Multimedia Conversation between
Theoretical Physics and Graphic Design
Masters thesis.
"Multimedia Conversation between Theoretical Physics and Graphic Design." Masters in Graphic Design (MGD) Thesis, Department of Graphic Design, School of Design, NCSU, Raleigh, 1994.
FINAL PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
Multi-media conversation between theoretical physics and graphic
design.
L. Koonts
Department of Graphic Design / School of Design /
North Carolina State University / Raleigh, North Carolina / May 2, 1994 / Masters in Graphic Design
CONTENTS
abstract
Multi-media conversation between theoretical physics and graphic design.
report text
WHY? PHYSICS & DESIGN.
paper given Dec. 1993
A multi-media conversation between theoretical physics and graphic design.
script from multi-media presentation Feb. 1994
Following three images from review in School of Design Graduate Publication, 1996
ABSTRACT
Multi-media conversation between theoretical physics and graphic design.
Discussion of design in design terms is often insular. A
conversation between physics and design will generate new ways of
thinking and talking about design. Time is a construct, something we
agree upon as constant in order to do things. Awareness of existence
of constructs leads us to question how we think and solve problems.
Although time is mathematically different for everyone -- depending
on their velocity compared to the speed of light -- the difference
is so small that we can, and do, act as though time is constant. So
we can say, as in deconstruction, that everyone sees a work
differently, but the differences are small enough that viewers get
something similar out of the piece. There is enough commonality of
experience that we can design to communicate messages.
Given any random set of information, a person will organize that
information into some order. In graphic design, we control the
presentation of information to try and communicate a certain message
to the observer. Graphic designers study the components of their
visual world in the same way physicists observe the world, make
guesses, experiment, and generate equations.
In physics, the idea of complementary opposites can be found in the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Complementary opposites can apply
in talking about design. Choosing two things, such as idea and form,
and talking about them as if they were complementary opposites
provides a framework for discussion and understanding relationships.
This conversation will generate thought/discussion, different ways
of seeing, and an awareness of how we deal with information as we
move between theoretical and applied work in graphic design: the
applied to see if the theories work and to produce work, the
theoretical to look at the applied and to become aware of the
construct. Such internal/external conversations will increase
knowledge of the work itself and expose constructs in
thought/discussion of design.
THESIS CHAT OUTLINE
PHYSICS + DESIGN
WHY? PHYSICS + DESIGN
understanding through metaphor
derrida isn't design theory either
scientific theory is how we think
PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS
so, physics
Newtonian physics defines only part of reality
Newtonian physics is old
MACROSCOPIC atomic / MICROSCOPIC subatomic
MICROSCOPIC is the realm of the very small
Objective reality is a fallacy
objective reality is obsolete
NEWTONIAN PHYSICS vs. QUANTUM PHYSICS
reality is a closed watch
Early quantum views as either/or
a quantum can be seen as a particle or as energy
particle, energy, particle/energy
Western thought deals with dichotomies or polarities
Derrida criticizes Western metaphysics
yes vs. no
Being as presence
Barthes criticizes Neither-Nor
heavy, defective words vs. light, pure, immaterial words
representation of reality = not = reality
Eastern thought is aware of limitations of language
Eastern metaphysics
Einstein on reality
Einstein says
PHYSICS OF PHYSICS
What physics says about reality
Theory of relativity
before we studied atoms, there was no Theory of Relativity
MACROSCOPIC atomic / MICROSCOPIC subatomic
what is matter made of?
atoms, nuclei, electrons, protons, neutrons/nucleons
the Theory of Relativity
E=mc2
E is for ENERGY
motion, heat, gravitational, electrical, chemical, and so on..
conservation of energy
m is for MASS
mass was believed to be conserved like energy
but no, mass is a form of energy
E=mc2
articles are seen as bundles of energy
space-time in relation to graphic design
quantum
radiation vs. particle, line vs. dot
line and dot, radiation and particle
Quantum physics
BLACK HOLE
no connection between the future and the past ?
lost in space; gone, not forgotten; buried, not gone
energy as information
lost in space; gone, not forgotten; buried, not gone
RECORDING THE INFORMATION AND EVENT OF RESEARCH
information in terms of thesis research
recording information
no objective observer
information + structure of information + changes in the structure
Derrida says
PHYSICS + DESIGN
physics, again
Other examples
parallelactic shift
chaos theory
frame, boundary, information
Example of physics applied to understanding in design
INFORMATION
last words
THE DEVIL DID IT
THE END
[SLIDES]
PHYSICS FORWARD
+ This presentation focuses on the physics and theoretical aspects
DESIGN
of my thesis. The visual exploration will result from this
exploration, but I don't know exactly what that will be yet.
Physics asks basic questions about our world and these questions
relate to our lives and our work as designers. We live in a
scientific age. The science of any period affects human thought
and identity. When the theory of relativity entered our culture,
things became "relative", "it's all relative". The latest modern
physics breaks traditional ideas about the frame of our existence.
