A, E, A, .

H "" , ( )

Bertillon, inventeur de l'anthropomtrie judiciaire

1.

H ""

H

. ,

.

2. Descartes seems to be the first person to have clearly expressed what I would consider to be the correct solution. First he points out why the problem arises in the first place: it is
because one is tempted to think that the act of "seeing" amounts to having, somewhere in the brain, a little picture that can be looked at by the mind. He then dismisses this notion by
pointing out that the code which instantiates sensations in the brain need have no resemblance to the sensation itself[7]. To illustrate the idea with a contemporary example: most
scientists agree today that the color and intensity of a red light is not coded in the nervous system by the amount of some kind of 'redness' oozing out of nerve fibres somewhere, but by
the particular combination of nerve fibres that discharge, and the frequency with which they discharge. The combination of fibres and their discharge frequency are the code which
symbolize the color and the intensity of the visual stimulation[8].
 A telephoto lens restricts depth of field. The longer the lens the more this will be the case. Wide angle lenses can display infinite depth of field, whatever aperture is chosen.

Photostereosynthesis - Overview

This project excavates photostereosynthesis, a lost imaging technology developed by the co-inventor of contemporary cinema, Louis Lumire. This imaging technology, released in 1920, produces dimensionally deep and multi-layered images
through a series of stacked photographs. In this process, idividual frames are shot at extremely small depths of field (wide aperture) at incrementally increasing focal lengths (focus pull), which has the effect of "depth-slicing" of a dimensional space
with the help of focus. Each individual exposure is printed as a transparent positive on glass and stacked to produce a composite 3D photo with the scene "entombed" in a translucent image several centimeters thick. The resulting composite image is
somewhat similar to a hologram but is a physically volumetric representation.
Bruegel
 Andrei Tarkovsky_video extract from "The Mirror"(boy and bird)
Andrei Tarkovsky_stills from "Solaris"( Bruegels' paintings)

O
O
.
E 8

, , "".,
.
. ( )

.
 B 6 . T 800
.(
).

T .( . )

O
 During this period the sculptor worked almost exclusively with "point" chisels, punches and stone abrasives to create the statues, and this technique did not allow for much flexibility in regards to the pose or surface qualities. As a result of this
technique, all marble statues from the Archaic period have an opaque appearance despite marble being a somewhat translucent material. This is a result of the repeated vertical blows to the surface with a point chisel which sends concentrated shock
waves deep inside the stone, shuttering thus the marble crystals in considerable depth.
Hera of Samos ("Cheramyes Hera").
ca. 560 B.C.

 O
p

5 ..

A
T ,
.

K
 ( ).T
. T .

Abrahms

Giacometti: ,
 : M-

Mantegna

"The Lamentation over the Dead Christ"

c. 1490
Tempera on canvas
68 x 81 cm
Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan

Andrei Tarkovsky_extract from "Solaris"( Kevin on his bed)

Andrei Tarkovsky_extract from "Solaris"(scientist Girbaran is dead)

 Dali

One point perspective takes one of the three sets of parallel lines of the cube and projects them to a point, a VANISHING POINT. We will say this is the North direction. The other two sets of lines of the cube continue to run parallel and
unaltered. This vanishing point can also be considered where your eye is located in relation to objects found on this page. This location of the eye or (vanishing point) becomes the place where cubes shift across in space to show their opposite side,
from right to left and from above you to below you.

Two point perspective uses two of these three sets of parallel lines of the cube. It projects one set of parallel lines to the North point and the second set of parallel lines to the East vanishing point. In two point perspective, the third set of lines
continues to run parallel. In this case, they run straight up and down. Notice the two points we are using, North and East, are 90 degrees of our horizon. This HORIZON LINE is also the EYE LEVEL LINE. The eye is better to use because if you are
underground or in outer space there is no such thing as a horizon but there is always a location of your eyes (eye level).

Three point perspective uses all three sets of parallel lines of the cube. Similar to two point perspective, one of the sets of parallel lines aims toward the North point and the other set aims toward the East point. The third set of lines projects
toward the Nadir point (below you) or the Zenish point (above you). Either Zenith or Nadir can be used with the same grid by spinning the three point perspective grid 180 degrees. You can project all of these lines with astraight edge.

Four point perspective can be thought of in a couple of different ways. First, we use the same logic it takes to get to three point perspective. But if the cube we are looking at is very tall and projects above you and also goes below your eye level,
these up and down lines must project toward two points. Not only does the cube look fat in the middle, it also seems to get smaller as it goes above and below your eye level. These lines, which used to be the up and down parallel lines of the cube,
are now curving in like a football coming together at the Zenith and Nadir points. If you were on the twentieth floor of a skyscraper, looking out the window at another skycscraper, forty stories high, you would see this type of effect.
 This system of perspective, using five points, creates a circle on a piece of paper or canvas. You now can illustrate 180 degrees of visual space around you. It captures everything from North to South and from Nadir to Zenith. Think of yourself
inside a really exciting visual environment like St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. You bring a transparent hemisphere with you. When you find a spot in the Basilica where any direction you look is visually exciting, you put the hemisphere in front of your
face and copy what you see on the inside of it. The hemisphere shows five vanishing points, north, on the left, east in the middle and south on the right. There is also a point above your head and another below your chin. One hundred and eighty
degrees of the total environment can be drawn in this hemisphere. Think of how this would look on the flat surface. You would have to rely on five point grid system on the flat page to do the same thing, but it really will work.

The sixth (South) point is missing from five point perspective drawings. Within five point we get half, or a hemisphere, of the visual world around us. To get the rest of the picture, the the whole picture that is, you must add that last vanishing
point. You would have to turn around and look at the room BEHIND you to see the rest of the room and to find that last point. If you were in the transparent sphere in St. Peter's Basilica you would have to copy not only what you see in front of you,
but everything behind you as well. A good way to do this on flat paper is to draw the last vanishing point on the back side of the first drawing. Yes, I mean on the back side of your first drawing. The same grid will help you finish the total picture on
this back side. When the rest of this picture is drawn you have a 360 degree picture in all directions.

In 1415, Brunelleschi painted his picture of the Baptistry on the surface of a small mirror, right on top of its own reflection. Unfortunately, this work has since been lost: it seems to have been intended to be used only in this experiment, not to
be preserved.

To demonstrate the fact that his painting was indeed an exact replica that could fool the eye, Brunelleschi drilled a small hole in the mirror and then stood directly in front of the Baptistry, looking through the peephole to see the real building.
He then held up a second, clean mirror in front of his painted panel. The second mirror blocked the view of the real building, but now reflected his painted version on the original mirror.

By moving the second mirror in and out of the way, Brunelleschi could check whether his painting was indeed an exact copy of the three-dimensional, octagonal building on the two-dimensional surface of his original mirror.

Once he had verified the accuracy of his painted mirror, it became possible for Brunelleschi to analyze the structure by which three dimensions was translated into two dimensions.
As Brunelleschi found, there was a mathematical system. It centered around the central vanishing point, inside the yellow circle in the graphic at the right, where all lines that were perpendicular to Brunelleschi's painted mirror (often called "the
picture plane") would converge, like railroad tracks in the distance.
This point determined the horizon line, and was exactly opposite to Brunelleschi's own position standing in front of the Baptistry.

What is clear from Manetti's description is that Brunelleschi used his painted mirror for careful calculations. His final result showed a logical, rational, mathematic system by which three-dimensional space could be rendered on any two-dimensional
surface.
Once Brunelleschi devised and publicized this system of horizon lines and vanishing points, any artist could use it to create convincing spaces in their paintings, without using mirrors.

Brunelleschi's horizon line

Brunelleschi's perspective system The horizon line contained other vanishing points as well, where lines determined by structures that were not exactly perpendicular to Brunelleschi's mirror would converge.
For example, those lines determined by the oblique sides of the octagonal Baptistry converge at different vanishing points, which still lay on the horizon line (inside the yellow circles to the left and right of the central vanishing point).
 Vermeer, "The Music Lesson"

Van Eycks "Arnolfini Wedding" (1434)

.. with its mirror dead center on the far wall, at the focal point of the entire painting,

the masters ornate signature immediately above it: "Johannes Van Eyck made this" ...

