's perogative, not yours. If you can't pay, take a
hike. Maybe the owner just doesn't like people smelling up his place with
feces paintings. He's trying to drive you out.
Besides, who are you talking about? For you, being a fry-cook is a
profession, while being an artist is a late-life whim which you aren't
very good at anyway. No great loss if YOU don't have a studio.
Hutto
Hutto
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Interesting this. On my first day at Graphic Design School I was taught
> to focus on negative space - after a year of this it is now impossible
> for me to think any other way when considering space and form - it is
> now a form of dual viewing.
Congratulations. After a year, you have mastered what it took real artists
whole days to understand.
> For my Fine Art degree work the negative
> space became the work
Well, it can't be worse than your positive spills, er I mean space.
> I did a series of Alice in
> Wonderland jabberwocky verses in backward writing that referred to the
> art world - six paintings set at angles to each other so that the
> writing could be read in the reflection.
Wow. It's like looking at the painting, but from the INSIDE...I have
chills.
> Most people were determined to
> read it backwards and didn't seem to observe the reflection whilst
> others figured it out immediately. Most just wanted to touch !
Some people sure are slick. Did they also figure out that chimpanzees
could do your work?
Hutto
Glenn Geist
>
>On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
>> We have to convince that being an artist is a
>> profession and that we are entitled to the same treatment and rights as
>> any other business person.
>
>You aren't entitled to squat.
For once we agree - and you sir - you are entitled to lots of squat.
There's no doubt about it.
Call me some more names, guy - show us what you're made of.
Let us all marvel at your vocabulary and wit and wisdom and charm.
tudze!
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>
More gratuitous insults - incorrectly assuming this would make him
appear important.
Glenn
Hutto
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Glenn Geist wrote:
> For once we agree - and you sir - you are entitled to lots of squat.
> There's no doubt about it.
Apparently, gnatlike replies from you fall into the "squat" category.
> Call me some more names, guy - show us what you're made of.
> Let us all marvel at your vocabulary and wit and wisdom and charm.
You haven't really piqued my spite in this one, Glenn.
Try harder and perhaps I'll give it a go.
Hutto
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Ariane
On 20 May 1999, TechnoCrate wrote:
> Yes, I did polarize too much here and the onlooker/ artist issue is
> subject to debate.
=== Of course, good point.
> Artists might be worried about whether the onlookers comprehend his
> work (looklooklook! I did it again, where's the flamewar?). Whether
> the work of art was executed in such a way that it's able to convey
> his ideas to others. Erik already stated his concerns about this in
> his excellent post in this thread.
=== If `Ideas' in this sense is also referring alternatively to
impressions, emotions, and not just conceptual ideas......
> However, I don't think this issue should be influencing the work too
> much and certainly not the idea which lies at the source of it.
> An
> artist should mainly focus on himself since he's able to determine
> whether the execution of art conveys the idea pure and clear to
> himself.
=== True enough....
> After all: he gets the results of the evaluation first hand
> (that is: he either feels it sucks or is perfect ;-)
=== Yes but you know how it gets when an artist finds herself so close to
the work the it becomes almost impossible to assess. Then, the analysis
of colleagues or peers becomes a source of `objectivity' for the artist.
> The artist shouldn't be too worried because he has the same "biology"
> as the onlookers (a line is a clear thing to all of us although it's a
> feature of our perceptual system and hasn't got its counterpart in
> nature).
=== Actually, it's a construction of the mind.....which itself is `in
nature'. IMHO
> Also, the artist is subject to the same influences as the
> onlookers in the same cultural environment. He is exposed to the same
> things (television, fashion, ideologies, religions, etc.).
=== But, the artist naturally reacts to these things very differently
from other people, and other artists. There are the influences and there
are our reactions to them (or an acceptance of them). Plus, when people
travel and live in other cultures, their self is shaped by influences
beyond any given single cultural context forevermore.....
> A very
> interesting discovery is that not all cultures have the same basic
> colors (we have green, red, yellow and blue: the Hering opponent
> colors). Our language gives us strong clues about how we categorize
> the world in concepts which form the terms of our ideas (these terms
> are important enough to us to be denotated by a special words but
> although there are lots of similarities amongst cultures, there are
> also differences and these terms do make up our ideas).
=== No they don't. This is Benjamin Whorf's hypothesis, and even Edward
Sapir, his academic colleague and co-conspirator in theory admitted that
people press language into the service of their sensibilities rather than
the other way around. William Blake asserted that many people think in
images, divorced from language, and this is especially true for painters,
sculptors, etc. Plus, people can learn more than one language which,
again, broadens the person's self beyond any one given linguistic sphere.
Language doesn't make up our ideas. It provides us with a communication
framework in which to give them expression so that other people can be led
to understand them.
> > These are two things which the artist and the onlooker have in common
> and both perceive and understand.
=== Language and culture are not necessarily shared by artist and
onlooker. We have neither in common with African sculptors, Inuit
carvers, Velasquez, or Australian aboriginal painters. but, yet, their art
work communicates some kind of emotional, or spiritual `idea'
to us nonetheless. Even if this isn't the `idea' that the artist
originally had in mind......Art transcends deterministic categories like
language and culture IMO.
> However, there are also unique influences. Erik pointed that out in
> his fine example in this thread. It is here that the artist should
> ponder about how this personal idea could be conveyed to the onlooker.
=== Yes, there are indeed unique influences.....But as to what exactly the
artist should ponder with respect to communicating with others through
art, it would depend on the artist wouldn't it?
> Apart from this one, I don't believe the artist should devote too much
> attention to the fact that his art will be looked upon. For, if he
> does this, he might run the risk of his art encompassing nothing more
> than the flat, stereotypical and straightforward symbols which are
> used in commercials (there's nothing wrong with using them but there
> should be something more to art than to commercials).
=== If you replaced the word `commercials' with `culture,' than we would
be in perfect agreement......
(...)
> Humans don't come with an instruction manual. We're not aware of our
> feelings until we experience them. Over time we will get to know
> ourselves and can manipulate ourselves by the knowledge we have about
> ourselves. We will be able to supress impulses and counter unwanted
> emotions (and the behaviour that comes with it) because we know how to
> do this. After all: we can manipulate our perceptual system both by
> imagery and attention. The society of mind (copyright: Marvin Minsky)
> will be regulated by something we perceive as "I".
>
> But my point is the following and Erik touched this subject as well:
>
> Our memory is very unlike a computer's memory. Every memory we have is
> in terms of earlier ones (it's all associative) and they go all the
> way back to the barebones of the terms of the perceptual system.
>
> The memory of the observation which revealed to us strong and formely
> not experienced feelings is very strong and colors all other memories
> which are associated with those feelings.
>
> We can't paint feelings but we can paint the observations which led to
> those feelings. Ofcourse the onlooker has other basic memories
> connected to the feelings we try to convey. And it is here that we
> need to place ourselves inside the onlooker and use similarities
> (cultural and physical symbols) to clarify why this work of art is in
> fact something that moves you deeply.
=== This was Cezanne's project really. To reconstruct reality so as to
display how it felt rather than how it looked, through displaying how it
looked! This is quite interesting; but I'm still of the opinion that art
can leave culture far behind in terms of communicating sentiments and
sensibilities.