The structure of this presentation is loosely linear. All of this
functions on many levels. I can't address all the levels and their
connections at once. It is not necessary to understand detailed
physics to grasp the content of this presentation.
WHY?
PHYSICS THESIS : PHYSICS + DESIGN
+
DESIGN
understanding For me, it seems more straightforward to take the theory from
through
metaphor another subject and apply it to a discussion of design than to
talk directly about design. How do we talk directly about design
anyway? What vocabulary, what philosophy?
derrida isn't The theories of deconstruction, come from Derrida's literary
design theory
either theory. This is (quote)"outside" theory applied to design. Just as
some physicists have drawn parallels between the most recent
modern physics and Eastern philosophy, so does Derrida talk of
Western metaphysics.
scientific
theory is how Science and design deal with change in both applied and
we think,
especially in theoretical framework. Shifts in technology, our idea of beauty
this scienti
fic age and our perception of the world affect construction and
interpretation of our work. Science has a lot to do with how we
so, physics
understand our world and how we see ourselves. Physics seeks to
answer basic questions about life and reality.
Newtonian Scientists are realizing that Newtonian physics describes reality
physics is old
within a boundary. A set of rules can explain the path of an
(show ball in object in motion. We can mathematically know where the object will
motion)
be in space over a period of time. Newtonian physics is a closed
system. This does not mean it is no longer valid as a description
of reality; but that is defines only a part of reality. We apply
(show air this physics every day to fly airplanes and build buildings .
plane)
Parallel lines are theoretically not straight, but the difference
(show building)
is so small in the framework of reality within which we build
buildings that the applied physics of parallel and perpendicular
lines functions.
![[ball in motion]](/images/t_s1.gif)
![[airplane]](/images/t_s2.gif)
![[building]](/images/t_s3.gif)
![[newtonian framework]](/images/t_s4.gif)
![[cathedral dome]](/images/t_s5.gif)
(show newton The concepts of quantum physics are outside of the Newtonian
ian framework,
with frame) system. The recognition of lack of definitive knowledge in this
scientific age has made us look at the framework through which we
view the world. There is an awareness that there is more than one
framework. The old idea of objective reality is obsolete.
MACROSCOP Newtonian Physics does not work to define reality on
IC atomic /
MICROSCOPIC MACROSCOPICatomic/MICROSCOPICsubatomic levels
subatomic
MICROSCOPIC For example: (Zukav. 57) The dome of Saint Peter's basilica in the
is the realm of
the very small Vatican has a diameter of about fourteen stories. Imagine a grain
(show of salt in the middle of the dome of Saint Peter's with a few dust
cathedral dome)
particles revolving around it at the outer edges of the dome. This
(show grain of
salt and dust gives us the scale of subatomic particles. It is in this realm,
particles)
the subatomic realm, that quantum mechanics is required to explain
particle behavior.
objective In Zukav's book, The Wu Li Masters : An overview of the new
reality is
obsolete physics he says:
(Zukav. 55) The concept of scientific objectivity rests upon the
assumption of an external world which is "out there" as opposed to
an "I" which is "in here". According to this view, Nature, in all
her diversity is "out there". The task of the scientist is to
observe the "out there" as objectively as possible. To observe
something objectively means to see it as it would appear to an
observer who has no prejudices about what he observes. The problem
that went unnoticed for three centuries is that a person who
carries such an attitude certainly is prejudiced. His prejudice is
to be "objective", that is, without a preformed opinion. In fact,
it is impossible to be without an opinion. An opinion is a point
of view. The decision itself to study one segment of reality
instead of another is a subjective expression of the researcher
who makes it. It affects his perceptions of reality, if nothing
else. Since reality is what we are studying, the matter gets very
sticky here.
and later :
NEWTONIAN (Zukav. 101) The real problem is that we are used to looking at
PHYSICS vs.
QUANTUM the world simply. We are accustomed to believing that something is
PHYSICS
there or is not there. Whether we look at it or not, it is either
there or it is not there. Our experience tells us that the
physical world is solid, real, and independent of us. Quantum
mechanics says, simply, that this is not so.
(show table of
comparison)
(ZUKAV. p 66)
NEWTONIAN PHYSICS
Can picture it.
Based on ordinary sense
perceptions.
Describes things; individual
objects on in space and their
changes in time.
Predicts events.
Assumes an objective reality
"out there".
We can observe something without
changing it.
Claims to be based on "absolute
truth"; the way nature really is
"behind the scenes".
(ZUKAV. p 66)
QUANTUM MECHANICS
Cannot picture it.
Based on behavior of subatomic
particles and systems not
directly observable.
Describes Statistical behavior
of systems.
Predicts probabilities.
Does not assume an objective
reality apart from our own
experience.
We cannot observe something
without changing it.
Claims only to correlate
experience correctly.
(Zukav. 35) Albert Einstein wrote : Physical concepts are free
creations of the human mind, and are not however it may seem,
uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to
reality is a understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand
closed watch
the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving
(show a
watch) hands, even hears its ticking, but has no way of opening the case.
