[^^Fleeding home page] [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)] [SUB-SPACE (ma)]
ma: Scientist x Absurdist ()
See also: [L/D] [S/D]
See also: [af/art3/pkda2001 - pizoig gaming projects]
(please page down if needed)
x-product: Scientist x ()
The primary driving features of the Scientific POV (point of view) -[Science is...]-
incude:
Systematic
Consistent
Analytical
Skeptical (not true until provded)
Experimental
Produces the technical (engigneering, medicine, etc)
Jump down to: {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Artist ()
On this page: {Sci x Art ("shaman") ---> Artist as Shaman}
{Quantum Mechanical}
{Text}
specifically: SCI x ART (text) ---> formal to semi-formal
views of art objects
{Translation}
{Motion}
Self-Referential
So would the absurdist view of abusurdity be reality (in a cynical/material sense)?
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
-^_6
Sci x Art ("shaman") ---> Artist as Shaman
A paper that i had written previously on this topic will be
of interest. (And it is more "linearly" organised).
-[Thru a Ritual Darkly: Translating Art into Ritual Terms]-
SCI x ART (Quantum Mechanics)
QM: Laser
-^_6
So what would "laser thinking" be like? And how would we apply it
to art?
First off, in our discussion of lasers -[here]-, we already
used the analogy of a marching band, thus using:
Art x Science (Marching Formation) ---> Why laser light is
different from ordinary light
and what is this "coherence"
stuff anyway?
----> (direction of parade)
1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 marchers "-"
2 - - - - - - - - - - 2
- - - - 3 moving faster than others
- - - - 4 moving the fastest
3 - - - - - - +--------+
4 - - - - - | float |
For this "act" the marchers will PASS the float, they will leave the
the float behind. Following a SIGNAL, they will then do an about
face and march towards the float -- TEMPO change in music -- and
resume their position behind the float. Execute another about face,
do a "courtesy" bow to the float, and then resume the original
TEMPO in the music -- and then proceed as normal with the float.
The marchers that have to move around the float and travel the farthest
(stream 4) must move the fastest once they start around the float.
Stream 3, having to move almost as far around the float) will move
faster than the other streams (1 and 2), but not quite as fast as
stream 4.
So, where did THAT come from: "The way that air passes over the
wing of an airplane to create lift".
Thus: Sci x Art (air plane wing dynamics) ---> "Marching Wave"
So, what then do when we perform the cross product:
Sci x Art (QM: Laser Light) ---> ????
half to think about that a bit...
night all...
Scientist x Artist (text)
The following problem arose during a search for quotations of
a philosophical nature by or about of Moholy-Nagy and then
alternately (when IP (Intellectual Property 'rights') probs
inter-veined) Roland Barthes. Finally, landing (on page
8 of a restricted set from some 512M down to about
"Framing Philogy"
via: Thesis Eleven, Vol. 89, No. 1, 43-57 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0725513607076132
© 2007 Thesis Eleven Pty, Ltd., SAGE Publications
Word and Image: Framing Philology
Axel Fliethmann
School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics
at Monash University, Melbourne, Axel.Fliethmann@arts.monash.edu.au
(and i'm sure that *ahem* certain artists weren't invited to partake)
Regardless, take as the initial TAPE the following (assumed to be)
precise'
001 This text focuses from a philological perspective
002 on media theories and their impact on traditional
003 text-based disciplines. Therefore it looks at the
004 problems that have emerged for Media Studies as
005 well as for traditional studies in philology when
006 reflecting on the concept of self-reference, since
007 their subjects can seemingly no longer rely on the
008 purity of the written word. If research work in the
009 field of humanities is still mainly documented by
010 texts, how does the advance of images as a challenging
011 research subject affect the text that is referring to
012 that subject? Speaking in media terms: how is the
013 medium `text', which still remains text when it is
014 concerned with the medium `image', affected by the
015 `other' medium? This question deals with the problem
016 of self-reference, hence the construction of disciplinary
017 limitations in various academic fields. Beginning with
018 this question, I try to find out how the difference
019 between self-reference (text) and reference (image)
020 has been and still is being organized in texts.
021 How can we compare different types of theorizing images
022 in texts? These abstract problems will be exemplified
023 by situating the word—image bias in a wider historical
024 context.
025 The text concludes by developing some possibilities for
026 future research within this area of visual culture and
027 academic writing.
