Vision Card [REverse] > ©2007 PJM

Vision Card [REverse] > ©2007 PJM


permalink>>>


January 26, 2010

posted at 4:07 PM

©VISION CHANNEL DEVICE > “Inside>Outside” > DDDD > Parthenon Museum installation > Vinyl on acrylic, 4’ x 4’ > Metal spacers and mounts by Don Adams > ©2000 PJM

©VISION CHANNEL DEVICE > “Inside>Outside” > DDDD > Parthenon Museum installation > Vinyl on acrylic, 4’ x 4’ > Metal spacers and mounts by Don Adams > ©2000 PJM


high res>>>

permalink>>>


<<<

posted at 4:00 PM

©2002 PJM

<<<

posted at 3:54 PM

[A synopsis of the project “Vision+Beauty” on AFH Tumblr, using a simple blog format to pursue a web-based scan of the domain, to produce a unique document/not-document, mapping historic definitions of vision and beauty with current ones, to complement and “bring to a momentary point” multiple - systematic or ongoing - comprehensive dimensional analyses for comprehending the dimensional relations between vision and beauty, specifically as they pertain to the artist, generally as they pertain to humanity, presented throughout the AFH network of sites]

NOTATIONS

Vision is an optical outer to inner sense operation.

Vision is an instinctual response.

Vision is a function of choice.

Beauty is an optical inner to outer thought operation.*

Beauty is a function of instinctual response.

Beauty is the freedom of choice.


*The optical and brain complexes are indivisible.

>

Distinguishing between epistemological mandates for beauty and instinctual responses to beauty is a prime artist function.

ANTITHESIS

Artificial beauty is not beauty.

>

Artificial vision skews input, and therefore response.

>

DIMENSIONAL BEAUTY

Factors include movement, light levels and sources, reflection, patterns and sequences, composition, static elements, setting, memory and memory activators, comparative elements, cultural relevance and more.

CONSIDERATIONS AND TERMS

Symmetry
Survival
Realism
Interactivity
Consequence
Responsibility

REPRESENTATION is the key element

VISION as a tribal expression of relational values

The MECHANICS OF VISION; VISION TECHNOLOGY; ARTIFICIALLY ENHANCED VISION; DIMENSIONAL VISION.

NATURAL BEAUTY

INFINITE BEAUTY

VISION + BEAUTY: by Veronica

<<<

posted at 3:51 PM

1 Linda 80 &gt; ©2010 PJM

1 Linda 80 > ©2010 PJM


permalink>>>


January 14, 2010

posted at 10:24 PM

Do Computers Understand Art?

A team of researchers from the University of Girona and the Max Planck Institute in Germany has shown that some mathematical algorithms provide clues about the artistic style of a painting. The composition of colours or certain aesthetic measurements can already be quantified by a computer, but machines are still far from being able to interpret art in the way that people do.



<<<

posted at 10:21 PM

Linda13 &gt; ©2001 PJM

Linda13 > ©2001 PJM


permalink>>>


December 29, 2009

posted at 12:14 PM

“Having a vision [cultural perspective] is a powereful thing. Creating art is imitating the gods. In that respect, everything you do has to be done in great reverence. You don’t do it casually. It’s not to be flagrantly marketed. I sometimes have a ceremony to acknowledge that vision. It’s like having your resume checked by the gods.

“For me, beauty is anything that stirs the soul, the emotion, whether it be grief, anger, joy, or melancholia. In Navajo, we say iina’ya’ hool zhho’. It means ‘an easing of the vision.’ Anything you see, your eyes ease into that, and your mind arranges it. We say nizhonigoo bil iina, the beauty that you live with, the beauty that you live by, the beauty upon which you base your life.”

Shonto Begay (Navajo) [Google find @CoyoteToo]

<<<

posted at 12:12 PM

Linda 3 &gt; ©2001 PJM

Linda 3 > ©2001 PJM


permalink>>>


December 18, 2009

posted at 12:22 AM

The Art of Vision, a Film by Stan Brakhage {by FRED CAMPER}

Brakhage is the most “abstract” of the major experimental filmmakers. His films, particularly since Anticipation of the Night, have proved difficult to watch for many people. He has completely rejected continuity of space or time: that is, real spatial dimension does not exist in his films, and events do not follow each other with relation to any time sequence. There is no “base” that one can approach his work from. His films are dreams, without the Freudian symbols that made earlier attempts in this direction more immediately understandable; they are visions, but with too many unrecognizable objects to be directly related to one’s daily experience. The trouble that most people have on first viewing a Brakhage film is that his textures and motions, while taken from the world around him, do not relate to any ordinary kind of experience. One cannot view the shots of Paris in The Dead and say, “Oh, Paris.” He films his objects so as to violate the possibility of the viewer making any connection with his direct experience. One cannot understand Brakhage in terms of what you see, or the way you view the world; you must understand his work by trying to understand the way he sees the world.



<<<

posted at 12:21 AM