If he is ingenious he may form some pictures of a mechanism which
could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may
never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could
explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his
picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the
possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.
![[watch]](/images/t_s6.gif)
a quantum can Depending on the way it is observed, a quantum can be seen as a
be seen as a
particle or as particle or as energy.
energy
(Zukav. 103)[..the wave and particle characteristics of light are
unified by quantum mechanics, but at a price. There is no
description of reality.
The fundamental theoretical theory in quantum physics is the wave
function. The wave function is a dynamic (it changes as time
progresses) description of possible occurrences. But what does the
wave function describe, really? According to western thought, the
world has only two essential aspects, one of which is matter-like
and the other which is idea-like.
The matter-like aspect is associated with the external world, most
of which is conceived to be made up of inanimate stuff that is
hard and unresponsive, like rocks, pavement, metal, etc. The idea-
like aspect is our subjective experience. Reconciling these two
particle
has been a central theme of religion throughout history. The
philosophies which champion these aspects are Materialism ( the
energy world is matter-like, regardless of our impressions) and Idealism
(reality is idea-like, regardless of appearances). The question
is, which one of these aspects does the wave function represent?
particle The answer, according to the orthodox view of quantum mechanics,
energy
is that the wave function represents something that partakes of
both idea-like and matter-like characteristics.]
Derrida Derrida criticizes the Western use of this same either/or thinking
criticizes
Western metaphysics
(Derrida. Dissemination. viii) Derrida follows Nietzsche and
Heidegger in elaborating a critique of "Western metaphysics," by
which he means not only the Western philosophical tradition but
"everyday" thought and language as well. Western thought, says
yes vs. no
Derrida, has always been structured in terms of dichotomies or
polarities: good vs. evil, being vs. nothingness, presence vs.
absence, truth vs. error, identity vs. difference, mind vs.
matter, man vs. woman, soul vs. body, life vs. death, nature vs.
culture, speech vs. writing. These polar opposites do not,
however, stand as independent and equal entities. The second term
in each pair is considered the negative, corrupt, undesirable
version of the first, a fall away from it. Hence, absence is the
lack of presence, evil is the fall from good, error is the
distortion of truth, etc. In other words, the two terms are simply
opposed in their meanings, but are arranged in a hierarchical
order which gives the first term priority, in both the temporal
and the qualitative sense of the word. In general, what these
hierarchical oppositions do is to privilege unity, identity,
immediacy, and temporal and spatial presentness over the distance,
Being as pres-
ence difference, dissimulation, and deferment. In its search for the
answer to the question of Being, Western philosophy has indeed
always determined Being as presence.
Barthes says, in criticism of 'Neither-Nor'
Barthes criti-
cizes Neither- (Barthes. Mythologies. 81) We are dealing here with a mechanism
Nor
based on a double exclusion largely pertaining to this enumerative
mania...the word, ballasted by a prior culpability, quite
naturally comes to weigh down one of the scales. For instance,
culture will be opposed to ideologies. Culture is a noble,
universe thing, placed outside of social choices: culture has no
weight. Ideologies, on the other hand, are partisan inventions:
so, onto the scales and out with them! Both sides are dismissed
under the stern gaze of culture (without realizing that culture
itself is, in the last analysis, an ideology). Everything happens
as if there were on one side heavy, defective words (ideology,
heavy, defec- catechism, militant), meant to serve for the ignominious game of
tive words
vs. the scales; and on the other, light, pure, immaterial words, noble
light, pure,
immaterial words, noble by divine right, sublime to the point of evading the
words
sordid law of numbers (adventure, passion, grandeur, virtue,
honor), words placed above the sorry computation of lies.
representation How we think is our reality:
of reality
= not = (Capra.28) For most of us it is very difficult to be constantly
reality
aware of the limitations and of the reality of conceptual
knowledge. Because our representation of reality is so much easier
to grasp than reality itself, we tend to confuse the two and to
take our concepts and symbols for reality.
Eastern meta On the other hand:
physics
(Capra. 44) Whenever the Eastern mystics express their knowledge
in words--be it with the help of myths, symbols, poetic images or
paradoxical statements--they are well aware of the limitations
imposed by language and 'linear' thinking. Most physics has come
to exactly the same attitude with regard to its verbal models and
theories. They, too, are only approximate and necessarily
inaccurate. They are counterparts to the Eastern myths, symbols
and poetic images, and it is at this level that [Capra draws] the
parallels.
Mathematics is a language of physics. And
Einstein says (Capra. 41) Einstein says: As far as the laws of mathematics refer
to reality, they are not certain; and, as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality.'
before we What we think of as reality is really conclusions made from
studied atoms,
there was no observation that work within a certain framework. Before study of
Theory of
Relativity the world of atoms, there was no theory of relativity.