In the morning, in the bathroom, take your shaving mirroryou know, the one that magnifies the image of your faceyou may want to narrow the f-stop a little, for maximum effect, wrap a little bagel of cardboard around the outer circumference of
the mirroranyway, when its bright outside and still dark on your bathrooms inner wall, aim the lens at the world outside the window so the gathered light gets redirected onto the darkened wall, move the mirror in and out till things cast there onto
the wall come into focus, and what youll get is a technicolor perfect image of the world outside. Upside-down, granted, but incidentally not right-left reversed, as would be the case with a lens."
Hockney and Graves and Hockneys California assistant Richard Schmidt were out alongside the outer wall of a guest cottage on the other side of the compound, building a little art-mirror shed: essentially darkness-enclosing walls with a crisp
square outfacing window, and inside a standard shaving mirror mounted on an adjustable pedestal.

Andrei Tarkovsky_video extract from "Solaris"(the circled mirror when Kevin speaks to Snout)

I
.
O ""
30
 Hokusai

Haronobu Suzuki(1725-70)
 Figure III-7. St. John the Forerunner in the Wilderness
Icon, end of the 1400's, Novgorod School, Russian Museum, Leningrad, Russia, illustrating the construction of icon-mountains. (detail)
In this detail, the icon mountains rise up in reverse perspective and tilt forward, much as an incoming ocean wave breaks toward the viewer. It draws the viewer forward, in toward the figure on the icon panel, and back again.

Abstract
A distinction is made between primary geometry, the arrangement in space of lines of projection from a 3-D object to a plane of projection, and secondary geometry, the relationships between the points, lines and shapes of the drawn projection on a
2-D surface. Drawing projection systems, such as those classified under British Standard 1192, are illustrated, and are shown to be defined in terms of primary geometry. It is argued that John Willats' re-classification of projection systems in terms of
secondary geometry enables first-year students of drawing to relate more easily such systems of geometry to their observational experiences. Student drawings illustrate the argument.
Drawing Conventions
Following the criteria of David Marr's [1] definition of a representation as a "formal system for making explicit certain entities or types of information, together with a specification of how the system does this", it may be argued that projective
geometry is such a means of representation, because it provides a formal systematic procedure for making explicit information about the three-dimensional attributes of objects and spaces upon a two-dimensional surface. There are other formal
geometric systems which have been devised to represent such information. The various sets of rules which specify how the procedure may operate are termed drawing conventions. British Standard 1192 [2] categorises these conventions:

Figure 1. B.S. 1192 categories of projection types.

In this classification, all orthographic and oblique projections may be specified as parallel projection systems, since their projectors, those lines of projection that link salient features of the object to points on the plane of projection, are parallel.
Perspective projections may be classified as convergent since their projectors converge on a point in front of the plane of projection, assumed to be a viewer's eye.
Orthographic projection systems
1. Multi-plane orthographic projection
This allows several views of an object to be projected upon several planes, assumed to be at right angles to each other: Projectors are parallel and are perpendicular to the planes of projection. Each object face is parallel with its plane of projection.
2. Axonometric, or single-plane orthographic projection
Projectors are parallel and perpendicular to the plane of projection, and all object faces are inclined to the plane of projection. Isometric Projection is a unique case of axonometric in which foreshortening on all three axes is the same. Dimetric
projection is a special case of axonometric in which scales along two axes are equal, the third axis being different. Trimetric projection is the general case of axonometric and occurs when all three axes are randomly orientated and are each of
different scales.
Oblique projection systems
Oblique projections all have one face of the object parallel to the plane of projection, and the projectors, although parallel to each other, are inclined to the plane of projection in various ways.
1. Cavalier oblique projection
The front face of the object is parallel with the plane of projection, while the projectors from the front face are perpendicular to the plane of projection. The projectors from the other two visible faces, although parallel, are inclined to the plane of
 projection so that the receding edges are represented at the same true scale as the front face.
2. Cabinet oblique projection is similar to Cavalier, except receding edges are drawn to half the scale of the true front face projection.
3. Planometric oblique projection is a special case of oblique projection, often inaccurately called 'axonometric', where the plan face of the object is parallel to the plane of projection (and usually rotated through 45) and projectors are inclined
obliquely to the plane of projection.
Two other forms of oblique projection, not identified in the British Standard have been codified by Fred Dubery and John Willats [3]. They are:
4. Horizontal oblique projection. One face of the object remains parallel to the plane of projection and projectors are parallel, but are inclined to the plane of projection in the horizontal direction only.
5. Vertical oblique projection. One face of the object is parallel to the plane of projection, the projectors are parallel but inclined to the plane of projection in the vertical direction only.
Perspective Projection
This family of projection conventions as defined by BS 1192 differs from orthographic and oblique projections because the projected lines from the object to the plane of projection are not parallel, but converge to a point, generally regarded as the
position of an observer's eye. The picture is formed by the intersection of all these projectors with the plane of projection, usually termed the picture plane in perspective projections. Parallel edges on the object appear in the projected picture as
orthogonals converging to a point, known as a vanishing point.
1. Parallel perspective
The object has its face parallel to and at right angles to the picture plane. Projectors converge to a point.
2. Angular (2-point) perspective
Vertical faces of the object are inclined to picture-plane, horizontal faces remain normal to the picture-plane:
3. Three-point perspective
All the object's faces are inclined to the picture-plane. There are three vanishing points
Primary geometry and secondary geometry
Peter Jeffrey Booker [4] made the distinction between primary geometry, the arrangement in space of lines of projection from the three-dimensional object to the plane of projection, and secondary geometry, the relationships between the points, lines
and shapes of the drawn projection on a two-dimensional surface. The projection types of B.S. 1192 discussed above are defined in terms of primary geometry, but perhaps do not relate easily to students' observational experiences.

Figure 2. John Willats' Re-classification of B.S. 1192 in terms of secondary geometry.

John Willats [5] has usefully re-classified B.S. 1192 in terms of secondary geometry. For example, in the original B.S. 1192, axonometric drawings showing three faces of an object have to be classified with orthographic projections which show only
one face, because their primary geometries have parallel, perpendicular projectors in common. Willats suggests it would be beneficial to re-classify the axonometrics under oblique projections, thus recognising their obvious similarities of secondary
geometry, which are the number of faces shown in the drawings, and, the directions of their orthogonals.
This re-classification of drawings in terms of their secondary geometry provides a way of understanding those drawings which do not depend upon the drawer's position defined by primary geometry but which, in their secondary geometry, explicate
features of the object that are known, but not necessarily visible to the drawer.
 OT 2: Comparison of Major Two-Dimensional Geometries. Smith, The Nature of Mathematics, p. 501
Art isn't created in a vacuum. It usually reflects what is going on elsewhere in a culture.
One thing that was happening at the start of our century was a scientific revolution
It appears that at the start of the our century science and art once more were ready for new concepts of space and time. Some new space concepts came in geometry with the Non-Euclidean Geometries of Bolyai, Lobachevski, and Riemann in the
mid ninteenth century. New time concepts came with Einstein's theories, the special theory of relativity, 1905 and the general theory of relativity, 1915.