> Those basic memories are in fact fetishes for you which always will
> have strong feeling connected to them. The problem is ofcourse to
> clarify what kind of feelings you experience with these fetishes, how
> they work. The fetish can be painted (if it is an appropriate one,
> that is a visual one) but it takes quite some effort to explain how
> they work for you. Explaining something to others means using the same
> language and this is mostly a cultural and biological one.
=== Yes, but even when the culture is dead and gone, like in ancient
Crete, Sumeria, Mexico, etc., the Artwork persists and is vital. So, then
is this biological? We'd like to think so because it accords with our own
cultural prejudices about the nature of the world, and doubtless, our
biology is tied up with the experience of art. But there is no proof that
biology is at the root of the process. Art always contains the
indescribable, infers mystery, defies understanding, and laughs at
analysis. Cultural and biological theories of art are two of its latest
victims I'm afraid.....
Alison A Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>Hutto <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
>>
>>> We have to convince that being an artist is a
>>> profession and that we are entitled to the same treatment and rights as
>>> any other business person.
>>
>>You aren't entitled to squat.
Glenn !!!! snip him !!! I don't want to read him - I feel so terribly
sorry for him - he has the worst inferiority complex I ever came across,
even worse than Mani's and Mattison's - in his case it can only be
terminal and one must just accept that and ignore him.
But just to put the record straight now that I have read that bit - all
two hundred artists at Cable Street Studios have a legally binding lease
agreement with two months rent as deposit paid and two months notice
must be given by either side. I don't expect our *brother* would know
anything about leasing property anymore than he knows anything about art
or being an artist.
Ariane
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
(snip)
=== Good luck with this headache Alison, London is anything but
inexpensive.....
> Maybe there is hope - one thing I know for sure (and am trying to get
> this through to the young revolutionaries here) we need to talk
> *business* with them - not antagonise them. Rich people don't care about
> poor people's rantings. We have to convince that being an artist is a
> profession and that we are entitled to the same treatment and rights as
> any other business person.
=== While I can appreciate where you're coming from here, I'm really
reluctant to accept being treated like `any other business person'. No,
people don't care about rantings, but many people become artists precisely
because they began the professional path, stopped, and said "No, this
isn't for me...". But I would suspect that they would be living in the
South of France, the Caribbean, or other such bucolic surroundings, and
not in one of the largest urban centres in the world.
Well, if your landlord situation doesn't clear up, maybe you can set up
shop on the sandy shores of St. Lucia or something!! (just kidding)
Bonne chance,
A.
Hutto
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Glenn !!!! snip him !!! I don't want to read him -
Alison is not only completely talentless, she is also completely gutless.
> I feel so terribly
> sorry for him - he has the worst inferiority complex I ever came across,
Why is it that the people with confidence are always seen by the people
with no ability as those with inferiority complexes?
If ANYONE *should* have an inferiority complex, it's Alison. She couldn't
paint her nails. Geez.
> even worse than Mani's and Mattison's - in his case it can only be
> terminal and one must just accept that and ignore him.
Try as you may. If it comes down to it, I will make an overseas call just
to tell you how bad your work is.
> But just to put the record straight now that I have read that bit - all
> two hundred artists at Cable Street Studios have a legally binding lease
> agreement with two months rent as deposit paid and two months notice
> must be given by either side.
There are only a book full of ways to terminate leases regardless of what
the tenants think. You don't have the right to live in someone else's
property even if you have a lease.
> I don't expect our *brother* would know
> anything about leasing property anymore than he knows anything about art
> or being an artist.
Considering how much I do know about the latter, I should have ample
knowledge of the former.
Alison A Raimes
Ah, the dear of him - Huggo has started to write me privately (if in any
doubt just check the header it is easy to trace posts)
Do you know what ? Poor little chap's delusions of grandeur have now
reached the point of thinking he is Picasso !! ha ha ha - I really do
think I could fall in love with this guy, he is so cute. Sending him a
little kiss xxxx
Received: from raimes.demon.co.uk (ws97-ts01.dialup.msstate.edu
[130.18.73.97]);
by Archive.MsState.Edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1/MsState-Archive/1.9) with
ESMTP;
id MAA00715 for <ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 20 May 1999
12:19:33 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <374453BC...@raimes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:26:05 -0600
From: Picasso <pa...@deadartists.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
I just wanted to write to tell you how horrible your paintings are. You
really should have stuck to frycooking. You have no sense of
composition, no knowledge of materials, no color sense, and you are
completely hideous to look at.
Take your god-awful pictures off your web pages. Please.
Why you would think you were worthy of creation is beyond me.
Yours Truly,
Pablo Picasso
Alison A Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>Well, if your landlord situation doesn't clear up, maybe you can set up
>shop on the sandy shores of St. Lucia or something!! (just kidding)
>
>Bonne chance,
>
>A.
No kidding ! My friend has been trying to get me go into business with
her in the Virgin Islands for years .... I probably will one day.
a beerortwo
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Solo until 6th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
13-20th June: Solo @ Skylark Gallery, Gabriel's Wharf,Waterloo, London
2/3/4th July: Open Studios #324 @ Cable St, Limehouse, London
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <3742b1f1...@news.euronet.nl>, TechnoCrate
> <usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
> >It takes effort to see what the eyes see instead of what our
> >conceptual system makes from it. A good use of "negative space" is
> >already a start in this respect.
>
> Interesting this. On my first day at Graphic Design School I was taught
> to focus on negative space - after a year of this it is now impossible
> for me to think any other way when considering space and form - it is
> now a form of dual viewing. For my Fine Art degree work the negative
> space became the work - not like Rachel Whiteread's solids- but in
> providing a surface that the viewer could either focus directly on or on
> the reflection in the opposite painting. I did a series of Alice in
> Wonderland jabberwocky verses in backward writing that referred to the
> art world - six paintings set at angles to each other so that the
> writing could be read in the reflection. Most people were determined to
> read it backwards and didn't seem to observe the reflection whilst
> others figured it out immediately. Most just wanted to touch !
>
> 1.Artists are obliged to make an appearance but score only if it
> deceives.
> 2.The Artist who cannot answer the questions they have asked themselves
> will be tortured and publicly executed.
> 3.An artist who is way ahead is often behind.
Those do have a Carrolesque ring to them. "Off with their heads!" "Drink
me!" "Why is a Raven like a writing desk?"
Erik
>
>
> ... and three others similar
>
> Me thinks maybe I was very angry !!!!!!!
>
> That was the end of the conceptual stuff ... back to the process of
> painting.
>
> a beerortwo
> Alison.
>
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
> 9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
> 26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
> Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
> s
Ariane
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> Ah, the dear of him - Huggo has started to write me privately (if in any
> doubt just check the header it is easy to trace posts)
> Do you know what ? Poor little chap's delusions of grandeur have now
> reached the point of thinking he is Picasso !! ha ha ha - I really do
> think I could fall in love with this guy, he is so cute. Sending him a
> little kiss xxxx
=== Yeah, me too. But entre nous deux, I'd prefer to send him a little
coup de pied. I'm off check out your site today Alison, if our resident
philistine toad doesn't like your work, I'm sure I'll find it quite
interesting. All in good fun eh?
a bientot, (after a beer or two)
A.
Ariane
> Alison A Raimes wrote:
> > 1.Artists are obliged to make an appearance but score only if it
> > deceives.