(Capra. 199)Physics in the twentieth century has been
MACROSCOP- characterized by an ever progressing penetration into this world
IC atomic /
MICROSCOPIC of submicroscopic dimensions,down into the realm of atoms, nuclei
subatomic
what is and their constituents. This exploration of the subatomic world
matter
made of? has been motivated by one basic question which has occupied and
stimulated human thought throughout the ages: what is matter made
of? {(Zukav. 45) The idea that the atom is the indivisible
building block of nature was proposed about four hundred years
before Christ, but until the late 1800's it remained just an
idea.) }
...With the help of a highly sophisticated technology, physicists
atoms
were able to explore first the structure of atoms, finding that
nuclei
they consisted of nuclei and electrons, and then the structure of
electrons
the atomic nuclei which were found to consist of protons and
protons
neutrons, commonly called nucleons. ..and then the structure of
neutrons/
nucleons the nucleons--the constituents of the atomic nuclei--which, again,
do not seem to be the ultimate elementary particles, not seem to
be composed of other entities.
..in the world of atomic nuclei,...we deal with dimensions that
are a hundred times smaller than the atomic divisions, and
consequently the particles such small dimensions move considerably
faster than those confined to atomic structures. They move, in
fact, so fast that they can only be described adequately in the
framework of the special theory of relativity.
the Theory of ...The characteristic feature of the relativistic framework is, as
Relativity
mentioned previously, that it unifies basic concepts which seemed
totally unrelated before.
For example: the equivalence of mass and energy which is expressed
E=mc2
mathematically by Einstein's famous equation E=mc2
..To understand the profound significance of this equivalence we
first have to understand the meaning of energy, and the meaning of
mass.
E is for Energy is one of the most important concepts used in the
ENERGY
description of natural phenomena. As in everyday life, we say that
motion
heat a body has energy when it has the capacity for doing work. This
gravitational
electrical energy can take a great variety of forms. ...Whatever the form is
chemical
and so on.. it can be used to do work. ...In physics, energy is always
associated with some process, or some kind of activity, and its
fundamental importance lies in the fact that the total energy
conservation
of energy involved in a process is always conserved. ..The conservation of
energy is one of the most fundamental laws of physics.
m is for MASS ...The mass of a body, on the other hand, is a measure of its
weight, i.e. of the pull of gravity on the body. ...mass [also]
mass was measures the inertia of an object, i.e. its resistance against
believed to
be conserved being accelerated. ...In classical physics, mass was ..associated
like energy
but no with an indestructible material substance, i.e. with the 'stuff'
of which all things were thought to be made. Like energy, it was
believed to be rigorously conserved, so that no mass could ever
get lost.
mass is a form Now relativity tells us that mass is nothing but a form of energy.
of energy
Energy can not only take the various forms known in classical
physics, but can also be locked up in the mass of an object. The
amount of energy contained , for example, in a particle is equal
to the particle's mass, m, times c2, the square of the speed of
E=mc2 light; thus E=mc2. Once it is seen to be a form of energy, mass is
no longer required to be indestructible, but can be transformed
into other forms of energy.]
(Capra. 202)...mass is no longer associated with a material
particles are substance, and hence particles are not seen as consisting of any
seen as
bundles of basic 'stuff', but as bundles of energy. ...To understand this
energy
better, we must remember that these particles can only be
conceived in relativistic terms, that is, in terms of a framework
where space and time are fused into a four-dimensional continuum.
The particles must not be pictured as static three-dimensional
objects, like billiard balls or grains of sand, but rather as
four-dimensional entities in space-time. Their forms have to be
understood dynamically, as forms in space and time.Subatomic
particles are dynamic patterns which have a space aspect and a
time aspect. Their space aspect makes them appear as objects with
a certain mass, their time aspect as processes involving the
equivalent energy.
These dynamic patterns, or 'energy bundles', form the stable
nuclear, atomic, and molecular structures which build up matter
and give it its macroscopic solid aspect, thus making us believe
that it is made of some material substance.
space-time in The ideas of space-time can be applied to the way we view graphic
relation to
graphic design. The design is often a 2-dimensional piece. The x,y plane.
design
The z plane the distance from the viewer (book, poster). The
designer seeks to influence in the space-time aspect by means of
visual hierarchy.
quantum Earlier, I threw out the unexplained statement:
Depending on the way it is observed, a quantum can be seen as a
radiation particle or as energy.
vs.
particle A quantum is a discrete entity, (Zukav. 45) a quantity of
line something, a a specific amount, the equivalent of the mass/energy
vs.
dot needed for a jump of a photon from one level to another. It can be
line and dot seen as radiation or as a particle depending on the way the
radiation and experimenter observes it.
particle
Radiation/particle, line/dot ??? think of a pencil, turn it so it
looks like a dot, so it looks like a line. The dot(particle) is
essentially the end of the line while the line(radiation) is the
side view of the line.
BLACK HOLE Now questions like what happens to the energy escaping from a
black hole push at our ideas of reality
(Hawkins. 100) All present physics is based very heavily on the
assumption that you can recover the past from the present--in
principal, if not always in practice. ...black holes seem...to
break this rule.