(i appologise for the use of LINE NUMBERS rather than octet-counts,
but the octetiser is on sympathy strike with screen writer's strike
in California (see map) - for which NO appology is made)
The fact that the entire text is available for purchase is of course
part and parcel with the problem of de-constructing the original
text of the search for relevant idea-generating (or alterinatively
irrelevant fact-finding) texts of sufficient lenght to be used as
the basis for complementing the following blurble:
The design of the minimal design is NO design.
For example, Judd vs Jugg gives us ONLY the concept of the extraction
of the seminal (oeurvrestrial) element of LINE as LINE, ARRAY as ARRAY,
etc. This naturally leads to the concept of the blank page.
Thus, we might for exmaple take as read that a piece of paper is
genuflected over for some time as the drawer (on the paper to be; of)
passes their hands (mechanical, spiritual, etc) over the surface of
the paper until *something* emerges from it; viz a vis: the 'giant'
of Lodivicio vs. the wooden placard of Leondaro.
And even at this early stage, we can see that the obscured can NOT
remain obscure, since necessarily (dictionary-wise) every reference
to an element NOT in the dictionary gives rise to elements that must
(out of either necessity, chance, or nice-ity) be introduced into the
foot notes, references, commentaries, indicies, cross-references, etc.
Thus, we return to the initial tape per:
001,1 This text focuses from
001,5 a philological perspective
002,1 on media theories and
002,5 their impact on traditional
003,1 text-based disciplines.
The initial concep of a PURELY philological perspective is rejected
out-right as being either a joke (benign at best), or simply an
epistimological impossibility - with the exception being of the
classic Sartre'ian sense of "being and nothingness" having meaning
ONLY within the context of the argument itself.
But, then the CRUX of the paper is in the concept of the juxtaposition
of "media theories" (we assume for simplicity that these are post-post-modern
media theories; ie, sub-summing Marshall McCluan's "medium is the massage"
and other video works).
And the juxtapostition of these on "traditional text-based" disciplines.
Of which (for the purposes of the present narrative) are assumed to
contain ART (or at least art theory, art criticism, or at least art
show invite post-cards) as possible texts onto which the concept of
"text-based" analysis can be summarily un-loaded at 42 centes Altarian.
(we must (for brevity sake) discard the cost of transport, storage,
authentication, installation, annotation, cateloging, publication,
and of course *any* Hawking/Maxwell "cost" of information exchange;
eg, viewing, re-viewing, mocking, re-acting/en-acting, etc).
Thus, we are left with:
The art object (per se; merely)
translated into
a text object. (NOTE: This is NOT assumed to be the
only object to be operated upon)
We take as read the work by Borges/Dick/Leeding on representation of
ANY work as a sequence of dots extracted from either a classical
Borgesian "book" from the Library of Babel or an un-written but
en-writ-ed "book" from Dick's (eg) "The Galactic Pot Healer", and
of course my own humble series on text as performance object, etc.
[Note 1]
Crucial to our further pursuit of this line of investigation is to be
found in the folloring part of the initial input tape:
008,1 If research work in the
009 field of humanities is still mainly documented by
010 texts, how does the advance of images as a challenging
011 research subject affect the text that is referring to
012 that subject? Speaking in media terms: how is the
013 medium `text', which still remains text when it is
014 concerned with the medium `image', affected by the
015 `other' medium?
Of course one could argue that the "humanities" including philosophy,
history (and hence history of ideas), sociology, anthropology, linguistics,
etc - would necessarily be (or NOT be) bound by text. But, we take that
as read as a moot point of debate. [classical dfn of moot, not current].
Thus, our focus can easily divert to the TEXTUALISATION of tradtionally
non-textual objects; eg, art (visual), theatre, music, danse, etc.
We further take it as read that REVIEWS are essentially textualisations
of the AESTHETIC experience by a viewer (hearer, watcher, etc) of the
art work. We need not be any more concerned with this than we would be
by a "calendar of art events" listing in local newspaper, radio show, etc.
Thus, the bottom line comes to TRANSLATING lines 8,1 thru 15,1 into the
realm of functions that operate on a given "art object".
I will take the art object to be the following primary examples:
1) The Mona Lisa, Leonardo da Vinci.
2) The Mona Lisa with the moustache, Marcel Duchamp.
