Why can it be so beautiful?

[Lauri Kettunen]

Do you think some extraterrestrial intelligent lifeform doesn't discover the same mathematics as we do?

If I had to speculate I would say, probably yes. But still, this just means if there were somebody in Mars pointing his finger to the sun, his and our fingers just pointed to the same star.

Perhaps I should confess that I've spent forty years of my life studying like mad mathematical physics, especially electromagnetic theory and modern mathematics. So, this question is precisely something I've also discussed with some of the very best people in the world.

It's very difficult to say which one comes first mathematics or physics. My own explanation is, physics relies on the observation that there are phenomena which appear always the same way under the same conditions. That is, these phenomena appear in a logical manner. Mathematics, in turn, condense this logic into a framework --or language, if you like-- which does not rely in any instances. In other words, mathematics is free of examples. Say, take two stones or RED cameras and bring in another three to get five stones or RED cameras, respectively. In mathematics one says this by stating 2+3=5 without a reference to any instance. But, what we call number two, three or five, i.e., the natural numbers, is still a man made construction from the notion of set, empty set, and successor set. This boils down to the so called Peano Axioms. (If you want to know more, suggest to read Halmos: Naive Set Theory, Springer-Verlag or see a quick explanation at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html.) My guess is some "extraterrestrial intelligent lifeform" would phrase natural numbers pretty much the same way.

Getting back to Shawn's question a thought came into mind. When I saw the first episods of BBC Planet Earth series I found them totally amazing and was hit by the beauty of the images. But then, after seeing four or fives episods did not anymore find the rest as beautiful, for they repeated the same structure and pattern as the earlier ones. However, technically the last episods are as wonderful as the first ones. So, at least in my case, when I get the impression of beauty, there is a flavour or aspect of novelity. There's probably a lot of beautiful things around us we just do not realize as we are so used to them that we are no longer able to feel the beauty.

In fact, I'm rather grateful to Shawn raising the question. For, once I'll get my RED camera, will start to work with a new three year wildlife document project. The more I've processed on Shawn's question the more clear it has become that we have to seek very seriously for a new view surprising the audience.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

A lot of "laws" and patterns we define, or artistic details we try to find can simply be and often are expressed subconsciously.
If you have the talent you don't think about the golden ratio in a composition. It just feels right. I doubt great artists think about the laws. They don't have to understand it all.
Thinking too much can interfere with creative flow. Instead of defining, I feel it's more like listening, letting out what comes from beyond...

Symbols and patterns are a mere link, a sub element. Director's creative thought can be a point of origin which, if all is done right, leads to the final structure, an expression of that thought recognizable by the audience.

During every creative process, which itself is magical, another magic happens. An intervention of factors and elements not present in the original creative thought. Some can appear as lucky coincidences, some as obstacles, but they add something to the original idea.
I like to see them as gifts.

I'm sure that even the creation of Red consists of examples of such magic.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

And yes, creativity, whatever that might actually be, is vital! I mean, I believe that I'm creative, I just have no way of figuring out or defining what creativity is.
Graeme

I'd guess... a gift, ability to possess ideas and bring them to life. To express oneself combining known with imagined.
What could be helpful in defining creativity and even more intriguing is defining inspiration.

I'm interested in opinions and feelings about it.

....You can say that the original cave artists painted those beautiful bison out of some magical conviction that the animals would be easier to hunt or from a desire to include them in the human community. But that doesn't explain the beauty and accomplishment of the lines, which must have taken generations, maybe even centuries, to refine.
...Or you can argue that Beethoven composed masterpieces because what he really wanted, whether he knew it or not, was access to women and the opportunity of passing on his genes. .....
The writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was also an accomplished naturalist, pointed out that the "mimicry" factor in nature -- for example, an insect whose wings have the markings of a leaf, complete with bore holes, to confuse a predator.....
...If anything, these activities are self-destructive. It makes far more sense to become a plumber or a dentist, if the idea is passing on your genes and ensuring that your offspring survive.

Don't confuse the perception of beauty with art, inspiration and what triggers it.

Artist can also create ugliness to express himself and beauty can be achieved without art.

Concerning the insect and the leaf... it's a guessing game... maybe the plant taught the insect how to look similar...

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Wow, I love the responses!!

Acehole, yours in particular intrigued me. I find the idea of understanding the underlying reasons of things to be the key. Do you have any good book recommendations for understanding semiotics?