> > 2.The Artist who cannot answer the questions they have asked themselves
> > will be tortured and publicly executed.
> > 3.An artist who is way ahead is often behind.
=== Interesting. Thanks.
a la prochaine,
A.
Hutto
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Ah, the dear of him - Huggo has started to write me privately (if in any
> doubt just check the header it is easy to trace posts)
> Do you know what ? Poor little chap's delusions of grandeur have now
> reached the point of thinking he is Picasso !! ha ha ha - I really do
> think I could fall in love with this guy, he is so cute. Sending him a
> little kiss xxxx
DOH!
Believe it or not, I had nothing to do with the below.
However, the below are so similar to my exact opinions of A.A.Raimes, I
will take full credit for them - except, of course, for the Picasso part.
> I just wanted to write to tell you how horrible your paintings are. You
> really should have stuck to frycooking. You have no sense of
> composition, no knowledge of materials, no color sense, and you are
> completely hideous to look at.
>
> Take your god-awful pictures off your web pages. Please.
> Why you would think you were worthy of creation is beyond me.
>
> Yours Truly,
>
> Pablo Picasso
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Erik A. Mattila
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> This quote of Alison deserves as motto:
> > 2.The Artist who cannot answer the questions they have asked
> themselves
>
> This is the most important branch of this thread, maybe in whole
> ng. at the moment.
>
> Considering the way an artist sees (or anybody else) we must
> keep clearly separated
> - the physics of light and color (nanometers has nothing to do
> with color perception). Pure color is a laboratory artifact.
>
> - physiology of vision, where the eye plays only one role.
> (fovea, rod and three different kinds of cones, each sensitive to
> the full sprctrum but with slightly different sensitivity distribution.)
>
> - psychology of seeing, how we reconstruct a scene of sensory
> and mental material. Not to mention the intellectual analysis when
> we try to explain ourselves what we see.
>
> Our consciousness - what you use when you try to understand
> what you see - has a bandwidth of 16 bits/ second. The optic nerve,
> from the eye to brain has a mbandwith of megabit class.
> ( I check the figures tonight). The input to the optic nerve is
> some 10 times more, our brains receive only a preprocessed part
> of the picture. Someone, somewhere in the middle executes severe
> censorship deciding what we are allowed to see of the scene.
Whoah, Lauri. The engineering metaphors are spilling across the terrain
here. You may need a vacation from your job. But seriously, I'm very
curious how the bandwidth figure for consciousness is arrived at. Is this
measured by timing bioelectric impulses in the ganglia?
But your point seems to be that much more empircal data comes to the brain
than can be sucessfully processed at any give time. This implys that data,
and sets of data, are rejected, in order to end up with what we call the
visual experience. I think this is ture, for several reasons.
There used to be a General Studies curriculum at Columbia University, N.Y.
The chairman of the Department was Gerald Sykes, who wrote a wonderful book
called "the Cool Millenium" around 1967. One of the chapters was "The
Raincoat Minde" in which Sykes discussed the 'chaos' of experience, and how
humans have evolved filters that aided in the rationalization of raw
experience. Interestingly, Salvador Dali also wrote about the 'negative
hallucination' in which the subject will 'not see' something that is right
there in front of them, for various reasons.
We have the examples of individuals who have benefitted from surgery and
were given the gift of sight. When the bandages are taken off, and the
person can 'see' for the first time. the visual field is chaotic and
unintelligible. It takes several weeks of training to learn to organize
the visual material, or to rationalize it. Critical to this is the
training to 'unsee' things that cause visual contradictions. It's a very
fascinating thing.
But your point raises another important issue, and that is that perception
in its totality is not instantaneous, but involves time. Stimuli to
receptors, receptors to nerves, nerves to brain,
processing/associations/interplretation, and so forth. Albeit fast, it is
nevertheless a finite process that does not happen instantaneously and all
at once.
> How this agent decides what of the innumerable details of
> Brother A's face are given us to recall him, and which details
> are given us to draw him, is a mystery.
>
> The other way round is even more complex: What we see of Brother A in
> the picture and what we see *as a picture* of brother A.
Yes, and this is one reason some argue against the idea that art is a
'reflection' of anything. Ideological content only exists in the
interpretation of the world.
> True vision is a philosophical abstraction.
> - lauri
> journeyman of sculpture
>
>
> P.S.
> The big picture of TechnoCrate is difficult partly because the
> world out there is an unbound collection of details. To make a
> drawing we have to add edges of paper, make some kind of composition
> that alters what we are looking at. That is why the teachers tell
> us to work out from the middle.
I liked the model, the Structural Differencial, that came out of General
Semantics 50 years ago. Visually, Korzybski made this concoction that
looked like perforated metal plates from an old Erector Set. The big plate
represented 'the world' which Korxybski called "the event level' and
described as multiordinal and infinititely detailed. Strings were hanging
down from some of the holes, and tied to another plate that hung below,
smaller than the 'event level.' The next one down was perception, and the
idea was that not everything in the event level was perceived, indicated by
the strings, which didn't come from every perforation. Below 'perception'
was interpretation, smaller, and below that was language, then whatever he
called it when someone told something to another, and so on. The called
these 'levels of abstraction' and at the very bottom was a small plate
called "God" which Korzybski argued was the ultimate generalization and
abstraction, which stood for the 'event level' conclusively, yet had very
little content.
Erik Mattila
Alison A Raimes
>For once we agree - and you sir - you are entitled to lots of squat.
>There's no doubt about it.
>
>Call me some more names, guy - show us what you're made of.
>Let us all marvel at your vocabulary and wit and wisdom and charm.
>
>tudze!
>
>
>Glenn
>
Actually I was so curious about Mississippi State University policy on
their Netiquette I wrote them to ask if our friend Jason A Hutto is to
be regarded as true representative of their establishment ... and that
if there was any confusion to what I meant perhaps the Dean would like
to take a peek into the last weeks post on rec.arts.fine ..... waiting
on tender hooks for their answer.
a beerortwo ! Cheers !
~Artist~
We impeached ours for not getting on with the ever famous SLUG!
LOL
Hutto is real Artist.
One of one I have seen in this group.
Mattison
Alison A Raimes
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>
>On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, the dear of him - Huggo has started to write me privately (if in any
>> doubt just check the header it is easy to trace posts)
>> Do you know what ? Poor little chap's delusions of grandeur have now
>> reached the point of thinking he is Picasso !! ha ha ha - I really do
>> think I could fall in love with this guy, he is so cute. Sending him a
>> little kiss xxxx
>
>
>coup de pied. I'm off check out your site today Alison, if our resident
>philistine toad doesn't like your work, I'm sure I'll find it quite
>interesting. All in good fun eh?
>
>a bientot, (after a beer or two)
>
>A.
Absolutely Ariane - in fact I was so delighted to get a letter from
Picasso that I am going to frame it. Oh yes, if you want to write to
Jason direct ... or the Dean of his school ....
Hutto<ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu>
The website is OLD Ariane .... give it a couple of weeks for the new
work ... though maybe you will smile at the *Nothingness* work (which of
course you will understand the implications of). Do you have images you
can send ?
a beerortwo ..... which I need now after todays 17 hour work day
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Solo until 6th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
13-20th June: Solo @ Skylark Gallery, Gabriel's Wharf,Waterloo, London
2/3/4th July: Group/Open Studios #324 @ Cable St, Limehouse, London
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>> 1.Artists are obliged to make an appearance but score only if it
>> deceives.