3) Self Portrait, Rembrand van Rjn.
4) Dr. Gachet, Vincent van Gogh.
5) Beethoven's 6th symphony.
6) Pop goes the weasel; children's song.
7) Ring around the rosy; children's danse.
8) Swan Lake; balet - based on music by Chaikovski; choreog??
9) Hamlet; Shakespeare/Bacon/et al.
10) Waiting for Godot; Samuel Beckett.
-[Reference art objects-01]-
(contains side notes and design b/g info)
This (as a bit of thought i would hope show) should provide a fairly stable
set of bounaries within which almost anything may be discussed.
We take as read (but not necessarily un-disclosed) the FORMAL analysis
and description of the above. This is *not* a trivial reading. For
example, as the sculptor Tim Stokes has pointed out, one art work which
consisted of a post card was mailed with an insurance value of $1 since
(at the time) the valuation was based on the WEIGHT of the object being
mailed. Thus, the formal description "one bundle of papers with scribbling
on each page" may in fact be one of the un-published Schubert manuscripts
rescued by Ms. Mahler or *simply* one of Kurt Schwiter's "merz" experiments.
To begin with with, it is suggested to get a cup of caffee.
Notes
(this section only)
[1] Jorge Luis Borges' "The Library of Babel" (avail here)
Philip K. Dick's "The Galarctic Pot Healer" (avail here)
?? text as
Essentially: A library consists of all possible volumes of
the form: Vol 1: completely blank, Vol 2,
entirely blank, but on page 1, line 1, column 1 "A". Vol 2,
entirely blank, but on page 1, line 1, column 1 "B".
the final volume would be filled with nothing but the ";"
symbol.
Dick's concept of a "tourist guide" that actively updates and
"predicts the future". It is given out for free by a mysterious
order of monks (not un-like (slightly) Borges' librarians). But,
by doing so, the monks shape/change the actions of the readers
of the tourist guide - thus, far from being a passive "guide"
it is an active "guide-r" of the future. Finally, in my own
musings the text can be the art, and the art can be the text.
See for example, recent work "The Museum Label is the art that
explains the text-object"; ie, a complex text (eg, a concrete
poem, or pages extracted from the zix-42 (please NO comments
about self-reference!), etc) has a drawing that attempt to
explain it. The clearest examples are to "The Summarise Proust"
contest by the Monty Python group, and of course 99% of critical
literature that does NOT contain the words "merely", "simply",
"obviously", "not so obviously", or similar.
{Back to the TEXT, above}
Scientist x Artist (translation)
An early attempt to "integrate" science and art, the ancient Greeks, and
Chinese attempted the RATIONAL (scientific) examination of the arts.
This probaly occured in all cultures in varying ways, but most written
texts have been all but lost -- suffice it to say, that the general
attempt to "make sense of it" (in the reductionist way and therefore
in the "scientific way") led to trying to understand the arts. We should
recall that much of the "difference" between the arts and other forms
of human experience and other universal phenomenon (see below) occurs
due to the nature of "rhythms" within them. Whether it's the chaning
of the seasons or the pleasing limbic (brain) feedback that occurs
from repetitive actions, rhythm is an important aspect of what we
usually group under "the arts". For example, the musician/philosoopher
Frank Zappa (after much frustration) asked an experienced musician
"Why DO i like this particular song so much?" -- to which the musician
replied "Parallel Fourths". In much the same way, one reason that
people respond often violently against Shoenberg's use of Parallel
FIFTHS was that they did not "mesh" as neatly as "nicely" as FOURTHS.
Recall that most music is written in 3/4 or 4/4 time and 5 simply
isn't going to easily divide into that. -[]-
Another example is in the "closing credit music" of the film
"Honey, I shrunk the Kids", the music by John Horner (also
known for music from the Star Trek Movie "Wrath of Kahn) uses
a complex long-period "jazz-like" series of notes; if i counted
correctly, based either on 17 or 19 -- which are PRIME numbers
and definitely going to have "problems" fitting into the 3/4 or 4/4
common fomrat. Finally, remember (concerning "getting to like"
atonal or polytonic music, abstract art, etc) as Uncle Al reminds
us: "A mind once stretched by a new idea, rarely returns to its
original dimensions."
