This series of posts point to the relationship between physical objects and variant spatial perceptions. As stated, the moon appears differently depending on its physical position around the earth, but retains a "half-lit, half-dark" nature throughout its translation. To an observer standing within the sun, this perspective would remain unchanged. But, we as observers are relegated to the outskirts of our light source, meaning we can perceive incomplete information about the object and its light source. This is not necessarily deceiving, however, as indicated by Eliasson. The physical object (the moon) is enhanced, rather than deformed, by these variant perspective. As he alludes, this is what gives "meaning" or reason, allowing the observer to make different connections dependent on his or her position. This and multiple other variations allow the construction of different and changing perspectives from the same physical object. This links very well with our class exercises hoping to instill different meanings to the same physical object dependent on its spatial position, as seen with the coyote.
Pedro, I completely agree. The whole notion of our reality is perception. Without perception, we would have no consciousness. In fact, consciousness itself is only our perception, which leads to the fact that anything we see, hear, smell, touch, or taste is perceived! We have no idea what is real and what isn't real. The simple fact that our consciousness could be controlled by some higher power (or even an equal might holding our minds in a petri dish) throws everything we truly believe in out of the window. There is no proof of anything if one cannot prove that everything he is experiencing is real.
I was having a conversation with two Christians earlier today about predestination. Of course, their notions of predestination were more symbolic than I am about to describe right now, but that's beside the point. First off, I explained that I had heard in the past of scientists trying to prove that really we only have the perception of free will. We feel like we can control things, but we really can't. Everything will take place anyways...
This got me thinking... Take a proton and an electron and release them a distance apart from one another. What will happen? They'll move closer to one another. Why? Because an electrostatic/electromagnetic force is acting on both of them. This is one of the four fundamental forces in the universe (as we know it... once again, our knowledge of reality limits our attainment of any "true" truth). The other forces are the gravitational force, the strong force which binds neutrons together, preventing the collapse of every atomic nucleus, and the weak force, which is caused by the absorption or emission of W and Z bosons.
Well, if the entire universe is confined to these laws, then every interaction on Earth follows these laws as well. What does this mean? Well, if our thoughts are really just electrical impulses in the brain, then don't these electrical impulses just happen anyway due to the fundamental forces? There just happens to be an electric field, and that's why an electron goes here or there. What this means is that, in theory, our thoughts will just happen... They're caused by fundamental forces and are already determined before we actually think them (due to the time-dependent nature of the interactions). Really, then, there are two takeaways:
Either this is correct, and every interaction on Earth, both microscopically as protons, neutrons, and electrons, and macroscopically as humans, happens due to fundamental forces; predestination is real; and we have no free-will, or there must be some explanation as to why we have a consciousness and how we can actually control things. (This is, of course, assuming that our perception of consciousness is actually the way we perceive it, which I've already established is impossible to tell.)
The moral of the story is: perception is everything, but it essentially means nothing.
If we would not have consciousness without perception, and consciousness is only our perception, are you saying there is no consciousnesses as well as no perception?
I appreciated Eliasson's comment that a body needs to feel a part of a space in order to understand the consequences of being in a space. Manipulating light in a space helps bridge the gap between thinking and doing, by creating an experience that may or may not be based in reality, but shapes the perception of the one in the space on the less. A key example of this is Eliasson's green dye project in urban rivers, although the rivers are not truly green, the perception of green in a river is that the waterway is polluted giving those experiencing the green river in the city a very different experience and perception of urbanization than if the water had been blue or clear. Light is one of the most prominent aspects used on defining reality, and when light changes, our perception of a space changes. The ability to manipulate or change light is the ability to create a new reality.
I was honestly super distracted by this guy's accent and had to watch this twice...
ANYWAYS. What jumped out at me most from this film is the question Eliasson asks, "Who decides what reality is?" I love this question because it can really get you thinking. I think it can be said that each person decides for themselves what their reality is. In our class, we create our own realities with the photos we take. We craft naratives based upon what we capture with our cameras. Once we decide how we want the photo to be viewed, we successful create our very own realities.
This video brought up some interesting points about the relationship between art and culture/politics. I happen to think that they are all very closely intertwined. There is a long history of artists making political statements through their work; just look at political cartoons. I also thought that the question, "Who decides what reality is?" was very interesting. This goes back to the ties between culture and art. How did our reality come to be and how does art reflect that? I also think that "reality" has a lot to do with perspective. This is similar to what we talked about with camera obscura but what I'm saying is that my reality is different from anyone else's reality. Our realities may share a lot of common elements but ultimately they are at least a little bit different.
Thinking about what reality is is one of those tangents I end up going on when it's like 2 in the morning and I should be sleeping but my mind is still weirdly active. Anyway, I found the speaker's comments about the ties between art and politics to be important. I agree with Zach. Art and politics have a very rich history together. Politics have bred art, whether through funding or disparaging legislature.
This is exactly what I thought about when looking at and contemplating the last video. If we all have different minds, and truly cannot have the same experience as any other human on the planet, past or present, is there really a "right" or "wrong" when discussing realities? What Eliasson does with his art is create new perspectives- and it really isn't anyone's place to say that they are or aren't true- they simply create a new way of looking at the object and therefore create new ideas and spread more knowledge.