>> 2.The Artist who cannot answer the questions they have asked themselves
>> will be tortured and publicly executed.
>> 3.An artist who is way ahead is often behind.
>
>Those do have a Carrolesque ring to them. "Off with their heads!" "Drink
>me!" "Why is a Raven like a writing desk?"
>
>Erik
They are *appropriated* from the croquet game Erik ...
a beerortwo
Alison.
May Flowers
says...
>Actually I was so curious about Mississippi State University policy on
>their Netiquette I wrote them
What a TWAT! Talk about cheap shots!
Our country was founded on a CONSTITUTION!
Too bad you know nothing about
FREEDOM OF SPEECH! If you can't stand the heat
honey, get out of the frying pan!
John Haber
You should see Martin Gardner's old but still wonderful _The Annotated
Alice_. He even collects speculative answers to the riddle that, of
course, was no doubt never meant to be answered.
My favorite is, "Because Poe wrote on both."
John
Alison A Raimes
<nom...@aintnonesuch.com> writes
anyone spot the flaw in her post ?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
*Everyone has the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers*.
Ralph Steadman wrote :
" Article 19 is obviously a dangerous one amongst 29 other equally
important human agreements, but it is probably the one article which
keeps well hidden within its carefully unbiased structure the undeniable
fact that its content releases the power of the individual to be both
artist and maniac. The 1948 United Nations Assembly had unwittingly
created a monster, an embarrassing loophole, a well-meaning but
desperate humanitarian gesture. In their earnest intentions to
neutralise any future tyranny in the shadow of the recent Holocaust
freedom of communication was paramount. Slipping it neatly between
'freedom of thought' (Article 18) and 'freedom of peaceful assembly'
(Article 20) should have covered the board but the enemies of democracy
are forever busy. Freedom to think is an uncontrollable private act and
even peaceful assembly is innocuous as far as it goes - nobody can ever
keep every human being in the whole world in solitary confinement - but
broadcasting thought and acting upon it, oh no !"
Erik A. Mattila
the mystical relationship between the measurements of the Washington
Monument. It was published in a 'Pyramid Power" book.
Erik
May Flowers
says...
>Ralph Steadman wrote :
You and Steadman must be bedfellows!
I'll bet he wears the same size army
boots and camoflage fatigues as you do.
Honey chile, there is more than just
a deep ocean separating U from US,
as in USA. Your cheap shot at Hutto
lost what little respect I might have
had for anything you have to say in
this forum, or any other for that matter.
Puke green suits you well.
John Haber
>
I've probably posted this before, so sorry, but also check out the new
collection of all Veronica Geng's humor books in one paperback volume.
I've just got to get it. It has a super parody of a Sci. Am.
Mathematical Games column. "... the trick is ridiculously easy to
understand once it's understood ...." I only wish I could find a
legendary parody of Pauline Kael she wrote decades ago for the New
York Review of Books.
BTW, first I noticed that Mathematical Games and Martin Gardner both
come out M.G.
John
Kay Kane
:In article <$k2DRDAt...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
ali...@address.in.signature
:says...
:
:>Actually I was so curious about Mississippi State University policy on
:>their Netiquette I wrote them
May Flowers wrote:
:What a TWAT! Talk about cheap shots!
Kay writes:
Well, May, calling Alison a *TWAT* is calling her a *Cunt* or a *Pussy* -
all of them incredibly nasty and derogitory. That a woman is using this
language regarding another woman astounds me! Do you use that language
around your Grandchildren?
May Flowers wrote:
:Our country was founded on a CONSTITUTION!
:Too bad you know nothing about
:FREEDOM OF SPEECH! If you can't stand the heat
:honey, get out of the frying pan!
Kay writes:
(kitchen, perhaps - or "out of the fire into the...?) Lest the
international posters think us in the US as even more uncouth than we are,
you should add that we ALSO, in conjunction with Freedom of Speech, have
laws to protect the VICTIMS of said Free Speech, such as anti-stalking laws,
laws against hate crimes (regarding race or gender) and anti-harassment
laws. I missed a great deal of the postings you are referring to but from
the posts I picked up after May 16th, they do, indeed, sound threatening and
intimidating (thus, illegal if done at the workplace). I think that
Alison's e-mail to Miss. State Univ.. that Hutto posted today simply
inquired to their *policy* and commented on some posts she had received. I
can assure you, where I am employed, I would be brought up on disciplinary
review and this would certainly be investigated. I am paid to *teach*, just
as others are paid to account, word process, telephone solicit, etc.. So
Freedom of Speech is not applicable on the job. What I mean to say is
YOU'RE GETTING PAID TO DO A JOB SO QUIT JACKIN AROUND AND DO IT! (When you
get fired from YOUR job, tell your boss about your Freedom of Speech rights,
I'm sure it will make all the difference!
Kay
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Kay writes:
>(kitchen, perhaps - or "out of the fire into the...?) Lest the
>international posters think us in the US as even more uncouth than we are,
>you should add that we ALSO, in conjunction with Freedom of Speech, have
>laws to protect the VICTIMS of said Free Speech, such as anti-stalking laws,
>laws against hate crimes (regarding race or gender) and anti-harassment
>laws.
Interesting this. I figured that in the UK, freedom of speech is a
*privilege* and in the USA, it is a *right*. There is one hell of a
difference. If I had posted from the domain of my old University the
following:
In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.990520...@ra.msstate.edu>,
Hutto <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>Hehe. I am this newsgroup. I show up every three or four months, insult an
>anal brat bitch like you and have every thread BUT linseed vs stand oil
>mentioning me - I'll leave when I'm bored and the group will STILL be
>posting random insults at me. Hehe. This is all humor. I know as well as
>any of you that serious artists don't have time to participate in this
>forum. I am here to rid myself of a block, and then, I'll see you in 6 or
>8 months, still here babbling about your histories. La deeee da, it's
>worthless.
>
>All you are is a goofy insecure college student at some unknown canadian
>college. I did what you do years ago. I'm over that. It no longer has any
>bearing on reality. "Theory and aesthetics" are for office dwellers with
>no drive or talent. You might learn that if you are lucky. If not you'll
>be stuck in the same rut as your former hippy friends. You praise
>technical advice from Beatniks and Warhol kneebiters while not realizing
>the complete lack of value either sect maintains. Your head is either in
>the clouds or between your legs, and neither of those locales will move
>you forward.
>
>Do what you want, say what you will, until you see through the pink-shaded
>fog you will never see at all.
>
>Hutto
>
>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
> w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
>
I would be charged with bringing the name of the institute into
disrepute. That would be a criminal offence in this country. Jason Hutto
is a recent graduate (1997) in Fine Art from MSU http://www2.msstate.ed
u/~jah10/. The letter I wrote to one of the professors in the
department, Prof Jack Bartlett <d...@ra.msstate.edu> where he was a
student, clearly pointing out my concerns for their university and for
the future of usenet, as is also surprisingly my right. I chose to write
to this professor because he runs an international learning programme
which includes visits to both France and England. MSU have responded by
choosing him to represent them on this newsgroup in allowing him to post
a copy of the letter here, and his response, publicly. One has to assume
the integrity and ethics of Mississippi State University supports the
actions of Jason Hutto and one must accept this as their right and their
choice. On that basis one must admit defeat.