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

I doubt great artists think about the laws. They don't have to understand it all.

Omen, I like this very much, and in fact this reminds me of what Halmos says in the introduction of his book (Naive set theory): "read it, absorb it, and forget it".

So, you are probably right in saying people in creative work do not think about laws. Instead, once something is absorbed and it becomes a true part of someone's nature, then one may break the laws in a controlled manner, and the audience find beauty in the outcome and recognizes the creative mind behind the work. A lower level of art is just to create copies of existing ideas.

There's a very nice book Martha Hill-Art Wolfe: The Art of Photographing Nature, where Martha Hill gives an analysis of Art Wolfe's spectacular photographs. In this book Martha Hill nicely demonstrates that to take a photo or to tell a story some structure is needed. This book had a big influence on me when it came out about a decade ago and thus classify it in the category of recommend books.

 

[Elizabeth]

Thinking too much can interfere with creative flow. Instead of defining, I feel it's more like listening, letting out what comes from beyond...

During every creative process, which itself is magical, another magic happens. An intervention of factors and elements not present in the original creative thought. Some can appear as lucky coincidences, some as obstacles, but they add something to the original idea.
I like to see them as gifts.

Of course, there is the debatable truth that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". On the surface this statement seems simple, but for me it opens a whole box of Zen Koans.

If two people stand before a thing of beauty - one person has a fresh receptive spirit and the other is jaded and bitter - will they see the same beauty? If a blind man sits before the same thing of beauty, is it still beautiful? Can he not still touch it and perceive it's supremely skillful crafting or natural form? Is beauty reliant only on the observer having "the eyes to see" or is it inherent to the object itself? Is beauty only born from the emotional/intellectual response we humans invest in something or are there greater universal laws that dictate beauty?

There are different answers to these questions, but I do know that in my most divinely creative and intuitive moments, I have always felt (more than heard) the gentle whispering voice just on the other side of my inner ear "... put that line there, yes this word here, wait, wait, wait turn quick shoot this NOW like this ... yes ... yes lose that image, okay, place this image with this one, lay them down RIGHT HERE to this music ... yes ... beautiful!"

Then I do as I am told and more often than not, I find beauty.

I do not know where these imperatives spring from, nor do I question the source of the messages in the moment (only after the event do I re-assess what has come from this experience and begin to judge it as acceptable or not). Certainly there is a great deal of education, technique and knowledge all aligning with wisdom, life experiences, primal urges and pure gut instinct to create art and translate beauty ... still I do believe that there is also an "unknowable" force at play in these sublime moments of creation and (try as we might) we can never, ever really "know" exactly what this force.

So, for me it is REALLY a process of listen to and trusting an inner directive and then discovering what magic comes from the process. I never cease to be amazed.

 

[Phil Becque]

Semiotic link

Semiotic link

Wow, I love the responses!!

Acehole, yours in particular intrigued me. I find the idea of understanding the underlying reasons of things to be the key. Do you have any good book recommendations for understanding semiotics?

Hi Shawn, I'm sure Ace has other references but here's one you may finding interesting:

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/80056/sample/9780521780056wsn01.pdf

I did purchase a film making booklet which mentioned this topic and went into the basics quite well - but I'll I can't put my hand on it right now.

I'll send you a note if it turns up.

As for the topic of how something strikes our perception in such a way as to become beautiful - well that's quite a mystery really although here are my favorite clues:

First - I think comes context - setting up a context is quite tricky because you are always doing this in film - either intentionally or by accident. In any event once you have a context it's possible to 'reveal' something which is 'relevant' to that 'context' and make it more likely to be percieved by the audience as 'beautiful'. The way you do this 'reveal' is crucial - get it wrong and it you can have quite unexpected results.

The other aspect of the 'reveal' is that you want to cause 'resonance' for the viewer. Again - that's quite subtle. Another aspect of beauty (already refered to in this thread) is 'ratio'. It's easy to over cook or under cook things - so getting just the right 'ratio' (which includes rythym and timing) is also part of the semiotic.

The other thing is 'relationships' - not the interpersonnal types here, but the relationships between the images and in many cases the accompanying music - that's a highly personal thing of course. Not everyone is going to 'get' the connections that form in your head when your are doing the editing - but some will - and they'll love it.

