Sunday, April 21, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
HERE for Part 1 and HERE for Part 2, allowing you to catch up in mere minutes, freeing you to see the end of the world (risky, but with tree people), the fall of Rome or the birth of your great-great-great grandchild with the Doctor. When clicking those links do be careful of which wi-fi provider you chose though, you never can be too careful...
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Usually when you think of optical illusions you're thinking of something that's messing with your brain; "Look all the dots are wobbling!" "Look, that staircase is impossible!" "Look, the candlestick is two faces!" and so on. But really we rely on optical illusions all day, every day. Without them could we look at a photograph and make sense of it? Understand a representational illustration? See a movie, without the illusion of motion? I'm going to say that no, we probably couldn't, and that such art forms are as reliant on illusions that can fool our brains into seeing something that isn't there as novelty videos of dragons who's heads follow you around the room. Illusions are central to our understanding of art - they make art possible, and yet at the same time they make art very difficult. We'll get to the why of that in a later post, but first let's look at some common illusions and why I believe they make a case for art, in general, being dependent on them.
Before we continue I should point out that this essay is going to be a bit of a ramble, and will be split into two parts (the next coming soon). I have a copy of Sketch Book Pro open in one window, and I'm writing this in the other. I am hoping it will all tie up neatly with a nice bow, but I'm not writing it for my English lecturer so I'm just going to go with the flow and hope for the best (If you're lucky I'll proof read it before publishing). As usual in these posts there's the caveat that I'm not an expert in this stuff, and I'm definitely not qualified in these areas, so you probably don't want to quote me in case I'm an idiot :)