There need be no further analysis of the institute or of Jason Hutto,
one must choose to accept his *constitutional* rights to Freedom of
Speech at whatever cost.
Alison A Raimes
>May Flowers wrote:
>:What a TWAT! Talk about cheap shots!
>
>Kay writes:
>Well, May, calling Alison a *TWAT* is calling her a *Cunt* or a *Pussy* -
>all of them incredibly nasty and derogitory. That a woman is using this
>language regarding another woman astounds me! Do you use that language
>around your Grandchildren?
I wondered about that Kay - thought maybe it had different connotations
in the States. I never heard it from a woman before ... still nothing
astounds me anymore ;-) ... I wondered what happened to Article Y, the
sticks ad stones thing. More of May's double standards I guess.
Glenn Geist
through.
Gramps
Alison A Raimes <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <37442e60...@news.earthlink.net>, Glenn Geist
><grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>>Hutto <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 20 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have to convince that being an artist is a
>>>> profession and that we are entitled to the same treatment and rights as
>>>> any other business person.
>>>
>>>You aren't entitled to squat.
>
>Glenn !!!! snip him !!! I don't want to read him - I feel so terribly
>sorry for him - he has the worst inferiority complex I ever came across,
>even worse than Mani's and Mattison's - in his case it can only be
>terminal and one must just accept that and ignore him.
>
>But just to put the record straight now that I have read that bit - all
>two hundred artists at Cable Street Studios have a legally binding lease
>agreement with two months rent as deposit paid and two months notice
>must be given by either side. I don't expect our *brother* would know
>anything about leasing property anymore than he knows anything about art
>or being an artist.
>
Glenn Geist
abuse is illegal and always has been. It is not protected by the
first amendment and it is actionable - ask your lawyer.
Your freedom stops where it hurts someone else.
Glenn
nom...@aintnonesuch.com (May Flowers) wrote:
>In article <$k2DRDAt...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, ali...@address.in.signature
>says...
>
>>Actually I was so curious about Mississippi State University policy on
>>their Netiquette I wrote them
>
>What a TWAT! Talk about cheap shots!
Glenn Geist
The most vociferous claimants to constitutional protection these days
are the abusers of other's rights. Of course there are limits to what
the constitution protects and beyond the most qouted one of shouting
"fire" in a crowded theatre. Harassment and abuse and even obscenity
are not protected forms of speech and never have been.
We're not talking about freedom of speech here however, but the abuse
of a free e-mail account given by a University. They quite certainly
and properly can withdraw this account if they feel that it reflects
poorly - and it does - on their institution to allow it to be used for
petty personal abuse. Mississippi is a state where feelings about
obscenity run high in government circles, and I think most of what has
been said by mister hutto would be taken as an abuse of his e-mail
priveleges.
Alison A Raimes <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <A0s13.2696$Gm1.4...@news1.giganews.com>, Kay Kane
><scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
May Flowers
says...
>Well, May, calling Alison a *TWAT* is calling her a *Cunt* or a *Pussy* -
>all of them incredibly nasty and derogitory. That a woman is using this
>language regarding another woman astounds me! Do you use that language
>around your Grandchildren?
If you've been reading this newsgroup very long
you'd know I don't ever call anyone names unless
they throw the first stone. It was Her Majesty Raimes
who first began the name calling -- TWIT begat TWAT!
She has degraded this newsgroup at every opportunity
with her snide, no-sense-of-humor, nonsense.
Hutto, who she attacks so vociferously, for all his
juvenile demeanor, does have a sense of humor for
those who aren't so self-assuming as to be able to
see it. If anyone needs 'reigning' in by reporting her
to her server's webmaster it is Her Majesty Raimes.
Alison A Raimes
<nom...@aintnonesuch.com> writes
Please feel free to do this May, and don't forget to post the headers.
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Solo until 6th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
13-20th June: Solo @ Skylark Gallery, Gabriel's Wharf,Waterloo, London
2/3/4th July: Open Studios #324 @ Cable St, Limehouse, London
Dan Fox
> In article <A0s13.2696$Gm1.4...@news1.giganews.com>, Kay Kane
> <scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
> >:What a TWAT! Talk about cheap shots!
> >
> >Kay writes:
> >Well, May, calling Alison a *TWAT* is calling her a *Cunt* or a *Pussy*
> >- all of them incredibly nasty and derogitory. That a woman is using
> >this language regarding another woman astounds me! Do you use that
> >language around your Grandchildren?
>
> in the States. I never heard it from a woman before ... still nothing
> astounds me anymore ;-) ... I wondered what happened to Article Y, the
> sticks ad stones thing. More of May's double standards I guess.
Alison and Kay -
No, it has an incredibly derogatory connotation here in the US, Alison.
It is disgusting, like calling a black person a nigger. I hang around with
some very funky people in the art and experimental theater world, including
gay and straight, drag queens, all races and ages, etc. I have never heard
a woman (or pseudo woman) call another
woman anything like that, unless it was very obviously fun and kidding
around. I was embarassed to read it here - and I don't embarass easily.
Many of us Americans are really cool people. Honest!
Dan
--
-
Glenn Geist
Just out of curiosity - how is it possible to do anything that seems
like a cheap shot with reference to hutto?
I'm about to follow his exit from this valhalla of the visigoths but
I'm really curious. We both know that every scoundrel in the US has
appealed to the first amendment - let's not abuse freedom more than we
need to.
Glenn
Alison A Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>I attribute it to youth - Ive raised a few kids - it's a stage they go
>through.
>
>Gramps
>
Alison A Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>Alison,
>
>The most vociferous claimants to constitutional protection these days
>are the abusers of other's rights. Of course there are limits to what
>the constitution protects and beyond the most qouted one of shouting
>"fire" in a crowded theatre. Harassment and abuse and even obscenity
>are not protected forms of speech and never have been.
>
>We're not talking about freedom of speech here however, but the abuse
>of a free e-mail account given by a University. They quite certainly
>and properly can withdraw this account if they feel that it reflects
>poorly - and it does - on their institution to allow it to be used for
>petty personal abuse. Mississippi is a state where feelings about
>obscenity run high in government circles, and I think most of what has
>been said by mister hutto would be taken as an abuse of his e-mail
>priveleges.
>
But apparently the University supports him - I guess he must be very
special ;-) I think his abuse runs deeper than just misuse of University
Email facilities - it reflects a complete lack of respect for the place
he studied at. Perhaps he is such a good artist that the University has
decided to turn a blind eye - this may be possible. One would hope that
an institute like MSU, that encourages international study programmes,
would turn out artists who had learned respect for *all* artists,
despite personal dislike of their work. It occurs to me that it must be
a very good art school as Hutto has no qualms about criticising other
people's work and in praising his own greatness as an artist. I can't
help wondering why he is not showing his work ?
Alison A Raimes
>
>We're not talking about freedom of speech here however, but the abuse
>of a free e-mail account given by a University. They quite certainly
>and properly can withdraw this account if they feel that it reflects
>poorly - and it does - on their institution to allow it to be used for
>petty personal abuse. Mississippi is a state where feelings about
>obscenity run high in government circles, and I think most of what has
>been said by mister hutto would be taken as an abuse of his e-mail
>priveleges.