My latest project was recently described by a Film Festival as "visually beautiful, mind altering and cinematic" which, as you can imagine, I was delighted about! The fact is, I was striving for those things; though to be brutally honest I wasn't sure how successful I'd been when I finished the project. Also, the exact same project was castigated in the most offensive manner by some other '(english) movie buffs' as "fact free, santimonius twaddle" which only goes to prove the old addage that "one mans meat is another mans poison".

Good luck with your developing your film language skills and don't forget that you have the freedom to make up your own!

All the best, Phil

 

[number6]

Thanks for sharing the link Phil. Very deep... I even understood some of it... I think.

 

[krd]

Acehole will answer for himself, so take my two cents for what they're worth:

Like other post-modern academic disciplines, semiotics employs a highly formal language, verging on the oracular, and understood by very few, to dignifiy what amounts to untestable theories or impressions. This discourse may actually yield an insight worth having from time to time, but it's useless for anyone actually working in the arts, as somehow distinct from knowing and understanding the craft of that art or technology.

If, to use Acehole's example, you want to learn how to reconstruct a face or compose an image, not as art (as he's quick to note) but as a functional technology, you need (obviously) to study plastic surgery or composition, respectively. Semiotics, as an independent discipline, may in part describe the discourse of reconstructive surgery or the golden ratio, but it's no substitute for them. You wouldn't go to a semiotician to get a broken nose fixed, that's one post-modern experiment you don't want to perform.

Some might cite Umberto Eco as the exception (as well as being a highly regarded theorist, he's also a novelist) but that's a subject for another day. However, if you want to see a popularized and very entertaining version of semiotics in practice (quite unlike the download above), look at Eco's essay on "Casablanca". You'll also see how useless this kind of knowledge actually is for filmmakers whose subject isn't semiotics (as it often is in Eco's novels).

But I suspect Acehole wasn't speaking to the academic discipline of semiotics. Trouble is, there really is no other form of it which can be put to any use, beyond casual conversation -- or it's just a fancy word for "craft", the sort of things people learned and taught themselves long before semiotics became a university department.

But let's hear what he has to say.

 

[Phil Becque]

Another link on semiotics

Another link on semiotics

Thanks for sharing the link Phil. Very deep... I even understood some of it... I think.

Hi number6,

Another link for you - possibly a better read?

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html


Hi krd

I disagree with this statement "You'll also see how useless this kind of knowledge actually is for filmmakers"

Semiotics is the study of how to convey meaning to your audience through sight and sound. Call me old fashioned - but I would have thought that might come in useful in film making?

All the best, Phil

 

[krd]

I disagree with this statement "You'll also see how useless this kind of knowledge actually is for filmmakers"

Semiotics is the study of how to convey meaning to your audience through sight and sound. Call me old fashioned - but I would have thought that might come in useful in film making

My view is simplistic, and even more old-fashioned: life is long, and so is art, and we all find our craft in different ways, or we find the wrong craft or an incomplete one, and the truth is, most of us find nothing at all at the end of it, not craft and not art. If all this could be taught with semiotics, film and literature would cease to be art and become technology, the product of companies, not individuals. That process may be happening anyway, but not thanks to the Semiotics Department.

And even if semiotics revealed the true structure of things in the realm of propaganda or information technology, the method of inquiry is based on the notion that the true structure of things is not a product of conscious intention, or that conscious intention is irrelevant, in the same way a geologist doesn't worry about the intention of a mountain range when he looks at the plates below. So you may think you wrote a pulp novel about sex, fraud and murder, but the semiotician knows it's really a neo-Platonist elaboration of mercantile relations between de-gendered phantom signifiers in a jubilance of ahistorical revisionism. And, for all I know, he may be right. But how this will help anyone to write a novel, any more than traditional literary or art criticism teaches people how to write or paint (it doesn't), is beyond me, unless maybe you're writing an academic satire.

For the record, there is at least one "semiotic" filmmaker more or less in the mainstream: Todd Haynes. Which could explain why all his films are based on other films -- "meta-films", as it were -- and why they have an incomplete and pallid existence on their own, at least as I see them. Then again, the guy raised $15 million for his Dylan biopic, so what do I know? Long live semiotics.

 

[Phil Becque]

LOL - ha you've really got it in for Semiotics Department - that's great!