With that we only pass into the classification of how music DOES
work (recalling that repeated "things" stimulate the limbic portion
of the brain -- and thus (like smells) evoke strong sensations,
thoughts, and even memories). Both the Ancient Greeks (most notably
the so-called Pythagorean school, as well as the Ancient Chinese
"discovered" (investigated) the way that music mapped MATHEMATICALLY
into certain patterns -- thus, forming a brige between the PHYSICAL
(emotional, spiritual, personal) and the INTELLECTUAL (primarily
scientific) aspects of the thing called "music".
Thus, we begin to see the first "mapping" between Science in terms
of Art. In order to achieve definite goals of understanding (what
ever THAT is), science must use a very structured approach. Let us
look at the usually un-hinged approach of the arts and how they
might impact into scientific thinking.
We start with our "little list" concerning science...
Translating Scientific terms using Art:
{Systematic}
{Analytic}
{Consistent}
{Skeptical} (not true until proved)
{Experimental}
{Produces the technical} (engineering, medicine, etc)
Will Insley]- reminds
us many areas in art "once they get a label" (ie, the systematic process
of "classification" which is one the hall-marks of the scientific approach),
those areas of art are often "abandoned". A common mis-perception is that
various art "movements" are dead. For example, many artists *still* use
cubist methods today (even though in most art history or other books,
you can see actual dates of the beginning and ending of the "cubist
movement" -- to save the phenemon, terms such as "neo-expressionism"
are used to explain away the "ghost come from thr grave" since we all
"know" that EXPRESSION is dead; it was a movement, it went on a ways,
and then died, was burid and all but forgotten except to art historians,
librarians, and people who like and therfore collect or study that
ANCIENT movement.
In the same way, a systematic study of art necessarily involves an
HISTORICAL study to get one's bearings. Thus, much of the consistency
of the arts if formed by a foot-hold in the past. We will deal with
the problem of consistency in the next section.
The probelm is create a matrix of properties that we then go thru
consistenly so that things don't get "left out". Thus, we must
identify the properties that we need to foucs on and against which
eventually "test" our new ideas. Say for example, that we are trying
to develope a new bug spray. The inherent properites (problems) are
how to create it, how effective it will be, etc. The indpendent
properties include how safe will it be, how can we "deploy it" -- is
it to be sprayed in the air, on people's skin, deep in the recesses
of the cupboards?; will it endanger small children or pets?, etc,.
Note that we are already trapped in a certain way (paradigm)
of thinking; namely it's a "spray". If we can free up our mind,
we might be open to other ways of thinking. We might imagine a
tennis match (using the racquet to hit the bugs -- not using a
fly swatter which squashes them). We might then be lead to the
non-spray solution of a "pest strip". We might imagine a christmas
tree (all lit up), and this might lead to a sticky plant-like
stucture to which the insects adhere to -- there are actually
plants that use this strategem. We might imagine the bugs driving
little cars over a cliff (lemming like; btw, lemmings don't
actually do that, the Disney movie liked the idea and the forcefully
caused the poor creatures to dive off a cliff (using i think fire
to "urge" them on -- the depravity of this act is further capped
by the fact that it has crept into "urban knowledge" as a FACT).
This might lead us to the "roach motel" -- "they check in, but
they don't check out"; this being a variation of the "pest strip"
idea.
The point here is to use other ways of thinking (here common
scenarios of humans; playing tennis, driving a car, etc) to come up
with "cross product" solutions to the "bug spray problem.
Thus, in terms of the arts, we might list some of the systematic
methods:
1) Practiced movements; be they brush strokes, danse moves, or
trumpet fingeriings.
2) Building up; this includes the way that paint is applied to a
canvas, how themes are created in music, and then returned to with
variation (as well re-statement) later in the piece, as well as
the case studies made of political/ecconomic/geographical/etc
similar situations becoming re-occuring factors in history, etc.
3) Breaking down; extracting all elements of a thing and examining
them OUT of context, and understanding how they inter/work to
to create the whole. This is the method by which language and
literature is "de-constructed". Also, by concentrating on one
aspect of a larger work or problem, we can then use that (in
almost an absurdist, exagerated way) to re-interpret the rest
of the work in terms of that component's (ideally ALL components')
atrributes. For example, in Chaikovski's "Fourth Symphony", in
the third movement the theme is handed "back and forth" to the
two sides of the orchestra; in one particular case what would
normally be several notes played by the drums, the beats are
passed between totally different instruments. These of course
create constrasts and of course then this leads to a new wave
non-contrasts when the elements are re-assembled either in the
original configuration, or in mutated ways -- influenced by
the search for a systematic and (hopefully complete) approach
to the analysis of various changes (common, different, same,
better, worse) elements.