Naum Gabo: Torsion-Bronze Variation, 1963

Barbara Hepworth: Sculpture with Color, 1943

Picasso: Chicago Civic Center sculpture, 1967

 Vermeer
Vermeer's Camera
This painting, often referred to as 'The Music Lesson', was created by the great Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer in the 1660s. It shows an exquisitely painted interior scene, with a woman playing the virginals and a man listening. The woman has her
back to us, although we can see a reflection of her face in the mirror on the wall. The man's role is unclear. He appears to be wearing an outdoor coat, and is carrying a stick. Has he just stepped inside from the street, to ask the woman a question, and
now hangs on her answer? Is he a relation? Her teacher? Her lover? The answer to this little mystery we may never know. But this painting contains a quite extraordinary set of clues about a much bigger mystery, one which has only recently been
deciphered. Vermeer (1632-75) only produced about 30 paintings during his lifetime. He really seems to have worked rather slowly. When he died, his wife and family were left in debt. Two paintings went to the local baker to settle a bill. But since
about 100 years ago, his work started to be re-assessed, and today he is regarded as one of the greatest artists that ever lived.
Very little is known about Vermeer's life, and his methods of working. He had no students or apprentices, and he left no records. But many people have speculated that he might have used some sort of optical device to help him create his paintings,
possibly a device called a Camera obscura, the forerunner of the modern camera. Literally 'darkened room' a Camera obscura is a box which has a lens at the front. A portable Camera obscura can have a ground glass screen onto which the image
from the lens is thrown. Or a Camera obscura can be big enough for the observer to be inside it.
These speculations about Vermeer's possible use of a Camera obscura are based on general observations about his paintings. But recent work by Professor Philip Steadman, of the Open University in England, has thrown new light on this issue. In
this article we will explore Professor Steadman's work, which shows how clues that Vermeer has left us in the actual paintings suggest that the paintings can be thought of as photographs as much as paintings. And, rather than belittling Vermeer's
contribution to the world of art, we will suggest that, in his almost scientific examination of the world using a lens, we should also think of Vermeer in the same context as those scientific geniuses of the 17th century, the microscopist van
Leeuwenhoek, who turned his lens on the miniature world contained in a drop of water, and Galileo, who turned his telescope to the heavens.

Traditional reasons for thinking Vermeer used a Camera Obscura

This painting by Vermeer is entitled 'Soldier and Laughing Girl'. In 1891 the American etcher and lithographer James Pennell was the first to suggest that Vermeer might have used a Camera obscura, in an article written for the Journal of the Camera
Club. Pennell referred to the 'photographic perspective' of pictures such as this one, where the figure of the soldier, in the foreground, is disproportionately large. We think nothing of this shot today, the perspective is quite correct for the 'close up'
viewpoint, just the sort of picture you might take with a camera. But for a 17th century painting, this perspective would have seemed unusual, even brutal.
Secondly, some of the maps that are shown hanging on the back wall of the room in the paintings are real maps that Vermeer owned, and which still exist today. The historian James Welu (1975) showed just how precisely Vermeer had copied the
originals. The Camera obscura was certainly used in the 18th and 19th centuries for copying existing pictures and prints.

The third piece of evidence for Vermeer's supposed use of the Camera obscura is his treatment of highlights on reflective surfaces. Metal and ceramics in the paintings show small circles of white or yellow pigment. It has been suggested that these
are the 'circles of confusion', seen when you view bright highlights through a lens that is either not quite focussed, or is not a very high quality lens. The girl's pearly earring and the brass head of the lion on the chair show this distinctive 'soft focus'
effect.
Finally, Lawrence Gowing (1952) in his great monograph about Vermeer, talks of the way in which Vermeer just seems to transcribe the pattern of light and shade of his subject, with little of the underlying drawing that other artists would use to
build up a representation. As Gowing puts it:-
The description is always exactly adequate, always completely and effortlessly in terms of light. Vermeer seems almost not to care, or even to know, what it is that he is painting. What do men call this wedge of light? A nose? A finger? What do we
know of its shape? To Vermeer none of this matters, the conceptual world of names and knowledge is forgotten, nothing concerns him but what is visible, the tone, the wedge of light.
One of Vermeer's paintings was X-rayed at the time of the van Meegeren forgeries, and underneath the painted surface was found not the lines of a preliminary drawing or sketch, but another image - the same picture, but rendered in black and white.
We will return to this curious fact later. But these speculations remained just that - there was no actual evidence that Vermeer did use an optical device to create his paintings. But what about the historical context, and the availability of such a device?
Holland was certainly a centre for the manufacture of high quality optical instruments in the 17th century. The Camera obscura was used by several astronomers in the early 1600s, including Kepler (1604, 1611) and the Jesuit Christopher Scheiner
(1630), who made detailed studies of sunspots. And there were books that described the Camera obscura and its possible use in painting circulating in Holland at the time, like della Porta's Magia naturalis (1558), and Athanasius Kircher's Ars magna
lucis et umbrae (1646). So the Camera obscura was known in Holland during Vermeer's lifetime, although again there is no documentary evidence that Vermeer himself owned one, or even that he was familiar with the device.

Philip Steadman's Discovery

Philip Steadman is Professor of Architectural and Urban Morphology at the Open University in the UK. An architect by training, he became interested in this old question, but approached it from a new direction, through the perspective geometry of
Vermeer's paintings. For a start, many of the paintings seem to show the same room. Certainly the same architectural features seem to recur: the characteristic pattern of leaded panes in the casement windows, the black and white marble tiles on the
floor, and, where the ceiling is visible, the same size and spacing of ceiling joists. We might suppose that this was an actual room in the house belonging to Vermeer's mother-in-law Maria Thins, where Vermeer and his wife lived after they were
married. The site of the house is known, but it was demolished in the 19th century.
The technique that Professor Steadman used (which is first described by Leonardo) is esentially that for setting out a frontal or one-point perspective, but carried out in reverse. The straight lines of the architecture receding away from the viewer all
converge together in the picture to the central 'vanishing point'. This establishes the level of the 'horizon line' which passes through this vanishing point.
 The other diagonals of the pattern of floor tiles also converge together and meet at two points on the horizon line, the so-called 'distance points'. The distance from the vanishing point to either of the distance points must be equal to the theoretical
viewpoint of the picture from the picture plane. In other words, this is the distance you should place your eye from the picture, in order to see the same view as the artist did.

From the height of the vanishing point in the picture it is possible to compute the height of the actual viewpoint above the floor in the room. From all this information it is possible to work out more-or-less complete plan and side views of the room
and the furniture. But this only gives the relative sizes of the various features of the room, not the absolute scale. We could be looking at a representation of a doll's house populated with very small people, or a very large room filled with giants.
Except that objects in the room, like the maps on the back wall, and in one case a painting hanging on the wall within Vermeer's painting, do give an exact scale for the room, since these objects still exist, and therefore we can work out the
dimensions of the walls, the height of the people, and so on.

This reconstruction of the room in three dimensions is useful up to a point, but doesn't prove anything either way about the possible use of a Camera obscura. Professor Steadman's next step, which he came upon partly by chance, was however quite
extraordinary, and this is where dramatic new light has been thrown onto the working methods of Vermeer. The clue lay in the image in the mirror...

In the mirror we can see a reflection of a corner of the table, we can see what appear to be the legs of the artists easel and behind that, maybe a leg of Vermeer's stool. And in the top left hand corner of the painting, is a small rectangle of.. what?

Philip Steadman wondered if that little rectangle could be a glimpse of the back wall. The back wall? Well, if you didn't know the dimensions of the room in the first place, that guess wouldn't help you very much. But if you already know the
position and size of everything in the room... and you could work out the angle of the mirror easily enough because you could see the corner of the table both in the room and in the reflection... then you would know the exact length of the room...
something which had never been worked out before. It turns out that the dimension corresponds nicely to an exact number of repeats of the tile pattern on the floor. It also allows for three equal-sized and equally-spaced windows, of which only two
are generally visible in the paintings.
Philip Steadman then looked at some of Vermeer's paintings, and found that when he carried the angles of view in a number of the paintings back to meet the back wall, via the viewpoint of the picture, the size of the resulting rectangle on the back
wall was the same, in each case, as that of the actual painting. This was for paintings that were of varying sizes, and whose viewpoint in the room was not the same in each case...
 Philip Steadman realised that it was very hard to imagine any other explanation other than the following - Vermeer was using a lens to project an image of the scene he was painting on to the back wall. And he was then reproducing that
projected image with incredible, virtually photographic accuracy. No wonder he produced so few paintings during his lifetime.
But the image projected by the lens would not have been very bright, and Vermeer, working away in a little darkened cubicle, would have had difficulty in capturing the colours in each scene. A more likely explanation is that the image
he painted in the Camera obscura was created in black and white, and he then emerged into the daylight to add colour to his picture. This would explain why X-ray analysis has shown a black and white image underneath the colour
picture. But no drawn lines as you might have expected, if the painting had been created in a more conventional way. So in a very real sense, Vermeer's paintings are photographs, since the image is captured by a lens, although
Vermeer had to use a brush to 'take' his picture, since photographic film didn't exist at the time.