>
You can check out MSU's policies on this at
http://www.msstate.edu/dept/audit/0112.html
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com
Subject:
Re: System Of Observation
lauri: >> Our consciousness - what you use when you try to
understand
>> what you see - has a bandwidth of 16 bits/
second. The optic nerve,
>> from the eye to brain has a mbandwith of megabit
class.
>> ( I check the figures tonight). The input to the
optic nerve is
>> some 10 times more, our brains receive only a
preprocessed part
>> of the picture. Someone, somewhere in the middle
executes severe
>> censorship deciding what we are allowed to see of
the scene.
Erik: > Whoah, Lauri. The engineering metaphors are
spilling across the terrain here. You >may need a vacation from
> your job. But seriously, I'm very curious how the
bandwidth figure for consciousness is >arrived at. Is this
> measured by timing bioelectric impulses in the
ganglia?
lauri:
My source here is mainly secod hand. Danish *Maerk Verden* of
Tor Nörre-Tranders.
(Whatever wowel you see, stands for a Danish 'o/' O with a
slash) .
An excellent summary, written fluently by a journalist, of
current scientific understanding
[ of human mind. It is translated into Swedish, if it more close
of your line of scandinavian ].
Never heard of an English edition, and if it does exist, you
will never spot the author's name
in an Americal alphabetic list.
The priciple of measurment is easy. How fast you can read with
comprehension. How fast
you can talk. How fast a pianist can play. How many different colors,
tones, sounds you can
reckognize at one moment.
A concise summary of different sudies is in Fred Attneave
"Applications of Information Theory to Psychology". N.Y.!959.
M Zimmermannn: "Neurophysiology of Sensory Systems" in: Robert
F. Shmidt(ed)
Fundamentals of Sensory Physiology, Springer-Verlag Berlin 1986.
A direct approach from the Danish book. Throw a handfull of beans on the
floor. You can follow only
6-7 of them where thery roll.
Erik:
> But your point seems to be that much more empircal
data comes to the brain than can be >sucessfully
> processed at any give time. This implys that data,
and sets of data, are rejected, in order >to end up with what
> we call the visual experience. I think this is
ture, for several reasons.
Here another excersize from the book: close your eyes, turn your head -
and open your eyes for
as short glimpse as possible. Shut the eyes again and think. What did
you see. It takes several seconds to think.
Snip
Erik:
>. Interestingly, Salvador Dali also wrote about the
> 'negative hallucination' in which the subject will
'not see' something that is right there in >front of them, for various
> reasons.
Lauri: May I ask you to give the reference, please. I do not doubt you
but want to read further.
Snipped
Erik:
>
> But your point raises another important issue, and
that is that perception in its totality is >not instantaneous, but
> involves time. Stimuli to receptors, receptors to
nerves, nerves to brain,
> processing/associations/interplretation, and so
forth. Albeit fast, it is nevertheless a finite >process that does not
> happen instantaneously and all at once.
lauri
The other night I had a strange experience: I was sitting in front of TV
- not really watching.
There was one of those American Police true stories. The face of a
suspect was obscured with that
classical colored square pattern. When I narrowed my eyes to a point
where the whole screen
was not sharp. Suddenly I could see the featueres of the face is
surprisingly great detail !
Narrowing eyes does not reduce information, but it adds noise, unsharp
misinformation.
It is easier to the visual system to ignore all misinformation. What is
left is a better reconstruction
of the face. I coul d see information that was deliberately hidden,
Camouflaged away from "the pure sensation".
.- lauri
--
lauri....@nokia.com //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Erik A. Mattila
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: System Of Observation
> lauri: >> Our consciousness - what you use when you try to
> understand what you see - has a bandwidth of 16 bits/
> second. The optic nerve, from the eye to brain has a mbandwith of megabit
>
> class.( I check the figures tonight). The input to the
> optic nerve is some 10 times more, our brains receive only a
> preprocessed part of the picture. Someone, somewhere in the middle
> executes severe censorship deciding what we are allowed to see of
> the scene.
>
> Erik: Whoah, Lauri. The engineering metaphors are spilling across
> the terrain here. You >may need a vacation from
> your job. But seriously, I'm very curious how the bandwidth figure for
> consciousness is >arrived at. Is this measured by timing bioelectric
> impulses in the ganglia?
>
> lauri:
> My source here is mainly secod hand. Danish *Maerk Verden* of
> Tor Nörre-Tranders. (Whatever wowel you see, stands for a Danish 'o/' O
> with a slash) .An excellent summary, written fluently by a journalist, of
> current scientific understanding [ of human mind. It is translated
> into Swedish, if it more close of your line of scandinavian ].
> Never heard of an English edition, and if it does exist, you will never
> spot the author's name in an Americal alphabetic list.
>
> The priciple of measurment is easy. How fast you can read with
> comprehension. How fast you can talk. How fast a pianist can play. How
> many different colors, tones, sounds you can reckognize at one moment.
>
> A concise summary of different sudies is in Fred Attneave "Applications
> of Information Theory to Psychology". N.Y.!959.
> M Zimmermannn: "Neurophysiology of Sensory Systems" in: Robert
> F. Shmidt(ed) Fundamentals of Sensory Physiology, Springer-Verlag Berlin
> 1986.
>
> A direct approach from the Danish book. Throw a handfull of beans on the
> floor. You can follow only 6-7 of them where thery roll.
Uncooked, I presume -- otherwise "bluuuuph'. or 'thwoumph'. Heree's an
interesting anecdote. Quite a bit of Ocieanic art (princilpally
Melanesian) uses duel images. For us, it is almost impossible to see both
at once, but for the people who create this, they see both images at once
'naturally.'
> Erik: But your point seems to be that much more empircal data comes to
> the brain than can be >sucessfully rocessed at any give time. This
> implys that data, and sets of data, are rejected, in order >to end up
> with what we call the visual experience. I think this is true, for
> several reasons. Here another excersize from the book: close your eyes,
> turn your head - and open your eyes for as short glimpse as possible.
> Shut the eyes again and think. What did you see. It takes several seconds
> to think.
>
> Erik: Interestingly, Salvador Dali also wrote about the 'negative
> hallucination' in which the subject will 'not see' something that is
> right there in >front of them, for various reasons.
>
> Lauri: May I ask you to give the reference, please. I do not doubt you
> but want to read further.
Dalí, Salvador, 1904-. Vie secrète de Salvador Dalí. English. The secret
life of Salvador Dalí /, by Salvador Dalí ; translated by Haakon
M. Chevalier. New York : Dover, 1993. vii, 400 p. : ill.
It's funny, I read this around 1961, and I remember the title being "My
Secrete Life" but I'm pretty certain it's the same book. I recall that he
discusses 'negative hallucinations' in a section of the book when he's
talking about his experiences in New York, especially designing
surrealistic windows of I. Magin Co. If it's not in that book, it's in his
"50 Secretes of Magic Craftsmanship" but I'm pretty sure it's in his
imaginary autobiography.
> Erik: But your point raises another important issue, and that is that
> perception in its totality is not instantaneous, but involves time.