4) Negating/Altering factors; this is when we take some aspects of
a given element and turn it into its "oppostie". For example, we
might take a thick, dark line of paint and turn it first into
a thin line. And then from that into several (parallel) thin
lines, or even thicker lines, or then into a series of twisted
lines -- but still having the basic direction and character of
the first line, and then begin making it different (where it was
straight, it becomes curved; where it was smoothly curved, it
might become square and angular, etc). And so forth, we apply
consistently (but arbitrarily) opposite functions.
5) By the same token, we can MAGNIFY factors. Where it was slightly
straight, we make it super straight (using masking tape and a
ruler to apply the paint, etc). Where it was thin, we make it
so thin, as to almost be invisble. Where we were using primary
colours, we take one or more of them and make them even more
primary; eg, in Barnett Newman's "Whose Afraid of Red, Yellow,
Blue" ??title??, the blue is darkened, while the red and yellow
are so bright that they are almost completely architypal "primary
colours".
6) Systematically "test" an object (either a component or the
entire "thing" against a "scale". One of the easiets examples
is the way that drawing students are asked to produce (for
example) a self-portrait in several styles; eg, realistic
(ie, quasi to actually photographic), cubist, surrealist,
expressionist, symbolist, etc -- these all being those "dead"
art movements that we hear about all of the time. In the
same manner, musicians are asked to take one of their
composition and re-interpret in terms of certain composers;
a notable example, was Sergei Prokofiev's first Symphony
done in the style of Haydn. Many listeners thougth it was
childish joke, prompting him to produce his second symphony
which he wrote, promising to give them "a symphony of iron
and steel". While it may seem "silly" to consider taking a
rope and treating it like it was a piece of paper, it actually
led to the doubling of the operational lifetime of conveyor
belts by giving them a "half twist" before joining the ends
together -- thust using abstract mathematics (Moebiu's so-called
"strip" from toploogy) to improve an engineering solution.
7)
2 equation, so solidly
embedded was the concept of absolute time that it prompted Ernst
Mach to create a PROOF that relativity was wrong. As it turns out
the work wasn't wasted (it correctly described trans-sonic jet
flight, a decade before any airplanes flew), but it points out
the way that supposedly "non-emotional" scientists become as
possesive of their theories as some artists do of the "classical
style" -- but, then the "scientist is only human" (like tha artist,
etc). The other example came in the mid-1900c when the problem of
the growing number of cataloged sub-atomic particles passed even
the then-known 100 or so chemical elements. One student exclaimed
that everything that they had previously known was wrong. Many
atomic physicists were quick to point out that a few ideas had
been moved around, but that by no means was everything previously
then known now suddenly wrong. As it turns out it would take some
30 more years for the work of Richard Feynman and other (most notably
the experimental atomic phyicist Ms. Wu) to show that indeed everything
was wrong: The electron, proton, and neutron were not the absolute
particles that they seemed -- giving rise to quarks and a revolution
in thinking in terms of "probability waves", "nuclear orbitals" (not
just atomic (electronic) orbitals), etc.
The main point here is that two CONSISTENT systems of thought were
existant and had considerable experimental evidence (along with what
turned out to be many in-correct INTERPRETATIONS of the data) to
support the status quo. It was some-how thought that some simple
underlaying idea or force could "unify" all of the seemingly
desparate things. (Einstein spent the last years of his life
looking for the "unifyied field theory" -- a beautiful thing if
it exists, otherwise a useless chimera as distracting as the
banners that people chase for eternity in Dante's version of
the first level of Hell).
Thus, as so aptly put by Thoreau: "A useless consistency is the
hobgobblin of the mediocre mind". NOT that i am saying that Einstein
and others were mediocre by any means. The point is:
Humans survive by finding consistencies in life,
this survival tendency led to the ideas of natural
laws, philosophy, causality, and of course the
scientific POV.