The Model
The next step in Philip Steadman's testing of his hypothesis was to have a 1/6th scale model of the room made, with furniture and figures, to enable an exact reconstruction of 'The Music Lesson' to be set up. Then a plate camera was set up with the
lens in the precise position in space that Philip Steadman had determined previously as being the viewpoint of the painting.

Not only does the photograph of the model match the painting extraordinarily closely, even the shadows correspond - the shadows of the legs of the virginals, the shadows near the windows, and the bright patch on the wallwhere the shiny varnished
end of the virginals case reflects light back onto the wall. It is very hard to find any other explanation other than the one that suggests that Vermeer created his paintings using a lens. And in that sense his works of art are photographic, as well as
paintings. At the time when Vermeer was working, images produced by a lens were not generally held to be accurate representations of the world. Galileo saw images of the heavens through his telescope lens that no-one had seen before, but these
did not accord with the establishment view. The miniature world of the Dutch microscopist van Leeuwenhoek was not believed by many people, but since his findings did not contradict any established theory, he was able to continue his studies of
the structure of blood, of hair and rotifers without restraint. The idea that an image captured by a lens is some sort of 'proof', be it a camera, a telescope or a microscope, is a modern one, and not a view generally held in Vermeer's time. While the
Camera obscura was used sometimes as an aid to sketching, it was not thought to give an accurate picture of the world.
The use of a lens to create a painting, in the way that Vermeer did, would certainly have been seen as controversial. No wonder that Vermeer didn't encourage visitors to his studio, and that he had no students. His visionary and scientific approach
was ahead of its time. And perhaps it is no wonder that Vermeer's paintings began to be appreciated just a hundred years or so ago, since that is also the time when images produced by a lens - using a camera - began to be accepted, even
commonplace.
One last question. The second half of the 17th century has become known in Holland as their 'Golden Age', with tremendous discoveries being made in science and optics, an extraordinary flowering of Dutch art, and, as a seafaring nation, there were
feats of navigation and discovery abroad too. So Vermeer, who was born in 1632, lived during an incredibly exciting time. But Delft itself is a small, sleepy market town, and Vermeer spent all of his life there. How did he come to learn about the use
of a lens? And where might he have got his lens from?
In the old church in Delft, when you look up the baptismal records for the year 1632, you find Vermeer's name. But on the same page of the records, born within a few months of Vermeer, there is another name, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, the
microscopist. The two men were, within a month or so, exactly the same age. Leeuwenhoek was a draper by trade, while Vermeer's father had a silk business, so there was a potential overlap of professional interests. And Delft is not a very big town.
So it seems not unlikely that they might have known each other, although there is no record of their ever having met during their lives. However, after Vermeer's death, Leeuwenhoek was appointed executor to the estate. Was he acting as a family
friend?
Leeuwenhoek spent a few years in Amsterdam early in his career, where presumably he learnt about making lenses. He then returned to Delft where he began building the microscopes that would enable the work that would make him famous. At
around this same time Vermeer stops painting the religious paintings that he began his career with, and starts producing the exquisite interiors that he has become famous for, with the aid of a lens. Did he get the lens from Leeuwenhoek?
 This painting by Vermeer is generally called 'The Geographer' and was painted in 1669. However the instruments and maps we see in the painting are those of a surveyor, and Leeuwenhoek qualified as a surveyor in 1669. Is this a picture of
Leeuwenhoek? If they were friends, what would be more natural than for Vermeer to take a 'snapshot' of his friend? It is a pleasant thought to imagine a congenial friendship between these two great masters of minute, patient observation of the
effects of light, from Holland's golden age.

Durer

The eye of the observer is fixed by a sight, and between it and the object is inserted either a glass plate [Top woodcut] or a frame divided into small squares by a net of black thread ("graticola" or grill, as Alberti calls it). In the first case, an
approximately correct picture can be obtained by simply copying the contours of the model as they appear on the glass plate and then transferring them to the panel or drawing sheet by means of tracing; in the second case the image perceived by the
artist is divided into small units whose content can easily be entered upon a paper divided into a corresponding system of squares.

Information on Grid Drawing "The underlying idea of transferring information from one grid to another has a long history in both mathematics and art. When the blank grid differs from the original grid, for example, a drawing can suffer intriguing
distortions. In art, the result is sometimes called an anamorphic picture. Mathematically, you're looking at the results of a type of transformation or mapping. To create one sort of anamorphic picture, you start with a piece of paper ruled into square
cells and another ruled with the same number of trapezoids. Draw your picture on the square grid. Then carefully copy the contents of each square of the original grid to the corresponding trapezoid of the other grid, stretching the lines of the drawing
to make sure everything fits together. You end up with a distorted version of the original picture. Interestingly, if you now look at the final drawing at the proper angle from the edge, it appears undistorted.

The other two apparatuses-[Above and next page] one invented by one Jacob Keser, the other apparently by Drer himself-are nothing but improvements on the ones already described. Keser's device [Above] removes the difficulty that the distance
between the eye and the glass plate can never exceed the length of the artist's arm, which entails an undesirably sharp foreshortening: the human eye is replaced by the eye of a big needle, driven into the wall, to which is fastened a piece of string
with a sight at the other end; the operator can then "take aim" at the characteristic points of the object and mark them on the glass plate with the perspective situation determined, not by the position of his eye but by that of the needle
Albrecht Drer and studies of heads Grid-Warps is a technique with a long tradition. One of the earliest uses was by the painter Albrecht Drer who made numerous studies of the human form. He was interested in the way the human head could take
so many forms and used grids to transform a drawing of a head in profile. These are a few examples of the warping effects he made. This is his original head which has been edited to remove the grid:

The original head (including the grid) is on the left in the following set:

Drer used a set of grids where some lines have been manually adjusted to obtain the effects he wants.
In this next set he is uses another technique which we call a grid shear.

This is a computer generated shear using Drer's original head.

 If you compare these results to Drer's originals you will see a slight squashing of the head; however, because he has drawn them by hand, there are differences - look closely at the hair and ears particularly. By overlaying one image on top of the
other, it is easier to see the parts that Drer has manipulated. Apart from the bent part of the grid in the image on the right, he has used the grid more to draw positions of objects that have hardly changed.

What is amazing is how little has changed in position, but how much the personality of the face has changed. Which one would you prefer to meet on a dark night?
You can also see how Drer made changes to the spacing of the grid as well as the shear in order to transform the face:

The lines in the centre have been added to show the difference in the spacing. Again, it is remarkable how such small effects produce such a great change in perceived personality. The new face does not seem as fierce as the one above.
Drer was a great artist and mathematician. He presented his rvolutionary ideas in a book about geometry that was written for artists. This transformed the subject of geometrical drawing - a subject in which he was a founding and lasting master. His
techniques were used 400 years later by the biologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson who used grids to dramatic effect in his study of life forms. Indeed, D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson shows in his book "On Growth and Form" a simplified version of
Drer's face which highlights the effect of Grid-Warping:

He has exaggerated the spacing of the lines to increase the warping effects to emphasise the effects that Drer explored.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Artists have long used the same idea to create visual puzzles. In such examples, a viewer sees an object correctly only if he or she finds the right angle at which to look at the picture. One of the most famous examples is in a painting called "The
Ambassadors," made by the German artist Hans Holbein, the Younger (1497-1543). It shows two men standing in front of tables overflowing with books, instruments, and globes (see http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/holbein/HOH006.html).
At their feet, the artist painted a weird shape that turns out to be a grinning skull when you hold the picture at a slant and view it in the right way. Various artists have tried more elaborate schemes. It's possible, for example, to draw or paint a picture
so that you can tell what it is only if you look at its reflection in a mirror shaped like a cylinder or a cone. Other pictures must be reflected in shiny spheres, mirrored pyramids, or other reflecting shapes to reveal their true identity." (This information
has been copied from Science News Online written by Ivars Peterson. s)