Physicists like to be able to follow particles back in time. With
a particle accelerator, for example, they smash subatomic
particles together, the retrospectively piece together the details
of the collision from the resulting spray of newly produced
particles.
no connection ...it would be a very basic blow,...to the whole philosophy of
between the
future and the science if there weren't a unique connection between the future
past ?
and the past.
lost in space ...Physicists fall into three camps over the eventual demise of
black holes. LOST IN SPACE the radiation escaping from the hole
says nothing about its past history
gone, not for GONE, NOT FORGOTTEN things falling into the black hole interact
gotten
with the radiation. The information escapes encoded in the
radiation in a way we can't yet decipher
buried, not BURIED, NOT GONE when a black hole explodes it leaves behind a
gone
horn-shaped remnant containing information about everything that
ever fell in. None of it, though, can ever escape
energy as Physicists often talk about the energy as information. If we think
information
about the energy escaping from the black hole as information, we
lost in space can, on a surface level, talk about information escaping from a
gone, not for piece of work. Design is about discovering the past from the
gotten
present, the intention from the finished piece. The three theories
buried, not of the demise of the black hole provide a way of thinking about
gone
what happens to information in design. Design in many ways tries
to establish some present presence of some space and time.
information RESEARCH AND RECORDING RESEARCH (everything relates to the thesis)
in terms of
thesis The acts of researching this thesis, and recording the research
research
reflect issues within the thesis. If there is no objective
recording
information observer then I must realize that I am a subjective observer. I
cannot study from a viewpoint outside of human experience, or my
no objective
observer personal experience.
The need for research documentation led to questions about how to
information record the event of research. Trying to catalogue not only the
+
structure of information itself, but the structure and changes in relation of
information
+ information. Since the event is occurring in me, I began to feel
changes in
the structure that, if I am to be consistent with the idea of the non-existence
of the objective observer, there is no way to avoid a certain
self-centeredness, even though this feels uncomfortably self-
indulgent.
And then I read Derrida and he says:
Derrida says:
(Derrida. Acts of Literature. 34)
"Autobiography" is perhaps the least inadequate name, because it
remains for me the most enigmatic, the most open, even today.
Still today there remains in me an obsessive desire to save in
uninterrupted inscription, in the form of a memory, what happens--
or fails to happen. What I should be tempted to denounce as a
lure--i.e., totalization or gathering up--isn't this what keeps me
going? The idea of an internal polylogue, ...of keeping a trace of
all the voices which were traversing me--or were almost doing so--
and which was to be so precious, unique, both specular and
speculative.
...I don't dream of either a literary work, or a philosophical
work, but that everything that occurs, happens to me or fails to,
should be as it were sealed (placed in reserve, hidden so as to be
kept, and this in its very signature, really like a signature, in
the very form of the seal, with all the paradoxes that traverse
the structure of a seal). The discursive forms we have available
to us, the resources in terms of objectivizing archivation, are so
much poorer that what happens (or fails to happen, whence the
excess of hyper-totalization). This desire for everything + n--
naturally I can analyze it, "deconstruct" it criticize it, but it
is an experience that I love, that I know and recognize. ...As
soon as things become a little sedimented, the fact of not giving
anything up, not even the things one deprived oneself of, through
an interminable "internal" polylogue (supposing that a polylogue
can still be "internal") is also not giving up the "culture" which
carries these voices. At which point the encyclopedic temptation
becomes inseparable from the autobiographical. And philosophical
discourse is often only an economic or strategic formalization of
this avidity.
In his lecture at Duke, Derrida, in an apparent effort to record
things un-recordable, talks of the idea of specter, apparition,
ghost:
(Derrida's lecture at Duke) If it exists, it corresponds to name.
If it is essence, this thing defies semantics, psychology,
philosophy. It is invisible, cannot be seen when one speaks of it,
but it has been seen. ...It is so strange, this thing that one has
to approach it with metaphysical and theoretical eyes.
physics, again ok, BACK TO PHYSICS:
Examples of more things ways the philosophy of physics parallels
design:
parallelactic parallelactic shift -- repetition of same, same, same then same
shift
but 2 degrees off. the change draws attention to the thing
chaos theory chaos theory -- chaos and random are not the same. for example:
your coffee is a seething of brownian not random motion; and the
things that make up the coffee cup are chaotic but still hold
together and contain the coffee. Is this not amazing.
frame
boundary concepts reflected in terms -- frame, boundary, information
information
INFORMATION The ideas of energy and information in physics are interesting and
relate well to design:
(draw If a thing is low on information it will seek information. It
diagrams)
takes energy to get information, loosing information will increase
energy. A thing not only seeks information but tries to retain it.
The information knows about each other and how to hold each other.
Information is organization. It takes energy to RETAIN and to
SEEK information. There is a conflict if the energy to bring in
new information is greater than energy available. Then some energy
needs to come from the energy retaining the structure. There is a
resistance to loosing the structure; to new information.