The artistic POV lives and (literally) dies by the idea that
"repetition is the death of art". Even if i clearly use an
existing icon, i must bring some new aspect to it -- otherwise
it's "merely" an academic exercise; eg, when i make copies in
pencil of the classic cannon of Art History, i know what i'm
doing and if i were to "pass these off" as my own work, i would
be guilty of one of the most serious art crimes: Art Theft -- even
though one could argue that the original was still hanging in the
museum. But, when we (as artists) practice the process of "quoting"
(referencing) then we do so as not only homage to the past, but
as extending the art of the past -- giving a new (living) voice
of a deceased artist. Marcel Duchamp knew this when he created his
"Mona Lisa with the Moustache" -- pointing out that when the Mona
Lisa becomes images on a calendar and people aren't even looking
at the calendar except to see when the next sports tourneyment or
holiday is; then, art is treuly dead.
Thus, the break trough from consistent can be made, and "perhaps"
some progress in the scientific can be made as well.
Finally, the idea of a consistent set of rules are almost antithetical
to the arts. Writer/Performer Alfred Jarry, as well as many other
of the avante guarde and absurdist traditions have demonstrated that
time and again. But, it is when the rules are TESTED with an open
mind and QUESTIONED (cross-examined) that we find new ways of
looking at old, accepted phenomenon.
In the same way, that the performers of "Circ'd'Sole" ??sp?? try to
"break the rules" and indoing so, create a new beauty (often as
difficult to accept as stretching the ear from the comfortable and
enticing "parallel fourths" to the "oddly" (the value judgement of
the consistent and complacency of the "currently acceptable"), squakish
"parllel fifths").
Analytic
Naturally, out of pure anarchy (questiong/breaking the rules) will come
new ideas. These can often be put into perspective by simply pointing
out that they are NEW and they are EXPLORATORY. Often, after performing
a particularly "odd" act, Alfred Jarry would stop, and quite "normally"
say, "Yes, but it IS lovely as literature, isn't it?".
HOwever, the utility (if we MUST tie ourselves to the "practical" or
the "acceptable") of which ideas must be analysed. In doing this, we
find out more about the "internal workings" of the thing. What makes it
work? And if it doesn't seem to be working, What is it about it that
makes it not "work"? That the artist, Kitaj, wants us to get rid of the
word "works" (in regard to art critiism) as if there were some
"absolute standards by which we could determine" this "wroking-ness"
is of course part of the cautionary and nervouse approach that we
have. Regardless, we all still use the phrases "it works" or "it doesn't
work". So, as such, by looking for consistencies and in-consistencies
in a work, problem, solution, POV, etc., we can then "line them up"
and being to analyze what IS (or IS NOT) working about them.
These analytic tools (because of the nature that of the way that even
the artist thinks about things) are going to be very similar to the
say that the scientist approaches things.
In analysing writing (either fiction, non fiction or the meta-process
of translation), the author Robert Nilson ??sp?? advises us to "find
the problem, and poke at it until it bleeds, and then use THAT blood
to write with". If i (as a visual artist) am stuck in a rut, then i
need to stand back to and look at what i'm doing and analyze the
whatness and howness of my work. Often this process of "poking at
it until it bleeds" can be a quite distructive act leaving the artwork
in shards. But, then the analysis of the pieces and weighing them
in terms of the elements (in this case, composition, colour, line
quality, juxtaposition (or not) of line/volume/texture/etc, down to
the way that the strokes are applied, etc. -- this can lead to break
throughs. It can also lead to going back and re-evaluating (re-analyzing)
previous works.
By the same process, by re-evaluating the works of other artists (again,
especially with attention to the history of art: The Language of Art itself),
and that too may lead to a break through.
Also, not that one key thing in that artistic way of doing things is
is to cross boundaries more easily than it seems that the scientific
does. Thus, we talk about relativity/absoluteism, a line as "being
deterministic" vs "having free will", historical imperrative,
geometric/organic, life-scapes/abstract-spaces, etc. -- all as if we
were classically trained in the scientific method, etc.
Thus, using the analytical methods of the arts may help in creating
break throughs in the scientific.
1) We compare odd things. That red is too yellow for the width of
that line. This makes as much sense as to say that the ozone
layer has too much frog in it. These border on the abusurd,
but when we use the juxtaposition of ideas, we can make progress
because we're NOT using the normal analysis methods. Of course
in music, they use terms like colour, as if notes actually had
photographic hues, etc.