"Facial angle"
Petrus Camper is also known for his theory of the "facial angle" originally in connection with beauty. He was concerned with the fact that all artists painted the black Magus in the nativity with Caucasian face. He
determined that modern humans had facial angles between 70 and 90, with African angles closer to 70. According to this technique, an angle is formed by drawing two lines: one horizontally from the nostril to
the ear; and the other perpendicularly from the advancing part of the upper jawbone to the most prominent part of the forehead. He claimed that antique Greco-Roman statues presented an angle of 100-95,
Europeans of 90, 'Orientals' of 80, Black people of 70 and the orangutan of 58, but not in an overtly racist fashion-he merely claimed that, out of all human races, Africans were most removed from the Classical
sense of ideal beauty. These results were later used as scientific racism, with research continued by tienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (17721844) and Paul Broca (18241880).
Holbein
In the lower half of this picture there is an oblong shape, which, with a little inspection, you should be able to make out as the distorted image of a human skull. (The symbolism of this has been much debated; see, for example, the National Gallery
book Holbein's Ambassadors-Making and Meaning, 1998.)
The skull achieves its true shape if you view it from the right hand side and very close to the plane of the painting. To view it on a computer screen, close your left eye, and put your right eye next to the screen, about half way up the painting and
about 5-10 cm. to the right of it. From this unconventional viewpoint, youwill see something like [THIS].
On the lower part of the painting - on the floor - a strange oblique and indeterminable form is to be seen. It is an optical anamorphosis. If it is viewed from a traditional frontal angle you will only see a strange flat and abstract pattern which seems to
fix itself to the surface of the painting, to the pictureplane. The flat construction of the anamorphosis prevents the beholders gaze in going through the pictureplane and out into the illusoric picture space as the gaze does on other parts of the
paintings surface.The experience is especially effective here because the rest of Holbeins painting of the Ambassadors in a very convincing manner seems to open up to a threedimensional space behind the twodimensional pictureplane. This impact
was achieved by Holbein by erasing any trace of brushwork from the surface of his painting by which the fictive space behind the pictureplane untroubled can extend itself. Now, if you step aside to the right and move close to the wall and you turn
your gaze towards the edge of the painting in a certain angle the apparent abstract pattern will shrink and form a normal picture of a skull. In fact this picture will appear with an extraordinary lively threedimensionality - almost like a hologram - as if
you could reach into a real space and grasp the skull. Please view a photography of the anamorphosis from the correct visual angle. The reader should notice that the above mentioned effect can not be expressed in photograph since the picture
thereby has been fixed to a plane. The reason why the skull is seen so holographic or autentically threedimensional when viewed from the correct visual angle is because of the fact that the beholder sees a picture which has no pictureplane in a
traditional manner. The picture of the normal skull exists in a manner of speaking only in the gaze of the beholder. The rest of the painting does not display this effect in the same way in spite of the fact that it also has a convincingly realistic
expression.

Distorted skull:
Skull "normalized":

It is recommended that the reader goes to National Gallery in London where Holbeins painting is to be found. However, you do not need the original painting to experience the effect. A reproduction - best in colour and on shiny paper - can be a
substitute. You can find one on the cover of Jacques Lacans book The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Naturally, it is not without reason that Holbeins painting decorate the cover of Lacans book. Lacan has as well as I studied the
anamorphosis in relation to the gaze. However I will not go into further discussion concerning Lacan and his studies of the anamorphosis here but the book is - in relation to the question of the anamorphosis - usable in several ways. Grab the book
by the back and place it at some distance from your eyes at a right angle. The right side of the book must turn towards the nose. You can move the book a little until the construction of the anamorphosis shrinks and unmask the normal picture of the
skull. If you do not have a copy of Lacans book you can use any other reproduction of the painting. On Holbeins painting two different constructions of perspective has been joint together: The big ordinary picture of perspective constitutes the
basis on which the small anamorphic construction is added. But how is the latter made? Probably Holbein has used a classical squared pavement or grid which he has transformed by the means of a distance-point method.

If the distance is made very short - as mentioned before - the squared pavement will look unnaturally distorted. At the same time as the tiles are being distorted an inlaid drawing of a skull will be distorted as well. Holbein must at first have made a
sketch of the anamorphosis which afterwards could be included in the normal painting. In its starting point the anamorphosis is situated on a horisontal level but in its position in the finished painting it seems to have been raised into a vertical
position. This displacement of dimensions has the result that the beholder has to look for alternative displaced viewing positions in relation to the traditional frontal appeal of the painting. That is if she wants the distorted part of the anamorphosis to
shrink and reveal the second part of the anamorphosis - which is the recognizable one. Exactly this ambigousness is the most fascinating part of the anamorphosis. It is divided into two different acts, and it manipulates the beholder. It can be seen as
some sort of organism which like a muscle can stretch and shrink again. In front of the anamorphosis the gaze of the beholder is being divided.
The first gaze sees the flat, abstract pattern which seems to float on the surface of the painting, on the pictureplane. It looks at something which manifests itself clearly as a form, but at the same time it is a blockade, which hides the content or
meaning. On the other hand the second gaze sees a content, which is an extremely realistic threedimensional skull, but really not any form because this picture does only exist in the mind of the beholder. In fact the anamorphosis deconstructs the
painting by splitting itself into something twice-phased. It acts between being and illusion, between form and content, and between surface and depth. Hereby it tricks the beholder which is not used to this paradoxical ambigousness. The latter
aspects of the anamorphosis can be seen in relation to the developement of art in the 20th Century. In this century two opposed artforms - abstract painting and the readymade - saw the light of day. In my book Det dekonstruerede maleri. Marcel
Duchamps tant donns (The Deconstructed Painting. Marcel Duchamps tant donns)
 Oblique anamorphosis is closely related to an artistic technique called trompe l'oeil (French for "deceiving the eye", pronounced "tromp loy"). Both use perspective constructions to create a "trick" image, but the difference lies in the nature of the
trick. For an anamorphosis, the viewer is presented with something that does not make sense when viewed conventionally, and so he or she must seek out the unconventional viewpoint from which the trick is resolved. For trompe l'oeil, the viewer,
standing in one particular (and usually conventional) place, is tricked into seeing an invented image as if it were reality. One of the most stunning examples of the technique is the fresco painting on the ceiling of the Church of Saint Ignazio in Rome,
created by Andrea Pozzo during 1691-1694. A semi-circular roof is transformed into a fantastic picture of the heavens, in which Saint Ignatius ascends into paradise:

Trompe l'oeil designs only "trick" from their intended viewing point. Seen away from that point (as in the right-hand picture) the imaginary architecture distorts alarmingly. Pozzo himself said: "Since Perspective is but a Counterfeiting of the Truth,
the Painter is not obliged to make it appear real when seen from Any part, but from One determinate Point only." (Quoted in M. H. Pirenne, Optics, Painting and Photography, p. 90) In fact, Pozzo's skill in making the painted surface undetectable
results in making the distortions more extreme - if the surface could be seen, the brain would be able to compensate for viewing away from the perspective viewpoint (see Michael Kubovy, The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art, 1986).
By playing with the conventions of seeing, both trompe l'oeil and anamorphosis should remind us that what you see has a great deal to do with where you are looking from.

A well known plane anamorph is the Vexierbild or Puzzle Picture (1535) by Erhard Schon, a student of the famous German artist Albrecht Durer.
When this fantastic landscape (on the left) is viewed at a low angle from the left four portraits emerge of Charles V, Ferdinand I Pope Paul III and Francis I (shown at the right).
 Follower of Caravaggio, anamorphic Saint Jerome Praying, 1635, oil on canvas.