> Stimuli to receptors, receptors to nerves, nerves to brain,
> processing/associations/interplretation, and so forth. Albeit fast, it
> is nevertheless a finite >process that does not happen instantaneously
> and all at once.
>
> lauri
> The other night I had a strange experience: I was sitting in front of TV
> - not really watching. There was one of those American Police true
> stories. The face of a suspect was obscured with that classical colored
> square pattern. When I narrowed my eyes to a point where the whole screen
> was not sharp. Suddenly I could see the featueres of the face is
> surprisingly great detail !
>
> Narrowing eyes does not reduce information, but it adds noise, unsharp
> misinformation. It is easier to the visual system to ignore all
> misinformation. What is left is a better reconstruction of the face. I
> coul d see information that was deliberately hidden, Camouflaged away
> from "the pure sensation".
Well, it lets less light in within a given period of time. How about those
indigeneous sunglasses invented by the Arctic peoples. A Walrus rib of
somethin that has a slit to view the world through. By wearing it you can
tell if you're on the ground during an Arctic 'white out'. So it has to
function by blocking the light rays that bounce off the snow and bounce off
the clouds, letting the rays that are in front of you in, only.
I'm glad you're watching Usanian Police programs. Our criminal's favorite
hiding place is Turku, so the more civic minded Finns there are watching
them on TV the better chance they will get caught. (Was this one of the EU
agreements you had to make?).
best wishes,
Erik
Glenn Geist
One professor is not the University
Glenn
Glenn Geist
Will do
Glenn Geist
>In article <3746bd6e...@news.earthlink.net>, Glenn Geist
><grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>>I attribute it to youth - Ive raised a few kids - it's a stage they go
>>through.
>>
>>Gramps
>>
>This guy is 28 years old Glenn - what were you doing when you were 28 ?
Two kids and a house in the suburbs - Brooks Brothers suits, etc.
Don't remind me. <s> I've made a good recovery from that illness -
really, I have
GLenn
Glenn Geist
There have been more severe words than that from the Mississippi
contingent - in the group and via e-mail. Hutto may have a sense of
humor ( only outbound - he responds to digs with venom) but he does
not seem to have a sense of restraint; every rebuff must be met with a
greater attack: question his judgement and he calls you a fool, call
him a fool and he calls you demented, his objective is to disrupt and
he told me this himself. There is no point in having a discussion
group when disruption is supported and encouraged.
Ted Bundy had a sense of humor.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>Alison A Raimes <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>
>>>
POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR USE OF COMPUTING AND NETWORK
RESOURCES AT MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
PURPOSE
Mississippi State University's computing and network facilities
service a large number of faculty,
students, staff, and others. In light of the legal responsibilities
inherent in operation of such a system,
the university has a number of areas of potential liabilities. This
policy addresses the responsibilities
of the users and the University.
POLICY
All users have the responsibility to use the University computing
systems in an effective, efficient,
ethical, and lawful manner. Use of Mississippi State University's
computer resources and computer
network is not a matter of right, nor is it provided as a public
forum, but rather all use of Mississippi
State University's computer resources and network must be consistent
with the mission of the
University in support of public education, research, and public
service.
GUIDELINES
Inappropriate Usage
Computing and networking resources should be used only in accord with
the guidelines defined in this policy and procedure. Examples of
inappropriate and unacceptable use of computing and
networking resources include, but are not limited to:
a.Harassment of other users.
b.Destruction of or damage to equipment, software, or data
belonging to Mississippi State University or other users.
c.Disruption or unauthorized monitoring of electronic
communications.
d.Violations of computer system security.
e.Unauthorized use of computer accounts, access codes, passwords,
or other network
identification words or numbers assigned to others.
f.Use of computer and/or network facilities in ways that impede the
computing activities of others, including randomly initiating
interactive electronic communications or e-mail exchanges,
overuse of interactive network utilities, overuse of network
accessible bulletin boards or conferences, and the "off topic"
posting of materials to bulletin boards or conferences.
i.Violation of the usage policies and regulations of the network
that Mississippi State University
is a member of or has authority to use.
j.Violation of another user's privacy.
k.Academic dishonesty (e.g., plagiarism or cheating).
l.Commercial advertising or political campaigning.
m.Violation of applicable laws, regulations, or policies.
Sanctions
Violation of the policies described herein for use of computing and
network resources are dealt with
seriously. Violators who are University faculty, students, or staff
are subject to the disciplinary
procedures of the University and, in addition, may lose computing
privileges. Illegal acts involving
Mississippi State University computing and networking facilities may
also be subject to prosecution
by state and federal officials.
REVIEW
This policy and procedure will be reviewed as needed (AN) by the
Mississippi State University
Information Technologies Oversight Committee with recommendations for
revisions presented to the
President.
OP 01.12
7/29/96
Hutto
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Glenn Geist wrote:
> Ted Bundy had a sense of humor.
>
> Glenn
Did you just compare me to a serial killer?
If you do not henceforth cease and desist all such character defamation, I
will be forced to contact my lawyer.
Hutto
Ariane
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> I would be charged with bringing the name of the institute into
> disrepute. That would be a criminal offence in this country. Jason Hutto
> is a recent graduate (1997) in Fine Art from MSU http://www2.msstate.ed
> u/~jah10/. The letter I wrote to one of the professors in the
> department, Prof Jack Bartlett <d...@ra.msstate.edu> where he was a
> student, clearly pointing out my concerns for their university and for
> the future of usenet, as is also surprisingly my right. I chose to write
> to this professor because he runs an international learning programme
> which includes visits to both France and England.
=== Alison, what if Grimace is actually this professor? I mean,
Mississippi is not exactly at the forefront of anything in particular. I
wouldn't be surprised if an ignoramus like Grimace was indeed some overfed
bourgeois conformist sell-out having fun at work because, how much
important research, in art or otherwise, comes out of `ole miss'??
> MSU have responded by
> choosing him to represent them on this newsgroup in allowing him to post
> a copy of the letter here, and his response, publicly. One has to assume
> the integrity and ethics of Mississippi State University supports the
> actions of Jason Hutto and one must accept this as their right and their
> choice. On that basis one must admit defeat.
=== ....Or have a good laugh at the quality of education one might receive
down in Mississippi. THey probably charge an arm and a leg to go there
too. 10,000$ a semester or something like that. An outrageous scam when
you think about it. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
> > There need be no further analysis of the institute or of Jason Hutto,
> one must choose to accept his *constitutional* rights to Freedom of
> Speech at whatever cost.
=== Whatever. The constitution is always evoked when someone's making
a spineless ass out of themselves. Your best bet is to ignore him and get
on with more important things than dealing with some loser lemming
conformist who wants to piss on everyone's parade because his life is a
joke.
a bientot,
A.
Hutto
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> I mean,
> Mississippi is not exactly at the forefront of anything in particular.
I was thinking that exact same thought as I looked over the list of Nobel
Prize winners that stream from the University of Concordia each year. I am
SO envious of wherever it is you are.
> I wouldn't be surprised if an ignoramus like Grimace was indeed some
> overfed bourgeois conformist sell-out having fun at work because, how
> much important research, in art or otherwise, comes out of `ole miss'??
Ole Miss? Who knows. That's a different school altogether.
This is, however, a research institution. The art department is small, but
that is normal in a large state university. In recent years, the art
department has grown, especially after the addition of an MFA in
Electronic Visualization. The majors nearly tripled in 3 or so years.
