From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 08:04:23 MST
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 06:45:52PM -0800, Richard Steven Hack wrote:
>
> I'm not much of an art enthusiast except in two respects - I like comic
> books, and I like fantasy art such as Boris Vallejo and the like. In both
> forms of art, which are essentially modern forms of the old mythic tales,
> the focus is on the Transhuman (technologically or otherwise). And in both
> forms, the essence of the art is *intensity* - the art is *striking* - it
> has *impact*. That is the hallmark of all good actors as well - their
> *intensity* of expression. Pallid, purposeless art does not interest
> me. I use art (music, movies, comics, whatever) to inspire me and to
> strengthen my conviction that a better world and a better life are
> *possible* (if it seems on a daily basis highly improbable).
Scott McCloud made the point in his _Understanding Comics_ that turning
a realistic picture into a cartoon makes it more generally applicable. A
photograph of a face represents a certain person; a sketch a small
number of similar people, a cartoon many people and a circle with two
dots nearly all people. So by removing details we can make something
more general. But conversely, by making a caricature we emphasize
important aspects (the nose, a lock of hair, a mannerism) and make them
stronger - and people actually recognize celebrities better from
caricatures than from photos. It is a bit like supernormal stimuli in
animals: many birds react to certain patterns like the red spot on a
parents beak or the tailfeathers of a peacock, so when researchers
amplify these features (by painting a larger spot or attaching huge
feathers) the response is amplified (take a look at how Boris Vallejo
amplifies secondary sexual characteristics in the same manner). So by
removing irrelevant aspects and amplifying relevant aspects, we can make
something (or someone) produce a more intense experience of a thing.
Vilayanur Ramachandran has coined the term "Neuroesthetics" for the
study of the neuroscience of art appreciation (see e.g.
http://noemata.net/?no=262 or
http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_06/uk/signes/txt1.htm).
But while intensity is important, *what* is being intense can also be
important. Beauty and emotion are the mainstays of intense art, but I
have become more and more interested in enjoying intensively
intellectual art - just as a Picasso can hit the senses straight on,
certain pieces of Philip Glass may hit my thinking straight on.
I guess that as we develop our bodies, that many of us will want to
create a more intense form of ourselves - we will concentrate our
personal essences into our appearance, until we look exactly like we
*are*. That is where self-transformation starts to turn us into music
and dance itself.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:49 MST