The division of appearence and reality takes place in two stages:

A kind of relationship between the observer and the artist is established by central perspective, which thus pretends to offer space and depth on the focal plane. As a mechanical aid, Albrecht Drer used a perspective frame for his works, thereby
defining the position of his eyes. With Trompe-leil-painting (deceptive appearance) reality borders on unreality. By accelerating or delaying perspective one can exchange the viewpoints of a geometrical network or transform the proportions of
objects without disfiguring them: in seemingly well-difined space there appears to be space of profound width and depth because of a sudden expanse of viewpoint, as the arrange linearments suddenly retreat. (De Chirico)
Anamorphosic perspective optically distroys the object given, which means that there is a discountinuity between form and drawing. This distortion is also achieved by the same conditions:
* Exchange of viewpoints within a geometrical network
* Use of a mechanical aid (e.g. reflex cylinder)
Both possibilities provoke contrasting illusory images which are of the same form. An example of anamorphosis can only be rectified if the correct viewpoint or appropriate devices of aid can be found. The image appears if it is viewed from the side
or in a mirror and thus resembles itself again.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ANAMORPHOSIS
16th century:
Initiated by Leonardo da Vinci and Albrecht Drer Holbein: "Die Gesandten" - diplomatics -, an anamorphic skull serves as a symbol of vanity between science and the arts. These compositions were used for unrestrained paintings, paintings of
saints and secret portraits. They became wellknown even as far as England. By and by, the techniques of painting them were uncovered. (Shakespeare e.g. was fascinated by these paintings.)

17th century:
This is the century of Nicron, of treatises, of anamorphical use of anamorphosis in gardens, towns and all of nature. Katoptric anamorphoses became well known. After their visual "distinction", the works can be rectified with the help of a
cylindrical or a conical mirror. In France, the forms of composition that used distorted perspective were rediscovered for intellectual flights of thought by clergymen and mathematicians and were spread even further by the followers of Descartes
who pronounced philosophical doubt which can be interpreted as a modification of Christian ideas on "vanitas" (=vanity). Descartes: cogito ergo sum: "Although I put everything in doubt, I am aware of my existence as a being capable of thinking."
17th and 18th centuries:
Heyday and popularisation of anamorphoses (books for drawing, paintings, graphics).
18th and 19th centuries:
Anamorphosis becomes void of its metaphysical content. The virtuosity of technique is at its peak, at the same time artistic degeneration sets in.
ROMANTICISM
 went back to former examples like Edgar Allan Poes "Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque (eccentricity).
PRESENT
Anamorphoses in modified form play a practical part in everyday life: e.g. signs and inscriptions on the street ("bus", "stop", arrows, etc.) match the drivers viewpoint (acute angle).
Typical of 20th century:
Psychology of perception works out the basic features of anamorhic effect. Photography makes use of "fish-eye" lenses. Scince 1953, Film has projected films onto panoramic screens of anamorphic form with the help of specified objectives (fresco
paintings on irregular ceilings in the baroque period).

Anamorphosis shows very clearly that the basis of all forms of perspective can be found in deception and artificiality, be it visual distortion or visual deception.

D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's Grids

D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson was a renowned classics scholar, a mathematician and an innovative biologist. His book On Growth and Form is still in print nearly a century after its publication. This book has inspired many scientists as well as
artists and designers. It has recently been republished by Dover publications.
Thompson was inspired by Drer's work on heads but developed and extended all his ideas.
D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson was an eccentric in both his personal and professional lives. He was known for carrying a parrot around on his shoulder when he walked about the town.
Grids and fish shapes
We can all look at a particular animal, for example a fish, and recognise that it has certain properties in common with all fish, such as a head, tail, fins, gills and so on. Where Thompson made his decisive breakthrough was in seeing each fish as being
stretched versions of another fish and then looking for an evolutionary reason to explain that relationship. The following examples of fish show how he used various techniques to warp his grids in order to show his results.
The first example shows a simple shear:

Here is a circular grid effect:

Here is a dramatic Thompson grid-warp that you can reproduce using some of the circular grids described in these pages:

This is similar to a perspective grid although the spacing on the vertical grid lines does not decrease in the way that it would if the grid were in perspective.

More complex grids

The following illustrations of some skulls shows the exotic grids he employed to show a positive evolutionary pattern between different species.

John Locke: (1690)


,
.
(. ).
,
.
, ,
, .
.

.
, .

___________________________________________________________________
(Natural patterns)

. , : set a pattern , pattern of virtue # , , .

: pattern-maker wax pattern # ( ) , "", "": pattern of
history # , , () "": today's pattern of government
# , , . : pattern shop # , , . , "",
: she loaned the pattern of the skirt # , , : of various patterns # (
:) ,

T , , , ,
, , , .

Kepler
6 K, , , , A, E---,, , ,
.

 57. Radiolaria. Upper Ordovician, Hanson Creek Formation, Eureka County, Nevada. Scanning electron micrographs courtesy of A Murphy, University of California, Riverside. Copyright Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Inc.,
1987.

58. Radiolaria. Strewn slide. Pliocene. Photomicrograph courtesy of R. E. Casey, University of San Diego. Copyright Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Inc., 1987.
59. Polycystine radiolaria. Antarctic forms. Fig. 1. Spongotrochus glacialis. Fig. 2. Lithelieus nautiloides. Fig. 3. Dihamphora furcaspiculata. Fig. 4. Theocalyptra bicornis. These specimen are less than 0.4 mm in size. Recent. Copyright Cushman

Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Inc., 1987.

60. Radiolaria. Figs. 1, 3. Calocycletta virginis. Fig. 2. Calocycletta costata. Middle Miocene equatorial east Pacific Ocean (Deep-Sea Drilling Program site 78). From R. M. Goll, Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, v. 9, p. 985.
 Pattern Formation

What causes animal coat and skin patterns? When James Murray, a mathematical biologist at the University of Washington, read Rudyard Kipling's classic fable "How the Leopard Got Its Spots" to his daughter, Sara, she asked him this very
question. He did not know the answer and after conferring with his colleagues he found out that no one had ever discovered what causes coat patterns. He was intrigued by the subject and decided to pursue it. He knew that patterns result from cells
being colored by a specialized pigment in the skin, melanin. Melanin is produced by melanocytes, melanocytes are found in the basal, or innermost, layer of the epidermis; where an animal has hair the melanin will pass through the skin into the hair.
Why some cells have melanin (producing colors and patterns) and others do not, was the factor that was unknown to Professor Murray.

Professor Murray knew that in chemistry when you combine certain chemicals they react, spread out, and form a pattern. If you change one variable, such as the temperature, a different pattern emerges. He hypothesized that a chemical reaction
could be the mechanism that forms the coat patterns. He based his work on a model developed by Alan M. Turing, Turing suggested that morphogens could react with each other and diffuse through cells forming patterns, this is called
reaction-diffusion. Murray proposed that the morphogens worked as activators and inhibitors for the melanocytes, meaning that the morphogens would react, spread out, and form a pattern. The melanocytes would then produce
melanin within the outline of the morphogens pattern. He constructed a hypothetical mathematical model, based on this theory, and concentrated only on the variable of the geometry of the container, or the animal's skin. He found that a reaction-
diffusion model capable of forming patterns (by activating and inhibiting melanocytes) would be a plausible method for the formation of animal coat and skin patterns.
 He also discovered that, "Whatever the mechanism is, it must have similar characteristics from the point of view of geometry and scale". He started by applying his model to tapered cylinders like the legs and tails of animals. He found that
for spots to occur they have to have sufficient space, if the area becomes too small the spots will become stripes. This is proven in nature by the fact that while a spotted animal can have a striped tail a striped animal cannot have a spotted tail. He
also discovered if the scale of an animal becomes too small or too large no pattern can result and those animals will all have uniform skin and coat color, exhibited by mice, elephants, hippopotamuses, and rhinoceroses. However, variations within a
species can occur if the morphogens react and diffuse at a different time during embryogenesis, take the giraffe for example, their are three distinct kinds of giraffe, the Rothschild, Reticulated (pictured on the left), and Maasai (pictured on the right),
they all have distinctly different patterns. Professor Murray hypothesized that the release of the morphogens could be a genetic trait.
Professor Murray's theories have been supported by other scientists' research. Recently Professor Maini in Oxford has shown that a similar process must apply to the zebra fish. Charles M. Vest and Youren Xu of the University of Michigan
generating standing-wave pattern using vibration and lasers to produce patterns. Their work produced a similar set of rules about the geometry of an animals skin. Professor Murray also did some further research with alligator stripes hoping to prove
his theory, "Some years ago we showed that the concepts applied to alligator stripes and that they could not be genetic."