The university is home to one of the top-rated engineering programs in the
southeastern United States, as well as a top 3 College of Veterinary
Medicine. Of course, if you cared as much for facts as you care for
insulting me, you would have been able to look this information up.
Hehe. What exactly do you do that enables you to call others
"conformists" in such negative tones? It seems to be the case that you tow
the typical academic line. You have said nothing out of the ordinary in
any of your posts - nothing profound nor revolutionary. You are are as
drab and boring as any bookworm ever was. What makes you think you don't
conform? Did you get a nipple pierced or something?
> === ....Or have a good laugh at the quality of education one might receive
> down in Mississippi. THey probably charge an arm and a leg to go there
> too. 10,000$ a semester or something like that. An outrageous scam when
> you think about it. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
We let Canadians in for free because they are so smart that they tend to
raise the overall scoring averages. They especially like the Canadians
from the Kay-Beck area because they speak at least 2 different languages.
> === Whatever. The constitution is always evoked when someone's making
> a spineless ass out of themselves. Your best bet is to ignore him and get
> on with more important things than dealing with some loser lemming
> conformist who wants to piss on everyone's parade because his life is a
> joke.
For the record, I never once evoked the constitution in my own defense.
Other people did that.
Maybe I want to piss on your parade because it's a pathetic parade. It's a
misleading parade that likes to use big words to lull the ignorant into
thinking it knows things. It floats by singing songs of nonconformity
while dressing neatly in cliches and speaking properly of all the right
dead philosophers and thinking the same things every other egghead thinks.
There is nothing new or original about you, there is nothing interesting
about you - you remain as ill and noxious as you always were. If you
had anything to say you would have said it by now. The only things that
come from you are more and more tedious academic guessworks, drab and
insightless historical posturings and philosophical wastes of bandwidth.
Ariane wrote: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Ariane
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Absolutely Ariane - in fact I was so delighted to get a letter from
> Picasso that I am going to frame it. Oh yes, if you want to write to
> Jason direct ... or the Dean of his school ....
> Hutto<ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu>
=== Nah, I've no reason to write anything to MsState. If they're all as
intellectually backward as Grimace, there's really no point in wasting my
time.
> The website is OLD Ariane .... give it a couple of weeks for the new
> work ... though maybe you will smile at the *Nothingness* work (which of
> course you will understand the implications of). Do you have images you
> can send ?
=== Well, ok. I'll wait for the new site to go up then. Just let me know
when you've got it up. I have some slides but no computer images. I'm
digitally challenged. I have a hard enough time sending e-mail (although
I think I've got it down to a science by now), and I'm skeptical of the
web in this context. But, there's always good old slides.......
> > a beerortwo ..... which I need now after todays 17 hour work day
> Alison.
=== Gotta love that! Have a Double Diamond for me will you?
Bonne chance,
A.
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
> Solo until 6th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
> 13-20th June: Solo @ Skylark Gallery, Gabriel's Wharf,Waterloo, London
> 2/3/4th July: Group/Open Studios #324 @ Cable St, Limehouse, London
>
A. Tapies
> On Tue, 25 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
<snip>
[Hutto tells Ariane:]
> You are are as
> drab and boring as any bookworm ever was. What makes you think you don't
> conform? Did you get a nipple pierced or something?
>
<snip>
>
> Hutto
My God, Ariane, what is it about you that drives the cretin contingent
in this group to get so worked up about your person? Mani gets dewey-eyed
about panties, and this reject from the Snopes family waxes eloquent about
a nipple-piercing.
A Tapies
See the Bilbao Guggenheim!
--
-
Hutto
On 25 May 1999, A. Tapies wrote:
> My God, Ariane, what is it about you that drives the cretin contingent
> in this group to get so worked up about your person?
Argh. Here I am, really annoyed that you've called me a cretin and
compared me with Mani Deli, and I can't even think up a nifty retort! For
shame! I have drawn a blank! My six-guns aint in their holsters!
What is worse, I can't even recall who the Snopes family is nor why I
should be offended by that "reject" remark. What started off as a good
afternoon of snide remarks is ending with a dull thud. Hmmm.
The only thing that strikes me is how you seem to be able to notice the
words "panties" and "nipple", but nothing else about anyone's posts.
Sure, I probably have acted in ways that rightfully classify me as
cretinesque. I have behaved like an inflamed crackpot and I have flung
random insults at people without real cause...so on and so on...Still, the
only thing that earns me such an insult from you is the mention of a
nipple and its possible piercing.
I guess you couldn't argue any of the other points, so all you had left
was the word "nipple". I'll take yours as a vote of support, then.
Alison A Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>
>=== Nah, I've no reason to write anything to MsState. If they're all as
>intellectually backward as Grimace, there's really no point in wasting my
>time.
This is true.
>=== Well, ok. I'll wait for the new site to go up then. Just let me know
>when you've got it up. I have some slides but no computer images. I'm
>digitally challenged. I have a hard enough time sending e-mail (although
>I think I've got it down to a science by now), and I'm skeptical of the
>web in this context. But, there's always good old slides.......
You can get those put onto CDrom by Kodak really cheaply, and then Email
them as attachments ... just a thought !
>=== Gotta love that! Have a Double Diamond for me will you?
>
>Bonne chance,
>
>A.
I will not drink that gnat's pee ... but I will down a decent pint of
Bass on your behalf.
a beerortwo
Alison.
Glenn Geist
>
>Did you just compare me to a serial killer?
>
No, actually, as I said Bundy had a sense of humor.
>If you do not henceforth cease and desist all such character defamation, I
>will be forced to contact my lawyer.
>
>Hutto
>
My lawyer is nastier than yours and it's not an idle threat. Don't
test me.
Glenn Geist
>
>On Tue, 25 May 1999, Glenn Geist wrote:
>
>> Ted Bundy had a sense of humor.
>>
>> Glenn
>
>Did you just compare me to a serial killer?
>
Alison A Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>My lawyer is nastier than yours and it's not an idle threat. Don't
>test me.
>
Glenn: I know someone who has his home address and telephone number if
you want it ;-)
(BTW: Did you notice Mr Uto's IP Address ? Strangely similar to
*Picasso's* and *Hutto's* ..... what a surprise !)
Glenn Geist
No thanks, I could find those if I wanted to.
Glenn
Hutto
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Glenn: I know someone who has his home address and telephone number if
> you want it ;-)
This is an implied threat. I don't have to tolerate this kind of nonsense.
That's it...I'm suing everyone.
> (BTW: Did you notice Mr Uto's IP Address ? Strangely similar to
> *Picasso's* and *Hutto's* ..... what a surprise !)
Whoa...you mean, more than one person can use a single unix server? Holy
cow! Who's "Mr Uto"?
I seriously doubt anyone has my ACTUAL address and phone number,
considering that fact that I am not listed anywhere by name.
You people don't even know if I REALLY live in Mississippi. Hehe.
Glenn Geist
Just for the record, I'm not interested in your address or number, and
it - again for the record - seems rather "lame" as you like to say, to
pretend to victomhood at this late date. Any number of people here
would be willing to call you the major bully of the group. It's funny
that you admit to me in private that you do this for fun and you know
you should be ashamed of yourself, yet you show no shame here at all
sir, do you?.