2) The arts (like all human reasoning) uses analogies, similies, and
metaphores. Dansers speak about "slinky" vs "snakey" movements,
of "grand vs petit" gestures -- as do the closely replated areas
of music and theatre. Recall that when Niels Bohr used the
Copernican model of a solar system to describe (rather absurdly)
the behaviour of electrons in the atom that all of sudden such
complicated things as spectal lines, isotope splitting, and such,
becaume muche simplified.
3) Turning things upside down. A well known example are the works of
Helen Frankenthaler who would often work on her abstract works
from every angle -- even though the pictures were destined for
an exact orientation on the wall. For the visual artist this is
often quite easy. If i amd painting something and using Frankenthaler's
pallet (bright, but with many pinks and softer colours as well),
and then i suddenly change to a FrankStella pallet (strong, primary
colours), and then to a Mark Rothko pallet (strong, almost primary
colours, but far from bright, often like Robert Motherwell dark), then
these radically change the way that i approach things. In much the
same way in a physics problem the same problem when expressed in
different co-ordinate system becomes much simpler to solve; eg,
converting from standard (xyz) Cartesian co-cordinates to spherical
co-ordinate system (rho, theta, phi).
4) Turn a problem inside out, or exhaustively working through EVERY
possibility. In the case of Darius Mihaud's "Le Beuf sur la Tois"
(The bull on the roof), he goes through every key change possible
and yet, far from being "a boring encyclopaedia" the work maintains
a mysterious unity -- again reminding us of John Cage's dictim that
while many patterns of music are possible, few are even TRIED.
5) Purposefully try to get one aspect to destroy (or support) another.
For the most part we create harmonious things -- even when purposefully
trying to create contrasts (either subtle ones or violent ones). As
such, as the artist Betsy Belcher remarked: "Isn't it amazing what
you can do when you're angry?" By taking desparate elements and
"setting them against each other", and then viewing the results
and trying to analyze what aspects of each juxtaposing force came
to play and to produce what result, we can totally transform the
work itself or the solution to a problem, but even reveal aspects
and attributes about things that we didn't know before. By carefully
(and consistently) working through all of the combinations of simple
pea plants, Father Gregor Mendel and analysing the results, he was able
to lay the ground work that would not only explain human genetics, but
laid the foundation for the mechanism by which biological evolution
works.
Skeptical
(not true until proved)
Experimental
In keeping with the idea of the systematic exploration of ideas, if we keep
careful track of the results then we can begin to see a pattern (or not).
However, once we introduce the idea of experimentation with no clearly
defined goals other than exploration of the possible/impossbile -- then
we open the door to discovery.
Of course, one must use caution since for the most part "random" attempts
to "invent" somthing new will result mostly useless jumbles of results
that have no purpose (other than assemblage). However, the systematic
idea of varying one variable at a time can lead to useful results. For
example, in attempting to ascertain the best way to make an image transfer,
all possibliites should be attempted. As it may turn out: Using re-cycled
paper and the lowest quality of ink with a high saturation setting on the
inkjet printer will produce the most usefull "tatoo transfer" image.
The key in such "experiments" is to rigourously record what variables were
changed and attempt to SYTEMATICALLY go through all of the possible
combinations of all variables -- but, varying only one variable at a time.
Clearly a matrix would be useful for this; eg,
Paper Quality Ink Quality Saturation
============== ============== ===============
photo-gloss dye-based ink photo quality
photo-matt pigment ink standard
99% white x water-based ink x draft
recycled fast
bristol
The above matrix produeces 60 possible combinations. Of these, i only
explored 24 of these (not using photo paper and not using dye based ink).
Regardless, given enough time each of the combinations could be completely
characterised as to what its properties were, how well suited it was for
a particular application.
Finally, an important lesson from Sceince is the idea of the "Lab Notebook".
This is often used in patent disputes to show that experiments were actually
carried out and the results not merely duplicated. For the artist, the
use is a permanent referece -- which can then be turned into a publication
and shared with others.
Sci x Art (motion) --> the kinetic
That such an equation should be obvious is not at all obvious, since it
wasn't until the work of the sculptor Alexander Calder to make the first
"mobiles" (so-named by the Photographer/Artist Moholy Nagy). And of course
further contemplation lead to the so-called "stabiles" (art that didn't
move, but had the "potetial" to move).
