mills

My name is Mills Baker; I write about love, culture, art, religion, mental illness, philosophy, memory, politics and the rather random.

My Photo Blog
Flickr / Videos
Facebook / Twitter
Email / Archive


Posts tagged scale.
I went with Will and Matt to see Mono, a Japanese instrumental band completely unknown to me.
In several songs, their instruments merged together and grew into the loudest sound I’ve ever heard, a sound so loud and that during its duration I lost the ability to tell if it was loud or not; it had a powerful oceanic intensity, within which one could detect swells of melody and harmony but the overwhelming effect of which was a kind of collapsing of one’s senses.
This amused me: I stood smiling as my whole mind was overcome, my ears not pained but lost, disoriented, uncomprehending of scale. As a child, late at night when all was silent, I used to hear a roaring which seemed to me to be louder than all other sounds, so long as I didn’t relativize it by snapping my fingers to demonstrate its quietness. I used to think this was the sound of matter, of the universe!
Mono reminded me of it, and of the difficulty one has in contextualizing experiences at the extremities of one’s senses: the flickering brightness of absolute dark, the din of silences, the stillness within cacophony.

I went with Will and Matt to see Mono, a Japanese instrumental band completely unknown to me.

In several songs, their instruments merged together and grew into the loudest sound I’ve ever heard, a sound so loud and that during its duration I lost the ability to tell if it was loud or not; it had a powerful oceanic intensity, within which one could detect swells of melody and harmony but the overwhelming effect of which was a kind of collapsing of one’s senses.

This amused me: I stood smiling as my whole mind was overcome, my ears not pained but lost, disoriented, uncomprehending of scale. As a child, late at night when all was silent, I used to hear a roaring which seemed to me to be louder than all other sounds, so long as I didn’t relativize it by snapping my fingers to demonstrate its quietness. I used to think this was the sound of matter, of the universe!

Mono reminded me of it, and of the difficulty one has in contextualizing experiences at the extremities of one’s senses: the flickering brightness of absolute dark, the din of silences, the stillness within cacophony.

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Philip Glass - Einstein On The Beach - Act IV. Scene I - Building

This is dated, a bit absurd. It is not unlike the rest of Einstein on the Beach, which, if I opt to consider critically, can seem a bit ridiculous and even gimmicky. Besides the fact its libretto, excepting a few pieces, is mostly solfège left in place from the composition of the music, there is the endlessness of it. About the briefer Glass opera Satyagraha, critic Henry Heidt said:

“…it is well named, as a deeply felt commitment to passive nonviolence on the part of the audience is required to sit through a full performance.”

Indeed, Chris’ wife Alexi told me her mother broke up with a boyfriend who took her to see Einstein on the Beach, the five-hour exercise in mathematical-musical intricacies and trance-inducing acoustic manipulation evidently not working on her.

That said: I really like it anyway, even the saxophone that glides over the scrum of this piece. It might be my age -synth and sax tones aren’t necessarily ironic to me- or it might be that I feel a certain kind of cerebral hyperstimulation when I listen to it, my mind unified in attention but fragmented in chasing down disconnected harmonic tangents, and this piece in particular adds an odd element with the overarching melody moving between modes.

It often makes me think of scales and spaces: the vacuity of the atomic world and the vacuity of the universe and the teeming, vibrating density of the human perceptual world, nicely in the middle.

Update: Zombie Electroniq shares some excellent observations about Glass and the various critiques of his work here.

This is a photograph of one of the guarded entrances to a place called the Zone of Alienation, a very poetic name for the largely irradiated area extending 19 miles radially around Chernobyl.
Reading about it one finds oneself drawn to it: the graveyards of contaminated machines and endless deserted buildings seem to assert something about the consequences of error: we cannot do much but wait for centuries to farm again, and the reactor site itself will remain a rebuke 20,000 years from now, if we are still here to see it.
The emptied city, like an extinct civilization, has a silence which drowns the endless, distracting, confident noise of the present.

This is a photograph of one of the guarded entrances to a place called the Zone of Alienation, a very poetic name for the largely irradiated area extending 19 miles radially around Chernobyl.

Reading about it one finds oneself drawn to it: the graveyards of contaminated machines and endless deserted buildings seem to assert something about the consequences of error: we cannot do much but wait for centuries to farm again, and the reactor site itself will remain a rebuke 20,000 years from now, if we are still here to see it.

The emptied city, like an extinct civilization, has a silence which drowns the endless, distracting, confident noise of the present.

“It would take as many human bodies to make up the sun as there are atoms in each of us. The geometric mean of the mass of a proton and the mass of the sun is 50 kilograms, within a factor of two of the mass of each person here.”

Sir Martin Rees in a TED lecture. He suggests that humans have evolved to this scale, an almost beautiful mean between stars and atomic particles, because we must be large enough to permit massive complexity in structure while small enough to experience minimal gravitational effects.

This idea reminds me of Schrödinger’s amazing explanation of why the fundamental components of human life -particularly DNA- are sized as they are.