This idea of a system can be applied to many areas:
DNA. The structure of DNA is not only about what is in the strand
but the TOPOLOGY of the folded strand. The overlapping,
intertwining strands of DNA form a hole for other structures to
fall into.
In design, a hole for people to fall into, to hold them while
giving them information. Not a thing the viewer accesses from
outside.
Or: If a viewer has to expend energy to get information, how get
him to expend the energy?
If, there is not a lot of free energy, how get the viewer to loose
information so can gain the information you want him to gain.
Also: If information in a piece is in a similar
structure/organization to the information in the viewer, will he
be more likely to pick it up, will it be easier to assimilate.
Discussion could continue, there is much research not included,
but it's time for the:
last words WORDS AT THE END
When we talk in physics about -- hydrogen atoms, for example,
(show the (Zukav. 38) "Hydrogen atoms" is a speculation about what is inside
watch again)
of the watch. We can say only that the existence of such entities
nicely explains certain observations that would be very difficult
to explain otherwise, barring explanations such as "the devil did
THE DEVIL it", which may still prove to be correct. (It is this kind of
DID IT
explanation that drove Galileo, Newton, and Descartes to create
(show the
devil) what is now modern science).
![[devil]](/images/t_s7.gif)
These sentiments have strong parallels in graphic design.
A multi-media conversation between theoretical physics and graphic design.
script from multi-media presentation Feb. 1994
WELCOME TAPE--ON/OFF
video script :
Hello. Welcome to a conversation between theoretical physics and
graphic design. I will be your guide for the evening. I would like
to thank theoretical physicist , Mr. Knowledge for joining us. You
have entered the door of objective reality, please continue around
the circle and exit at the door of subjective reality. Please
follow me down the stairs to room 202. the site of our multi-
media conversation.
conversation between theoretical physics and graphic design
we could take any two things, talk about them and
how we think about our world
how we think about design
we start at objective reality, continue around the circle to subjective
reality and return to objective reality; realizing that objective reality
is really a construct, things we agree upon and act as if they are real
This is a THEORETICAL discussion. It is important to go back and forth
between THEORETICAL and APPLIED.
if you have a project due tomorrow you might heed this Buddist story
story script :
A man is walking down a path. He walks off the path into the
woods. He is shot by an arrow. He is sitting against a tree dying
when a doctor comes along. The doctor says, if you pull out this
arrow you will live. The man says no wait, first tell me what the
feathers are made of, tell me type of wood the arrow is made of,
tell me the DNA of the poison. The doctor says, you don't have
time for this discussion. Just pull out the arrow so you can live.
so --> sometimes you need to apply your knowledge and pull an arrow out
of your piece of work
-->having had theoretical discussion you will be more aware of your
work, and less blindly accepting of constructs within the work and the
way we think about design
MOVE TO ROOM 202 (the site of our multi-media conversation)
ROOM 202
LIGHTS--OFF, PROJECTORS--ON, POWERS OF TEN--ON
audience enters and is seated
SLIDE PROJECTOR-ON
SLIDE [TEXT: PHYSICS + DESIGN] (cue for films off)
PROJECTORS--OFF, POWERS OF TEN--OFF
surrounded by physics
physics is a fairly good definition of "reality"
still, it is all a construct
just rules that we agree upon in order to:
SLIDE [BALL IN MOTION] chart the path of a ball
SLIDE [AIRPLANE] fly airplanes
SLIDE [HOUSE] build houses
SLIDE [TEXT: THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY]
as Mr. Knowledge will soon explain, even time is a construct.
we think of time as a constant. but time varies, as our speed varies
compared to the speed of light.
I'll let Mr. Knowledge explain.
SLIDE PROJECTOR-OFF, VIDEOhouse right[MR. KNOWLEDGE SPEAKS]--ON
script Mr. K :
There is no such thing as absolute length or absolute time in
relativity. This contradicts our intuition, or what we call common
sense. However, common sense ideas are based on everyday
experiences, which ordinarily do not involve speed-of-light
measurements.
The speed of light has the same value for all observers,
independent of the motion of the light source or observer. The
speed of light, c = 3.00 X 10 to the 8 m/s.
If we are moving at the same velocity, time is the same. If
someone is moving away from us at some velocity, we see his time
to be different from ours. This is because his velocity is
different compared to the speed of light from ours.
For Example: a person throws a ball in a moving boxcar, the speed
of the ball relative to a stationary observer is u+v, where v is
the speed of the ball relative to the person in the boxcar
Another Example: if a person sends out a pulse of light in a
moving boxcar, the speed of light is c, the velocity of the
boxcar is v, the speed of the pulse of light will be c+v relative
to the stationary observer.
Yet Another Example: now. no matter how fast or slow the rider is
going, they perceive time as constant. If she is going very fast,
closer to the speed of light than you, you will look at her and
from your point of view her time will be slower. Another example
would be someone on the earth, observing an > astronaut traveling
in space.
The phenomenon of time dilation was also measured by comparing
very stable atomic clocks in jet flight with reference clocks on
the ground. (time differences on the order of 10 to the -9 s were
observed) thats 1/1000000000s, one billionth.