Thus, it turns out that even if we apply motion to static images we
can the following:
a) Side-by-side images; eg, a comic strip.
b) A slide show
c) A film
d) Multiple films/slide shows/etc on multiple surfaces and intruded
into multiple spaces.
As with all art forms, we can create "unifying elements" either by
succession (eg, "1, 2, 3", "A, B, C", etc) or by repetition. Imagine
for example the game of "Monopoly". The first square is very distrincive
in the way that it shows the word "start". Thus, that element could be
used so as to indicate the start of a new part of the over-all structure.
Another exmpole, is that of a path (maze, spiral, etc) down which the
viewer/participant is to be guided (or not). Again drawing upon our
analogy of "Monopoly", the "Chance" cards allow for non-linerar movement.
In the same way, art work that is to involve either the movemernt of
the viewer/participant or the works themselves can be given either
sytematic or random motions by use in introduced motions. Notice that
much of the "thrill" of a roller coaster ride orignates from the
seemingly random changes of motion, as well as the physical height
above the earth.
Ways to think about motion:
1) The artist/presenteur moves the objects around; eg, a fortune teller
and their cards, a "janitor" trundles on and off stage with a
a wheel barrow filled with varying objects, danseurs come in with
placards or other props.
2) The art object is moved by the viewer/participant; eg, a remote
control car embellished with "art objects", the viewer/partipant
is given a wheel barrow which can be pushed around the space,
group efforts to move an item (eg, a stair case to go to the
"next level").
3) Self moving ojects. Clearly these have some means of motion; eg,
a fan blowing, water flowing, gravity being changed as for example
with a teeter-totter, string pulling them along, or even hot air
being used to elevate them.
4) Objects that react to the viewer/participant. Traditionally this
has been the case with interactive performances where either mimes,
actors, or puppeteers produce the motion. With the advent of
technology this can be done with electronics where the viewer/particpant
pushes a button and produces an effect (the effect may vary), or
as with a robot. An important aspect of this later case, is in
the treatment of autistic children wherein they relate more to
a robot than to a human -- humans are very often un-predictable,
but a robot may be programmed to "tone down" human behaviour so
as to be less threatening to the patient.
5) The space itself may be in motion; eg, the roller coaster, moving
rooms, fun house tunnels, etc.
Clearly much of the aesthetic here depends on the background "story" that
is used to guide the experience as a whole; eg, a huanted house is dramatically
differernt from a nautre walk.
Universal Phenomenon
Attempting to remove the (human) observer from the equation.
If a system behaves independently of any human interaction, then the
system might well be called "absolute". Of course, at some level this
breaks down since the human might have a sledge hammer handy, etc.
Another example occurs with RECORDED (non interactive) works as well
as static images (traditional art, music, etc). In this case the observer
observes and may be changed, but the performance itself does not. Of
course this can be modified by changing what is preseneted to the
observer. Thus, a picture might be displayed and then an audio recording
is played back, later as other viewers see the picture, a different
recoring is played. Thus, the two experieinces can be dynamically
altered. This leads down the path of the "blind men and the elephant"
by creating (possibly) radically differernt experiences/interpretations
of the experience.
Note that in the case of live performances, the observer effect is almost
always prominent. An interesting example of co-erced behaviour was one
performance piece by the late, great comedian Andy Kaufman and his
"Latka" character. He starts by playing (badly) a bongo drum. He then
performs (badly) a series of imitations. Finally he is so upset that
he begine to cry and whimper, randomly hitting the bongo. The genius
of the piece is that from these three sounds (crying, a sort of
dry-throad drawing of breath, and hitting the bongo) he is able to
create work of remvarkable beauty both in terms of tonality and rhythm.
Finally, note that if we were to create EVERY possible experience (or at
at least a very large number of different experiences) and then to bring
the viewers together, and ask what they experienced. Then due to the
(possibly) random events and CONTEXTS which they viewed/participated in
the work -- would tend to cancel each other out. That is, we could create
a true "quantum uncertainty" experience since there would NOT be a "one
true" experience.
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Fractalist
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Futurist
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Humanist
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Jazzist
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Scientist
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Scientist x Spiritualist
Jump randomly to: {x-product} {Abs} {Art} {Frc} {Fut} {Hum} {Jazz} {Sci} {Spi}
Bargain Basement
Note: Prices as marked. All sales final until the beginning of time.
Returns will only be accepted after the end of time.
