geometry

The Space Between

I think all of you know what ‘yes’ means. And if you know its meaning, obviously know the meaning of ‘no’. ‘Yes’ is yes, and not ‘no’, and viceversa. So easy to understand, and to use: are you hungry? Yes, mom, I am. You’ve been at the opera? No, I was not at the opera. So simple.

But what if you were in the building of the Opera but actually you did not watch the show. So, you were at the opera? And here raises the context: ‘yes’, for the building, ‘no’ for the show. And the meaning of yes or no loses its substance. I just really don’t know.

just the same thing happens with the ‘nothing’ and ‘something’. There is a thin line between these. There is white, and after that it cames a sharp limit where black starts? Or this limit could be magnified, and it turns to be some thing. A twilight zone. A grey. A territory that nobody wants to see? And how this limit, this transition looks like?

Now imagine a hill. That hill is covered with rapeseed. This hill, form a distance of 10 km looks like a yellow patch delimited clearly from the sky’s blue with a sharp line. Step closer. Is that clear line remains clear? And when you are in the rapeseed field? Right in the middle? How does it look like? Yes, I tell you what: is more green, than yellow. This is the surface of something. Appearance, that we translate instantly in terms, in notions, indicated by words.

Whether it worth to ask what is the situation with the light and shadow? I let you guess…

We people, determined by our notions, words a.s.o, we like to see things as absolute. Nevertheless there is no absolute. Or wait: it exists. Pick an option, pick an answer, and spread it like the absolute, the ultimate truth. And if you preach it well and consequently, and loud enough many times, your truth will be others’ truth as well.

Most of thing works on black and white. But what happens when you take a closer look to the edges? There is always a moment in life, when you really don’t know the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’. Maybe. ‘Maybe’. Yet, another word, which we seems to know well. So, If ‘yes’ is white and ‘no’ is black, maybe is the whole range of gray. And if black and white are only abstractions, greys really exist.

But we may ask ourselves: greys really exist?

This is a Hoax

DSC_5078

The Wikipedia says:

„The British philologist Robert Nares (1753–1829) says that the word hoax was coined in the late 18th century as a contraction of the verbhocus, which means “to cheat”,[3] “to impose upon”[3] or “to befuddle often with drugged liquor”.[4] Hocus is a shortening of the magicincantation hocus pocus,[4] which in turn is a contraction of the phrase Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo, mentioned inThomas Ady‘s 1656 book A candle in the dark, or a treatise on the nature of witches and witchcraft.[5] “

and

„A hoax differs from a magic trick or from fiction (books, moviestheatreradiotelevision, etc.) in that the audience is unaware of being deceived, whereas in watching a magician perform an illusion the audience expects to be tricked.“

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax

 

Let’s celebrate the truth, and nothing but the truth.

About the Parallels – Hommage a Bolyai

Hommage a Bolyai DSC_7628_1

When János Bolyai, the greatest hungarian mathematician, created the basis of the hyperbolic geometry, in a letter adrressed to his father, Farkas Bolyai, wrote the followings:
[I had] created a new, another world out of nothing

András Prékopa, full member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences states in an article:
„Euclid’s axioms were born just the sake of order, to find a clear way in the chaos of concepts and statements and clarify what is evident and what needs to be proven.“ Euclid’s  geometry was a system that functioned. And still functions. In our terrestrial scale. But if you want to go beyond a point, this system does not work anymore. You can not find new paths walking along the highway.

What was Bolyai’s excellence? He broke with the previosly known paradigm: most mathematicians tried to prove the verity or falsity of the fifth postulate. As long as all mathematicians failed to prove the verity of the fifth postulate Bolyai omitted it and expanded it in a very special way  – and created a new geometry, suitable to explore non-terrestrial scaled spaces. But I don’t want to start a mathematical issue here  – the aim of this post concernes photography. The point is to think. And rethink.

Obviously: every system, based on a set of rules function under specific circumstances. Systems are created to achive goals. Goals have needs on basis. And the system helps us to to reach our goals, satisfy our needs. Once any kind of need is expressed we can build a system to satisfy these needs, and to facilitate achieving our goals – but in those given circumstances. But what is the circumstances change? What if the needs change? Yes, we need a new system. And the task is: find that specific rule, that part of the mechanism that does not function, replace it, or, as Bolyai did, omit it. The result? It could be a new, another world out of nothing.

Wheter all circumstances of photography, every non-dynamic form of visual expression has been isnpected? All its rules are indispensable? Is today digital revolution means the end of image-writers’ era? There could be new forms of expression insisting on the existing set of rules? Is every rule of this system necessary to complete todays photography challenge? Btw: everyone in the occidental culture has at least a pen, a sheet of paper or a computer with text writing software on it, but not all of them are novelists or poets…

Humans, in order to function as humans, need an order, a system. But is this system vital for perception? In our special case: perception of art? Can perception function without any preconceived order or system? And this preconceived perception can be used, or can be useful for us in art or photography? Is ‘useful’ an appropiate, reasonable term accomodating the artistic experience? Does the world may exists only by perception without any explanation, translation of it? And we can enjoy only perception – without interpreting it by the filter of our intellect? Does orderless, intellectless perception means chaos? Or anything, that does not fit our reason is tagged as ‘chaos’? If so, can we explore the outer spaces?