Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Nature/Nurture... Again

Last week, the Internet was abuzz about new research which suggested that the oldest child in a family also had the highest IQ. (As an eldest child myself, I did get a certain degree of smug satisfaction out of it, although I did hold back from e-mailing my younger brothers with the "news".)

Today, CNN reports additional findings which conclude that it isn't a matter of being born first, but growing up the senior child, that seems to result in the higher IQ scores. They call it "social rank".

"Social rank" isn't just limited to intelligence however, so let's broaden what its impications might be. For instance, most people can readily state which child in their family was "the writer", the athlete", "the artist": usually the one with the strongest natural gift and/or interest in a particular area.

But what would happen if parents treated ***each*** of their children "as if" he or she had those aptitudes in abundance? (Just as in families where second-born men whose older sibling died were treated as if they were eldest children... and got the corresponding IQ jump.)

I'm guessing that it would be a world where creativity and excellence would flourish...

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Art is All Around Us

There have been quite a few interesting photos in the news over the past few days. Here's a Fox News image of satellite dishes in Amsterdam. Check out the folk art on each dish:

Monday, June 25, 2007

The Arrow of Time

Ever feel like shooting your significant other(s)?

Diego Goldberg -- a photographer based in Buenos Aires, Argentina -- has photographed his family on the same day of the year: for more than 30 years!

I first saw Goldberg's work several years ago in Esquire, in an article on how women age. Because all the headshots are identical in size and expression, it's quite easy to see the year-to-year progressions.

Check it out here.

On Contemporary Portraiture

"Portraiture has become increasingly conceptual", says an article in the June 2007 issue of ArtNews, "as it addresses not only personal identity but also issues of politics, social inequity, and our obsession with celebrity."

"In the right context", adds it author, "a famous person can stand for a generation, just as that generation’s view can define the person."

Which begs the question: Is it possible to create a portrait that is NOT a product of the culture in which it's created?

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Associations and Analogies

Scientists are very interested in the ways we deny humanity to others, because this common tendency is the source of so much hate and violence in the world.

They claim that when someone insults another by comparing them to something sub-human, they often do it by either comparing the object of their disaffection to an animal or machine.

They add that while both animals and machines are both less than human, they are less than human in very different ways. For example,

  • many animals lack traits that are unique to humans, like high intelligence and moral sensibility, wheras
  • machines lack traits that form the foundation of “human nature”, such as warmth, flexibility, animation.


According to an entry in the We're Only Human weblog, psychologists Stephen Loughnan and Nick Haslam of the University of Melbourne ran an experiment to prove their predictions that, when marginalized:

  • some people — like children and artists (characterized by "warmth, flexibility, animation")— tend to be associated with animals, whereas
  • others — such as businessmen (chracterized by their logic skills and analytical acumen)— tend to be associated with machines

Their results supported their hypotheses.Consequently, the psychologists concluded that people have two distinct ways of defining humanity to ourselves—and two distinct ways of denying others’ their humanity.


It would be interesting if the psychologists did a follow-up study to explore the seeming condradiction that people also make animal/machine comparisions when "elevating" or complimenting another.

For example, some of my closest artist friends have highly-developed business skills and approach their vocation with an eye toward what sells. They balance their need for personal expression with the practicalities of the "real world". Since the stereotype for artists is to be "uninhibited" and "irresponsible", they take pride when someone tells them that they're handling things "like a well-oiled machine."

What's more, one of the highest compliments that a salesman pay another is that someone is going after accounts "like an animal."

So maybe the real result of the original survey is that people tend to make non-human (not necessarily "less than human") analogies, regardless of whether they're praising or debasing someone.

Source: We're Only Human

Taking Group Photos

The Digital Photography School has published a helpful article on taking outstanding group photographs here.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

More on Synesthesia

Works of the Russian composer Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov were reportedly influenced by synesthesia, a medical condition wherein a person experiences sensation in one sense (such as sight) in response to stimulus in another (such as hearing).

According to Wikipedia, Rimsky-Korsakov perceived colors associated with major keys as follows:









Note Color
C white
D yellow
E flat dark bluish-grey
E sparkling sapphire
F green
G rich gold
A rosy colored

More interesting, each synesthete seems to have his own code, as can be seen by comparing Rimsky-Korsakov's color system with that of Alexander Scriabin, another Russian composer (source: James Wierbicki):














Note Scriabin Rimsky-Korsakov
C red white
C# violet dusky
D bright yellow yellow
D# steel gray bluish gray
E bluish white sapphire blue
F red green
F# bright blue grayish green
Gorange-rose brownish gold
G# purple-violet grayish violet
A green rosy
A# steel gray
B bluish white dark blue

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that so many visual artists like to paint, sculpt, shoot, etc. with music playing in the background. Which begs the question: do a higher percentage of artists have synesthesia than the general population?