This concludes our discussion on the theory of relativity. I'm Mr.
Knowledge.
VIDEOhouse right[MR. KNOWLEDGE SPEAKS]--OFF
Thank you Mr. Knowledge.
OK. so 1/billionth m/s is small
it is so small that even though time is different, we can (and do) act as
if time is constant.
also. even though time is different, we can mathematically, using
equations, figure out how time is different.
so we can say -- as in deconstruction -- that everyone sees a piece of
work differently -- but the differences are small enough that they get
something similar out of the piece
SHOW COFFEE CUP no inherent existence
We can deconstruct this coffee cup, talk about particles, how its time
is different, ...
construct we call a coffee cup perhaps. we understand more about form
the coffee cup is a construct, but we use it to drink coffee out of!
NOW, 2 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS, 'I SQUASHA YOUR HEAD' EXAMPLE.
she is moving away from him and sees his time as slower. he is also
experiencing the same velocity separation and sees her time as slower
DON"T TAKE EXAMPLE TOO LITERALLY
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
VIDEOhouse right-ON, VIDEOhouse left-ON
script videos :
(house right) First I say, time is a construct -- objective
reality.
(house left) Then I say, time is different for me than it is for
you -- subjective reality
(house right) Then I say, OK its different, but we all act as if
it were the same, its a construct
VIDEOcenter-ON
script video :
(center) What we call objective reality is only a construct we
agree upon so we can do things. What does it all mean?
Aaaaauuuuggghhhh!!!
VIDEOhouse right-OFF, VIDEOhouse left-OFF
VIDEOcenter-OFF
OK. so time is a construct, we act as if time were the same for everyone
(because in our normal range of movement, it practically is) and, we can
do things like .. plan to meet at cup-a-joe's 3pm on Sunday
VIDEO SCREEN-UP
CHALKBOARD
so, we did this:
start at any pt. on circle
we can also draw this circle and
time and distance of observer, observing event.
or a piece of work and dots are viewers.
they take in information from the work AND INFORMATION
INFORMATION
we are constantly taking information and making some sense out of it.
that is what we do.
given any random set of information, we will organize that information
into some order
in graphic design, we try to find the right balance between TOO MUCH and
TOO LITTLE information.
we control the amount/ type,color, size... if information in an effort
to communicate a certain message to the observer
talk about circle again.
we want to control the info and way of presenting it, so that
all people at diff. pts. on circle --->know the essential information
EX. SPEAKER 5PM MONDAY JULY 20TH, 1994 JOHN SMITH, SUBJECT OF LECTURE
----> and, some tone of information
so. even though, everyone's time is different we act, as though time is
constant.
even though, everyone sees things differently
there is enough commonality so we, can design to communicate information
also use the circle
say that if each pt. is looking at a different part of the design
it doesn't matter where the observer starts but, that when he see's ALL
of the parts,
HE HAS THE INFORMATION FROM THE PIECE.
so what does this mean?
say a poet writes a poem
the poem has something,
a tone,
say a B-flat
the AUDIENCE
sees the piece
sees many different
things in the poem
can agree
THERE IS A B-flat TONE
this is graphic design
we've talked about the circle
we can also talk about :
subjective reality objective reality
theoretical physics graphic design
theoretical applied
position momentum
as complimentary opposites
measure position momentum
-----> -----> particle fast
* * slow
in physics, the idea of complimentary opposites can be found in the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
PHYSICS AGAIN. We need Mr. Knowledge.
VIDEOhouse right[MR. KNOWLEDGE SPEAKS AGAIN]--ON
video script, Mr. K speaks again :
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
If you were to measure the position and velocity of a particle in
motion you would always be faced with experimental uncertainties
in your measurements. Since radiation and matter have a wave
particle dual character, is is fundamentally impossible to make to
make simultaneous of the partlicles position and velocity with
infinite precision. This statement, known as the Uncertainty
Principal, was first proposed by Leonard Heisenberg in 1927.
It is physically impossible to measure simultaneously the exact
position and exact momentum of a particle. The more certain you
are of one the less certain you are of the other. The Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principal allows us to better understand the dualistic
wave particle nature of both light > both light and matter.
The wave description is quite the opposite of the particle
description. For example, if an experiment is designed to reveal
the particle character of an electron, such as the photoelectric
effect, its wave character will become fuzzy. Likewise, if the
experiment is designed to accurately measure the electron's wave
properties, such as diffraction from a crystal, its particle
characteristics will become fuzzy.
Compilmentary opposites, we say that the wave character and the
particle character are complimentary opposites. We can use the
idea of complimentary opposites in talking about design.
VIDEOhouse right[MR. KNOWLEDGE SPEAKS AGAIN]--OFF
so: complimentary opposites...
