Skip navigation

Tag Archives: light

(Source)

I will start with an artwork. Profoundly sorry for this cheeky use of ancient masterpiece by Fra Filippo Lippi, it is not an artwork in question it is just here to accentuate the notion of continuity.
The artwork that I have in mind is a contemporary piece of land-art created somewhere around central Europe (sadly, I cannot remember neither the author nor the venue of it – but it’s not the most important bit). There was a gallery and there was a river meandering nearby. The aim of the artwork was to divert the stream of the river so that it will flow directly through the gallery. Now it is quite astonishing sight on its own but what the artists tried to achieve was by diverting the path of the river and making it longer and wider to slow down the flow of it so that visitors can stop by and behold it. It is the idea that one has to slow the flow of time to really appreciate and comprehend pieces in life. It is quite hard to do that by just perceiving them in the flow of time in general mass of other concepts.

(Flickr CC , Flickr CC)

So to stop the surrounding world for a bit, take out a piece of it and have a closer better look at it. You know what that reminds me of? – Us. We people just do that. Not so many people appreciate things in flow of time, usually it such case we rush, we cannot be bothered to comprehend the whole flow. It is much easier to take out everything piece by piece and comprehend the whole in such way. On the other hand, there is this saying that one can never become bored by watching fire burning or water flowing. And that’s…well it’s flow, thought probably not requiring to comprehend it.

All this babble reminds me of two other extremes in similar scale – Music and Architecture. One embodied flow as a core of its existence, the other having similar kind of relationship with statics, both employed by people at overwhelming scale. Of course, at this point I cannot leave unmentioned probably the catchiest (and maybe the most accurate…?) quote about these two:

“I call architecture frozen music”
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Referred about the exciting frozen curves of the Baroque period, could this thought be presumed to be universal connection instead of just a catchy phrase? A post in Archidoze mentions this notion of wide range of personal interpretation concerning both sides. Could this be the main link? Or is it the structure? Or the proportions in composition? If this is true, so in order to examine music we stop it and give it a form – a sort of superficial time frame (because there’s no music without time). But then again, if this is true then it is true both ways…so how would:

(Flickr CC, Flickr CC)

Church of the light, 1989,
Ibaraki, Osaka
by Tadao Ando.

(Flickr CC, Flickr CC)

St. Anne’s Church, ~1500,
Vilnius, Lithuania
by Michael Enkinger/Benedikt Rejt

(Flickr CC, Flickr CC)
or

Jewish Museum, 2001,
Berlin, Germany
by Daniel Libeskind

would sound like?

I leave you today with this fragment from sunny Malta:

Charles Camilleri: “Do you think of architecture as frozen music?
Richard England: “
Do you think of music as melted architecture?

Advertisements

Isn’t it strange how everything relates to humans in our world? It sounds natural but it also seems as if we lose a bit of essence in all our activity limiting ourselves this way.

Here’s an example. Human eye is capable of seeing light that has a wavelength fitting between ~380 – 780 nm. A whole spectrum of colours fits in it. But is this universal? Of course not. Even here on Earth other kinds of species can see different light levels. It just so happens that the Sun (our main source of light – artificial illumination was engineered to mimic it) emits light that dramatically peaks at precisely this area of spectrum – over millions of years humans have evolved to be able to “read” precisely that part of spectrum that gives the most information.
So bearing this in mind, it becomes obvious that for somebody who has evolved in completely different environment (thus possessing different capabilities to interact with the environment – vision included) our Mona Lisa would not deliver any pleasure – or at least not like we see it.

Would it be wrong fallacious to say that The Essence (whatever that might be) lies underneath the form? And if the form is just an adjustment to what is most fitting for us, so by not attaching (and limiting ourselves) so much to it, learning to trans-form – change the form of our creations it maybe it would be possible to finally understand the core patterns lying beneath the surface?