This series of posts point to the relationship between physical objects and variant spatial perceptions. As stated, the moon appears differently depending on its physical position around the earth, but retains a "half-lit, half-dark" nature throughout its translation. To an observer standing within the sun, this perspective would remain unchanged. But, we as observers are relegated to the outskirts of our light source, meaning we can perceive incomplete information about the object and its light source. This is not necessarily deceiving, however, as indicated by Eliasson. The physical object (the moon) is enhanced, rather than deformed, by these variant perspective. As he alludes, this is what gives "meaning" or reason, allowing the observer to make different connections dependent on his or her position. This and multiple other variations allow the construction of different and changing perspectives from the same physical object. This links very well with our class exercises hoping to instill different meanings to the same physical object dependent on its spatial position, as seen with the coyote.
ReplyDeletePedro, I completely agree. The whole notion of our reality is perception. Without perception, we would have no consciousness. In fact, consciousness itself is only our perception, which leads to the fact that anything we see, hear, smell, touch, or taste is perceived! We have no idea what is real and what isn't real. The simple fact that our consciousness could be controlled by some higher power (or even an equal might holding our minds in a petri dish) throws everything we truly believe in out of the window. There is no proof of anything if one cannot prove that everything he is experiencing is real.
DeleteI was having a conversation with two Christians earlier today about predestination. Of course, their notions of predestination were more symbolic than I am about to describe right now, but that's beside the point. First off, I explained that I had heard in the past of scientists trying to prove that really we only have the perception of free will. We feel like we can control things, but we really can't. Everything will take place anyways...
This got me thinking... Take a proton and an electron and release them a distance apart from one another. What will happen? They'll move closer to one another. Why? Because an electrostatic/electromagnetic force is acting on both of them. This is one of the four fundamental forces in the universe (as we know it... once again, our knowledge of reality limits our attainment of any "true" truth). The other forces are the gravitational force, the strong force which binds neutrons together, preventing the collapse of every atomic nucleus, and the weak force, which is caused by the absorption or emission of W and Z bosons.
Well, if the entire universe is confined to these laws, then every interaction on Earth follows these laws as well. What does this mean? Well, if our thoughts are really just electrical impulses in the brain, then don't these electrical impulses just happen anyway due to the fundamental forces? There just happens to be an electric field, and that's why an electron goes here or there. What this means is that, in theory, our thoughts will just happen... They're caused by fundamental forces and are already determined before we actually think them (due to the time-dependent nature of the interactions). Really, then, there are two takeaways:
Either this is correct, and every interaction on Earth, both microscopically as protons, neutrons, and electrons, and macroscopically as humans, happens due to fundamental forces; predestination is real; and we have no free-will, or there must be some explanation as to why we have a consciousness and how we can actually control things. (This is, of course, assuming that our perception of consciousness is actually the way we perceive it, which I've already established is impossible to tell.)
The moral of the story is: perception is everything, but it essentially means nothing.
If we would not have consciousness without perception, and consciousness is only our perception, are you saying there is no consciousnesses as well as no perception?
DeleteI appreciated Eliasson's comment that a body needs to feel a part of a space in order to understand the consequences of being in a space. Manipulating light in a space helps bridge the gap between thinking and doing, by creating an experience that may or may not be based in reality, but shapes the perception of the one in the space on the less. A key example of this is Eliasson's green dye project in urban rivers, although the rivers are not truly green, the perception of green in a river is that the waterway is polluted giving those experiencing the green river in the city a very different experience and perception of urbanization than if the water had been blue or clear.
ReplyDeleteLight is one of the most prominent aspects used on defining reality, and when light changes, our perception of a space changes. The ability to manipulate or change light is the ability to create a new reality.
I was honestly super distracted by this guy's accent and had to watch this twice...
ReplyDeleteANYWAYS. What jumped out at me most from this film is the question Eliasson asks, "Who decides what reality is?" I love this question because it can really get you thinking. I think it can be said that each person decides for themselves what their reality is. In our class, we create our own realities with the photos we take. We craft naratives based upon what we capture with our cameras. Once we decide how we want the photo to be viewed, we successful create our very own realities.
This video brought up some interesting points about the relationship between art and culture/politics. I happen to think that they are all very closely intertwined. There is a long history of artists making political statements through their work; just look at political cartoons. I also thought that the question, "Who decides what reality is?" was very interesting. This goes back to the ties between culture and art. How did our reality come to be and how does art reflect that? I also think that "reality" has a lot to do with perspective. This is similar to what we talked about with camera obscura but what I'm saying is that my reality is different from anyone else's reality. Our realities may share a lot of common elements but ultimately they are at least a little bit different.
ReplyDeleteThinking about what reality is is one of those tangents I end up going on when it's like 2 in the morning and I should be sleeping but my mind is still weirdly active. Anyway, I found the speaker's comments about the ties between art and politics to be important. I agree with Zach. Art and politics have a very rich history together. Politics have bred art, whether through funding or disparaging legislature.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I thought about when looking at and contemplating the last video. If we all have different minds, and truly cannot have the same experience as any other human on the planet, past or present, is there really a "right" or "wrong" when discussing realities? What Eliasson does with his art is create new perspectives- and it really isn't anyone's place to say that they are or aren't true- they simply create a new way of looking at the object and therefore create new ideas and spread more knowledge.
ReplyDelete