It always makes me feel rather happy to think that everything had to be just so for our world, as we know it, to occur. Rees calls this quality of the universe its biophilia and describes it more here.

I regretted not being able to see any JMW Turner while in London, particularly as I tried to imagine the Houses of Lords and Commons burning, as it is in his painting above. To conjure the image was difficult, for two reasons. First, the facade of the buildings strikes me as almost perfectly beautiful and suitably stately, and secondly it has, through reproduction over the years, become as iconic a symbol of immutable governance as any structure outside of Greece. To an American, the depth of European history seems almost eternal in comparison to our own brief efforts.
The effect such scale has on one is interesting, and reminds me of what Distorte’s post on Turner called to mind some time ago: the relationship between scale, perception, and cognition. While in London, I spoke briefly with the groom of the wedding about the problem of cyan and noted that in Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, one never encounters the color blue; it is as though the Greeks simply didn’t see it, describing the sea as “wine dark” and focusing their descriptions on “rosy-fingered dawn,” for example. Blue, I have read, is one of the last colors we have come to differentiate mentally, while red, black, and yellow were among the first.
The groom, a classicist among other specialties, mentioned too that hues are never the focus of ancient texts; intensity is, so that darkness and lightness are described without reference to actual color. Of course, it is not biological change that has altered our perception but the development of our cognition: an amazing thing to consider.
One often hears that dogs “see in black and white,” which is of course nonsensical: dogs’ eyes do not perform the rather artificial conversion of the visible light spectrum to grayscale; only recent inventions like chemical photography, television, and digital processing do. Instead, their eyes take in the same wavelengths that ours do but their brains do not seem to differentiate between them: just as your mind effortlessly fills in the gap left by true cyan on your monitor, theirs papers over the various hues and focuses on intensity (and other sense perceptions).
The processing of sensory data, itself raw and natural, in the brain is driven less by biology than by something else, but it is hard to say just what: why did humanity become attentive to blue some thousands of years ago? Why were we previously not? It is as though the sky and sea in their infinity were too dull to differentiate: better to focus on the colors of the Earth.
It is worth considering how visual art both reflects and alters the development of our perceptual capacities. Reading how people of the past related to their painting is astonishing: what to us seems flat and mannered and false to them seemed as real as a film; without a doubt, people after us will regard the succession of thirty still images each second, flashed two-dimensionally, as an absurdly unconvincing depiction of reality. What is impossible to imagine is what else, if anything, there is to see, what other gaps remain in our sense cognition, what colors remain perceived but unseen, taken into the eye but unassembled into the synthetic idea we experience as color.

I regretted not being able to see any JMW Turner while in London, particularly as I tried to imagine the Houses of Lords and Commons burning, as it is in his painting above. To conjure the image was difficult, for two reasons. First, the facade of the buildings strikes me as almost perfectly beautiful and suitably stately, and secondly it has, through reproduction over the years, become as iconic a symbol of immutable governance as any structure outside of Greece. To an American, the depth of European history seems almost eternal in comparison to our own brief efforts.

The effect such scale has on one is interesting, and reminds me of what Distorte’s post on Turner called to mind some time ago: the relationship between scale, perception, and cognition. While in London, I spoke briefly with the groom of the wedding about the problem of cyan and noted that in Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, one never encounters the color blue; it is as though the Greeks simply didn’t see it, describing the sea as “wine dark” and focusing their descriptions on “rosy-fingered dawn,” for example. Blue, I have read, is one of the last colors we have come to differentiate mentally, while red, black, and yellow were among the first.

The groom, a classicist among other specialties, mentioned too that hues are never the focus of ancient texts; intensity is, so that darkness and lightness are described without reference to actual color. Of course, it is not biological change that has altered our perception but the development of our cognition: an amazing thing to consider.

One often hears that dogs “see in black and white,” which is of course nonsensical: dogs’ eyes do not perform the rather artificial conversion of the visible light spectrum to grayscale; only recent inventions like chemical photography, television, and digital processing do. Instead, their eyes take in the same wavelengths that ours do but their brains do not seem to differentiate between them: just as your mind effortlessly fills in the gap left by true cyan on your monitor, theirs papers over the various hues and focuses on intensity (and other sense perceptions).

The processing of sensory data, itself raw and natural, in the brain is driven less by biology than by something else, but it is hard to say just what: why did humanity become attentive to blue some thousands of years ago? Why were we previously not? It is as though the sky and sea in their infinity were too dull to differentiate: better to focus on the colors of the Earth.

It is worth considering how visual art both reflects and alters the development of our perceptual capacities. Reading how people of the past related to their painting is astonishing: what to us seems flat and mannered and false to them seemed as real as a film; without a doubt, people after us will regard the succession of thirty still images each second, flashed two-dimensionally, as an absurdly unconvincing depiction of reality. What is impossible to imagine is what else, if anything, there is to see, what other gaps remain in our sense cognition, what colors remain perceived but unseen, taken into the eye but unassembled into the synthetic idea we experience as color.