T,
patterns .K pattern
, .
O Murray , morphogene pattern
, . patterns .

The most significant general property of perception identified by Gestalt theory was a holistic, or global-first nature in which the global configuration of a stimulus is often perceived in the absence of its local component features. Figure 1 shows
a picture that is familiar in vision circles, for it reveals the principle of emergence in a most compelling form. For those who have never seen this picture before, it appears initially as a random pattern of irregular shapes. A remarkable transformation
is observed in this percept as soon as one recognizes the subject of the picture as a dalmation dog in patchy sunlight in the shade of overhanging trees. The outlines of the dog are defined by a large number of apparently chance alignments of
irregular edges. What is remarkable about this percept is that the dog is perceived so vividly despite the fact that much of its perimeter is missing. Furthermore, visual edges which form a part of the perimeter of the dog are locally
indistinguishable from other less significant edges. Therefore any local portion of this image does not contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. This figure therefore reveals a different kind of
processing from the atomistic approach suggested by feature detection theory, for in this image global features are detected as a whole, rather than as an assembly of local parts. No computational algorithm has ever been devised that can
handle the level of visual ambiguity present in the dog picture.

In the case of animal coat markings the chemical patterns only define different patterns of coloration. But the same spatial addressing scheme is also responsible for defining the pattern of tissue types in the embryo, for the pattern of concentration of
these morphogens during a critical period of development has been shown to be responsible for permanently marking the tissue for subsequent development into bone versus muscle tissue etc. This therefore explains some of the geometrical
regularities observed in the shape of the muscles, bones, and internal organs of the body. The periodicity in morphogenesis is ultimately responsible for the periodic segments observed in the bodies of worms and insects, in the vertebrae of
vertebrates, and similar resonances have been implicated in many other symmetries and periodicities in plant and animal forms, including the bilateral symmetry of the human body, the pentalateral symmetry of the starfish, the angular and radial
periodicity of the bones in the human hand and fingers, and the geometrical forms observed in plant and flower structures. Newman & Frisch (1979) propose a chemical harmonic resonance explanation for the phenomenon that the bones in
animal limbs exhibit a progression from single bones proximal( )to the body, as in the upper arm and leg, double bones more distally( ) as in the lower arm and leg, and with increasing
numbers of bones distally, as in the human hands and feet. Newman & Frish explain that as the growing embryonic limb bud increases in physical size, the chemical harmonic resonances( ,) in it jump from a
first, to a second, to progressively higher harmonics for the same reason that it is easier to blow higher harmonics in a long horn () than a short horn or whistle(), which tends to resonate only at its fundamental
frequency. The spatial-period-doubling of the pattern in the growing limb bud leaves a branching pattern of future bone tissue in its wake. Murray (1988) makes the connection between chemical and vibrational standing waves, showing how a
variety of different animal coat patterns can be produced as standing waves in a steel plate cut in the shape of an animal skin, shown in figure 6 C.

A: A periodic banded() pattern revealed by chemical staining() emerges in a developing embryo, due to a chemical harmonic resonance whose standing waves mark the embryonic tissue for future growth.

B: This chemical harmonic resonance has been identified as the mechanism behind the formation of patterns in animal skins, as well as for the periodicity in the vertibrae of vertibrates, the bilateral symmetry of the body plan, as well as the
periodicity of the bones in the limbs and fingers.

C: Murray shows the connection between chemical and vibrational standing waves by replicating the patterns of leopard spots and zebra stripes in the standing wave resonances in a vibrating steel sheet cut in the form of an animal skin.

X T
 A__________9,27________M___5,72_____B

<------------------------15---------------------->

AB=15
AB=9,27
MB=5,72
AM/MB= AB/AM=1.618

, , 2,618 (.. 15/2,618=5,72)

If we take the ratio of two successive numbers in Fibonacci's series, (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ..) and we divide each by the number before it, we will find the following series of numbers:
1/1 = 1, 2/1 = 2, 3/2 = 15, 5/3 = 1666..., 8/5 = 16, 13/8 = 1625, 21/13 = 161538...
It is easier to see what is happening if we plot the ratios on a graph:

A:

A E

At some time in the sixth century B.C. when Greek trade with Egypt intensified, the Greeks obtained from Egypt knowledge of their manner of correlating elements of design. The Greeks called this Egyptian "rope-stretcher" system harpendonapate,
which is the Greek word for "rope-stretchers."
In Greek hands, the Egyptian system was highly perfected as a practical geometry, and for about three hundred years it provided the basic principle of design for the finest art of the Greek Classical Period. Euclidean geometry gives us the Greek
development of the idea in pure mathematics; but the secret of its artistic application that it once had had completely disappeared. Its later recovery has given us dynamic symmetry-a method of establishing the relationship of areas in design/
composition.
The Greeks used this Egyptian method measurement and design for their pottery vases, their sculpture, their friezes and their temple architecture. Strange as it may seem, there is no essential difference except in scale, between the plan of a Greek
vase and the plan of a Greek temple, either in general aspect or in detail (See Figure V-8 below.)

Figure V-8. Schematic composition of a Greek vase

as measured and drawn by L. D. Caskey, Boston Museum. Design form and dynamic symmetry analysis.

The above vase, as measured and analyzed by L. D. Caskey, has a ratio of 1.472, derived from the base measurements of: the diagonal JK (.618), the diagonal EF (.618) and the diagonal 3F (.236) which total 1.472. These main areas are further
subdivided for repeated design needs.
The Greek sculptor, Roecus of Samos, learned his art in Egypt in the sixth century B.C. The traveller Diodorus Siculus, a contemporary of Roecus , tells us that one of Roecus' sons lived on the island of Samos and the other son lived in Ephesos.
They each sculpted one-half of a statue using the Egyptian method of measuring and when the two halves were put together they matched so perfectly that you could not see where they were joined.
Another Greek traveller claimed that he had been everywhere in the world and that his mathematical system was better "even than the Egyptians," and that he'd lived in Egypt for five years.
The Greek philosopher Pythagorus brought the knowledge of geometry to Greece using odd (versus even) numbers. Later Plato supplied a rule beginning with even numbers. Plato's students fixed areas up to the "root-seventeen" rectangle but the
entire dynamic system ideal is contained in the "root-five" rectangle, so it is not really necessary for rhythmic needs to use extensions of the root higher than "root-five."
As mentioned above, when reading and researching you will often come across Plato's "Golden Section," "Golden Rectangle," "Golden Mean," and even "Divine Section." These are all related to dynamic symmetry's whirling square rectangle (also
termed the 1.618 rectangle) and the ratio 1.618.
It is interesting that, also in the sixth century B.C., the Hindus of India also adopted the Egyptian method of measurement. They used it primarily for construction of their sacrificial altars. The instructions for this method are contained in their
Sulvasutras, meaning "rules of the cord." There is no indication that they ever developed the system beyond "root-six" rectangles and there is no indication that they knew anything of the special properties of the "root-five" rectangles.
The Hindus soon fell into inaccuracies in their use of this system and in their art in general.
The use of the Egyptian measurement system, the "rules of the cord," and the "rope-stretchers," descriptive names show that this system was a well-established profession in the ancient world thousands of years before there is historical reference to
it in either India or Greece.
The Greeks, as seen from a written passage of Democritus of Abdera (450-360 B.C.), the first philosopher who seems to have used the expression Macrocosmos and Microcosmos, borrowed this method from the Egyptian ritual land-surveyors,
haredonapts. Phythagorus generalized this special case into the theorum applying to all right-angle triangles. The theorum is: 3squared x 4squared = 5squared (this is: 3 x 3 = 9 plus 4 x 4 = 16 = 5 x 5 = 25, which has the square root of 5) The
followers of Pythagorus called this right-angle triangle the "angle of equity."
This measuring system eventually fell into disuse in Greece after a devastating plague in Athens that killed tens of thousands of her inhabitants and after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. However, there were many "rope-stretchers" and
artisans and architects who had the knowledge and continued the practice using this system. I believe that it is possible that some of this knowledge was kept alive by artists whose function was to decorate walls and panels, even though its use for
temple plans and sculpture had ceased. The reason this system was not adopted by the Romans, although they valued Greek sculpture highly, was that they misread the Greek word for area as line and therefore changed the formula and method, and
hence were unable to copy Greek works correctly.
In looking at the historical record for the development of Byzantine sacred arts and ultimately its spread throughout the ancient world, there are some clues as to the use of dynamic symmetry. I believe that it was possible for the Greek icon-painters
to have learned their craft from their master-teachers who used this proportional system, and then to have gone out into the Byzantine Empire decorating churches and iconostases and to have passed their method on to their apprentices - this system,
as said before, having no special name - it was "just done that way."
It needs remembering that our understanding of dynamic symmetry has been obtained mostly from the storehouse of Greek design from the Classical Period. This Classical Period probably covers two or three centuries and the material consists of
very many examples. So many, in fact, that it would seem almost impossible for any one person to learn them all. Indeed, one person could not really learn them well at all without an arithmetical background. This is the reason for using simple
numbers in the analyses we find. It is improbable that the average Greek artist knew more than a few of the areas although there must have been some who had a rather profound knowledge of the elements of their design. The design of the Parthenon
in Athens (448 - 427 B.C.), for example, is a perfect "root-five" rectangle design system and must have been done by experts in dynamic symmetry and mathematics both (See Figure V-9 below).
 Figure V-9. The Parthenon at Athens
A schematic of the dynamic symmetry analysis.