Monday, June 11, 2007

Development Pornography

There's a "lively discussion" on the blogosphere these days on "development pornography".

You can read the salient points of the ongoing debate on BoingBoing.

Much of the discussion focuses on "undignified images" that are being created and used by relief organizations in order to increase donations. You've doubtlessly seen the images: skeletal toddlers covered with flies and festering, oozing scabs, etc.

(Many of these images are being created by First-World photographers with little knowledge or experience of local customs, but that's a complicated discussion involving "fair trade photography" that deserves its own post...)

When it comes to publishing emotionally manipulative images, how far is too far? One organization criticized an African relief appeal that that showed a naked, emaciated child in her mother's arms... "because it was a stereotype and an Irish child would not be portrayed naked in the same way." Is this a fair comparison?

Viewing the Third-World poor through Western eyes is nothing new. And as a former art director, I understand the value of selecting and using the image that will move the greatest number of people to action. However, there needs to be a certain level of honesty and integrity in the selection process. It's important to do good, to make a difference in the world. However, its equally important to do good ***in the right way***.

But where will you draw the line? What if using a less-"offensive" photo means that vital donations decrease by 40% and hundreds (or thousands... or tens of thousands) of people die as a result? When do the ends justify the means?

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Are Artists out of Their Minds?

Ever look at a piece of art (like perhaps Damien Hurst's diamond-crusted skull - see earlier posting) and think "That artist is an absolute whack job!" ? In some cases, maybe he/she really ***is*** living in a different reality than you or me...

Would psychiatric treatment have given some troubled artists even more room to expand their artistic genius? Or would a happier life have stifled their creativity?

That's the tantalizing premise of this article in the Montreal Gazette.

Although it spotlights the complicated and convoluted lives of the well-known composers Schumann and Tchaikovsky, the article's premise could apply equally well to visual artists. My one complaint -- and frankly, it's not a minor one-- is that the discussion later segues into a discussion of sexual identity in music.

Introducing the topic of Schumann and Tchaikovsky's reported homosexuality into a unrelated talk of the composers' psychological ailments -- and meds -- is unwarranted and smacks of homophobia. (Even when purportedly done in conjunction with coverage of a performance spotlighting works of homosexual artists.)

Monday, June 4, 2007

Diamonds are a Pirate's Best Friend

This work by British bad-boy artist Damien Hurst ("a life-size platinum skull encrusted with 8,601 fine diamonds") is estimated to sell for as much as $100 million at auction. Should this happen, it will make the piece the priciest contemporary artwork ever made.



This work is reportedly titled "For The Love of God." According to the New York Times, the title comes from Hirst's mother, who asked her son, “For the love of God, what are you going to do next?”

Source: boingboing.net

Color Me Impressed

Need some inspiration on color choices? Visit the COLOURlovers web site.

This web site, according to its creators is "a resource that monitors and influences color trends. COLOURlovers gives the people who use color - whether for ad campaigns, product design, or even in architectural specification - a place to check out a world of color, compare color palettes, submit news and comments, and read color related articles and interviews."

You'll see some amazing hues and color combinations to use in your next project.

Friday, June 1, 2007

It's More Than the Megapixels

Your digital camera's sensor size also affects the quality of the photos you shoot with it. (For a ***really, really*** complicated reason why, click here.)

For those of us who aren't equipment junkies, here's a simpler explanation:

Let's say that you have a small, relatively inexpensive "point-and-shoot" camera that takes the same 6 or 8-megapixel images as my digital SLR. Assuming that we follow the same compositional, shooting, and lighting practices, shouldn't the pictures look quite similar?

Actually, no. And where's why:

Think of a digital sensor element as being equivalent to the size of the negative for film cameras. A 35mm negative is larger than some formats, but it's far smaller than, say, a 4x5 or 8x10 format.

My SLR relies on a physically larger sensor than someone else's "point-and-shoot" camera. That adds up to a higher quality image, and my resulting prints will probably be better than the other person's, ***all other things being equal***.

But it's more than just size. The small sensors used in consumer-level "point-and-shoot" cameras tend to be of a different type than the large sensors used in digital SLRs. (This also affects depth of field, but that's a subject for another posting.)