I know what you mean about semiotic discourse sounding like pseude's corner; peopled by inbreds who were born with an oxford english dictionary up their ar*e. But when I came across the concept I found it quite useful. But then I do like analysis . . . .

I do think that Art and Craft are very important - but then I do have an unnatural aversion to those words for reasons that go back to my stunted artist development as a child.

Good luck with all of your projects and remember if you really don't which direction to go; the toss of a coin is probably as good as anything else.

All the best, Phil

 

[Shawn Nelson]

hey acehole! You never chimed in on whether you think there are any good book worth reading on semiotics!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I had an experience... when I was younger.

It was a late summer afternoon and I was like... 15...

My sweet little neighborhood was quiet... its lazy whisper was flying through the half-opened window...

I was taking a nice nap and my teenage mind was lingering between the realm of Morpheus and the gentle breeze of August...

I woke up and walked to the window... for no particular reason...

And then something happened with my vision... my eyes were acting weirdly...

It's hard to describe, but I was like,.. in another regime of seeing.

The colors were stronger, richer and more saturated... I was seeing more detail.... clean and crisp... I believe that even my eye's "latitude" was like - bigger .

The only way I can describe it is that I had a kind of film vision.

Everything looked like a movie, like a super-high-quality film-stock. Dreamy.. surreal.

This lasted 5-10 seconds max.

I'll never forget it and I certainly cannot explain it.

Maybe it was a kind of "breach" in the flux of my perception. Maybe some teenage chemical was dancing though my brain, I dunno.

But it sure showed me that, what one usually sees is not all that can be seen.

Regarding beauty, vision and cinematography, there are a lot of things you can learn and be taught in school and other places. A lot of theories, explanations and reasoning...

But all these are secondary, IMO.

What if you can study the semiotics of your heart?

The basic, the visceral, the instinctive, the primordial...

A professor at my University has an interesting theory on the "first setup" of our perception. Our first, pure, natural "eye".

"So wonderful the mind of a child is."

Education helps, I suppose... But it also blocks some very important ports in our mind.

I bet that if a person knows his "first setup" well, he'll make a hell of a DP.


P.S. Things that happen for no particular reason are usually the best.

 

[Nick Wolf]

Can you go into more detail about this theory of "The first Set-Up"...

 

[Joe Carney]

From a pratical standpoint just about any of the pre Pixar Disney animated films depended heavily on Semniotics , though they didn't call it that. Lots of info on this in the book "The Illusion of Life". You actually see it in most western animated films once you start looking.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

dogday:

It's quite a big book on philosophy of science, but I'll try to give a synopsis.

zeke:

I'm not bashing semiotics or anything.. just expressing thoughts..

 

[Joe Carney]

dogday:

It's quite a big book on philosophy of science, but I'll try to give a synopsis.

zeke:

I'm not bashing semiotics or anything.. just expressing thoughts..

I didn't think you were. Just some people don't want to read a dry academic treatise on the subject, so "The Illusion of Life" might be more fun to get the fundamentals.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Good luck with your books on Philosophy, semiotics and math equations y'all.
There might be beauty in math, but there's no math in beauty. At least none worth the trouble of averting ones attention from the beauty itself. Bertrand Russell said it well, almost poetically, but Bertrand was no Poet, or painter, or musician, or filmmaker; he was something else.
And notice how Mr. Russell qualifies his statement with "Mathematics, rightly viewed..." What is, "rightly viewed"?
Which pretty much brings us back to the original question of this thread.

"Is that perfume from a dress, that makes me so digress" wrote (more or less) TS Elliot. Breaking the perfume down to its chemical constituents might be fun for some - even a passionate endeavor for the likes of Primo Levy; see his novel -The Periodic Tables - for a beautiful and artistic account of bridging the gulf between chemistry and the human condition. However, as far as this thread goes, the important thing about the novel is that Levi used no math in its message, he, like Elliot, digressed. He had to rely on the essence of math- math without the numbers.
And Carl Dreyer relied on the essence of the human spirit when he showed Joan of Arc's hair- brutally shorn off- being swept into a garbage basket, emphasizing and beautifully abstracting Joan's (brief) shunning of her religious ideals.
Put away your calculators lads, there ain't no cure for love

 

[Graeme Nattress]

There's a lot of math in beauty - look at fractals, the golden ratio that just pops up everywhere in nature, cellular automata, madelbrot sets....

Graeme