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/golden/golden4.html

Da Vinci

Mondrian
 Java ()

http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/cover/shell6.html
 Self-Organized Patterns.html

patterns_photos.html

Classification.html

http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/brims/art/gallery/sthomas/index.html
 Fractals

Figure 2.9: Beginning the construction of the mathematical fractal called the Koch curve.

Computer program: Coastline

Computer program _WaitingForMandelbrot
 fractals
 online:

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/omega.htm

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sequin/ART/

Sculpture Generator

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sequin/SCULPTS/gen2.html

Fractals+Music

http://thinks.com/sounds/fractal.htm

fractals:

http://www.techlar.com/fractals/websys.exe?file=interact/explorer.html

Fractal Music Explorer Demo

http://music.theory.home.att.net/fracmus.htm

bach+fractals
Fugue: a piece in which two or more parts are layered on top of each other, using a recurring theme that generally enters alone, but is answered by an echo, or a modified version of itself (generally beginning on a different pitch, traditionally the 5th)

II. Parts of a Fugue

A. Main Idea of the Fugue and How It Is Stated
1. Subject: Melody that comprises the primary melodic/rhythmic material of the fugue. Subjects typically have two parts: the "head" is calculated to attract attention either by unusual rhythmic or intervallic emphasis, while the "tail" is typically more
conjunct, rhythmically uniform, and sometimes modulatory. The head and/or tail itself may employ variation of one or two smaller motives or figures...each comprised of a characteristic rhythm and/or interval.
2. Answer: Subject imitation which immediately follows the first statement of the subject: in a different voice and usually fifth higher. Answers are a subclass of subjects which bear certain interval characteristics in relationship to the subject as it
was originally stated.
* Tonal Answer: An answer that typically (though not always) stays in the same key as the subject. To do this it is necessary for the intervals of the subject to change somewhat. In a tonal answer "do" and "sol" switch places: The position occupied
by "do," in the subject, becomes "sol" in the answer and vice versa. Analytical technique: Subjects having many skips (disjunct) that focus upon the tonic and dominant scale degrees lend themselves to a tonal answer.
* Real Answer: An answer that is a transposition of the subject to another key, usually the dominant. Analytical technique: Subjects having mostly steps (conjunct) that don't focus upon "do" and "sol" lend themselves to a real answer. 3.
Countersubject: Substantive figure that sometimes recurs immediately following the subject or answer (in the same voice). Countersubjects serve as counterpoint to subjects (or answers) sounding simultaneously in a different voice. Not every fugue
will have a countersubject. Some fugues may have more than one countersubject.
4. False Subject: Some people use the term "false subject" to describe an entry of the subject (or answer) that begins but never finishes. This term should be reserved for instances where the subject appears to enter, breaks off, then follows
immediately with a complete statement. Most other instances of incomplete subjects are developmental and should be termed "imitation."

Note the mirroring around the central axis of this figure. Operations of a symmetry group may be applied in various ways and degrees. The process here may be described as the imitation, or translation, of a basic shape with attendant
symmetry operations. Analogous operations on a basic motive are carried out in most contrapuntal music. Imitation is a ubiquitous operation in canons and fugues. From the Renaissance through the time of Bach composers
constructed enigma canons (also called "puzzle canons" or "riddle canons") in which a simple musical figure (seed) was notated and a canon was to be played from it by performers who could figure out the rules of the canon, such as
the intervals of imitation and whether or not to apply various symmetry operations. In music these operations are commonly called transposition, inversion, retrograde, retrograde-inversion, augmentation, and diminution. More
generally they are the traditional symmetry-group operations of translation, reflection, and rotation.

These operations have been defined mathematically in my dissertation, Symmetry as a Compositional Determinant (1973, rev 1997). A brief summary is provided here:
Reflections around y and x axes respectively: T(x,y) = (-x, y) and T(x,y) = (x, -y)
Common rotations are:
90o rotation: T(x,y) = (y, -x)
180o rotation: T(x,y) = (-x, -y)
270o rotation: T(x,y) = (-y, x)
Translations are defined as:
Horizontal: T(x,y) = (x+a, y)
Vertical: T(x,y) = (x, y+a)
The following is an example of one of these enigma canons for 8 voices, called Trias Harmonica by J. S. Bach. It is shown here in Bach's original notation:

Believe it or not, this is the entire 8-voiced canon. The notation gives all the necessary pitch and rhythmic information, but the operations of transposition, time and pitch intervals, and symmetry operations must be determined by the
performers. Here is one possible solution:

music sample_______________________________________________________

The time interval for the voice entrances is one quarter-note. The pitch interval of imitation is a perfect fifth, cycling back to tonic. The imitation is inverted and transposed on alternating entries.
In such works as Bach's Art of Fugue, A Musical Offering, and Johannes Ockghem's Missa Prolationem, composers repeat simple motivic ideas, subjecting them to the variation operations of symmetry groups. A form of motive on the
large scale is echoed by diminution on smaller and smaller scales, repeated, inverted and retrograded (mirrored), and translated (transposed) at many points in time.

Xenakis
M

Metastaseis

The massed moving formations of string glissandi and 'brass in total disorder', as Xenakis describes, that occur in "Metastaseis" and later in "Pithoprakta" relate to the kinetic theory of gases. 30 This theory states that "the
temperature of a gas derives from the independent movement of its molecules."
Xenakis drew an analogy between the movement of a gas molecule through space and that of a string instrument through its pitch range. To construct the seething movement of the piece, he governed the 'molecules'
according to a coherent sequence of imaginary temperatures and pressures. The result is a music in which separate 'voices' cannot be determined, but the shape of the sound mass they generate is clear.
 Fractal Music

Karlheinz Stockhausen

Serial music (after 1950) offers the most radical examples of self-similarity. In the field of electroacoustic music, there is considerable documentation showing to what degree the early music of Karlheinz Stockhausen (Elektronische Studie II,
Gesang der Jnglinge and Kontakte) uses the same (numerical) elements to construct the sounds themselves, build phrases and derive formal structure. Elsewhere (Proceedings II of the International Academy of Electroacoustic Music 1996,
Bourges/Paris) I have described some of the self-similar structures of my piece Rainstick.