Russian Filmmaker, Andrey Tarkovsky, in his book, "Sculpting in Time :
Reflections on the cinema" says :
"The true artistic image is always based on an organic link
between idea and form"
"Any imbalance between form and concept will preclude the creation
of an artistic image."
so: for the purpose of talking about design, we say:
AI = idea X form
--> in all combinations --- some area we consider successful
--> too MUCH idea or form --- piece that doesn't work
it is in TALKING ABOUT THE WORK\
using these complimentary opposites
that we UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING
we can't measure light w/o changing it.
seeing it as particle or wave
but in talking about particle/wave
we have a better understanding of
WHAT IS LIGHT
pick any 2 things and have discussion light dark
type image
idea form
and then take discussion itself and make complimentary opposite of
something else
this discussion is about
c.o. of THEORETICAL <------> APPLIED
ideating on paper
brainstorming design
important to go back and forth
APPLIED
just as physicists study the world and come up with a best guess, make
experiments, and generate equations that allow us to :
chart the path of a ball, fly airplanes, build houses, talk about the
construct of time
SO DO WE -- graphic designers do experiments and find out what works and
what doesn't -- size, typefaces that are more readable.
so.
THEORETICAL <-----> APPLIED
we tend to think about things as c.o.'s
a conversation about BLACK WHITE
and gray in between
how much of one, ...
the APPLIED to see it the THEORIES WORK and TO PRODUCE WORK
the THEORETICAL to look at the applied and to become aware of the
construct
so that, we are not making decisions in our work based on
assumptions of truths, that do not hold
TYPE computer
type on any surface - typewriter
write - on anything
THE MORE WE BECOME AWARE
OF OUR CONSTRUCT,
THE MORE ---
WE ARE ABLE TO QUESTION IT
AND COME UP WITH
NEW ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS
idea of conversation between PHYSICS & DESIGN
will generate new understanding of design
in a way that A CONVERSATION OF DESIGN IN DESIGN TERMS will not
in talking about design using
2 arbitrary "complimentary opposites" such as theoretical physics and
graphic design we become more aware of the constructs inherent in our
discussion of design.
SHOW COFFEE CUP (mention coffee cup again)
NOW. we will leave this multi-media conversation of theoretical physics
and graphic design and return to the ROTUNDA in completion of our
evening's entertainment
LIGHTS--OFF, PROJECTORS--ON, POWERS OF TEN--ON
LEAVE ROOM 202 (the site of our multi-media conversation)
ROTUNDA
How I got to what I said and why I said in the way I did.
I better understand design when I take another subject and apply it
to concepts in design. On an applied level, similarities exist
between physics and design. We can talk about the proportion,
symmetry and mathematics of a design. I felt I could learn more
about design by taking concepts in theoretical physics and applying
them to the way I think about design.
Research on theoretical physics and conversation about the
relationship between theoretical physics and graphic design served
to reinforce my intuition of their connection. The perceptual
difference of the two subjects made the conversation, the act of
talking about them, important. In the "Why?" presentation, I say
reading Derrida influenced how I looked at my research. Physics
research about the impossibility of an objective viewpoint
underlined the reality of the subjective observer. This attempt to
record what was happening from the viewpoint of the subjective
observer (me) led to a preoccupation with the idea of performance.
Not necessarily a theatrical performance -- although the model of
such interaction has value in discussion of both physics and design
-- but the performance of an exchange of ideas. I began to realize
that the conversations I was having as part of my research were
central to the research. This led to recording the conversations and
being more aware of what was happening as ideas were exchanged
during the course of conversation.
On a practical level, talking with people in different fields such
as physics, poetry, computer science, theology, engineering,
theater, and design helped me choose what examples worked to explain
the theories and relate them to design.
The conversation was about thinking and problem solving. Solving
problems is basic to both physics and design. Although many
different concepts of physics apply to design, I had to narrow my
focus to communicate clearly in my presentation. The material
finally seemed to come together around the idea of the construct
(objective, subjective observer/reality), using time as an example
and the concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. These ideas
worked with one another, and indeed seemed to repeat the same idea
from different ways of talking. Theoretical physics and graphic
design fit neatly into the principle of complementary opposites.
Reduced to a few concepts, I constructed a multi-media presentation
that would recreate the conversations I was having with individuals.
In performing a conversation, it was possible to incorporate visual
examples such as video and film.
The diagrams I drew on paper became the part of the presentation I
drew on the chalkboard. This direct conversational way of talking
and giving examples worked in this rough form, where any other, more
"produced" way of detailing information felt contrived.
During a conversation with Dr. Reynolds, associate professor of
physics, NCSU, we spoke of how to talk about physics without
intimidating or alienating the audience. The thoughtful but easy
quality of the presentation and the use of humor such as Mr.
Knowledge were the results.
When I gave my presentation for thesis prep. in December 1993, the
presentation turned into a kind of performance. My committee thought
my performance provided a method to convey my message. I was
uncomfortable with the idea of me "performing." I am more
comfortable behind the camera, but agreed I would cast myself into
the final presentation.
Spontaneous presentation, use of humor, use of myself as
performance, and recreation of conversation are elements of my
presentation.
The instructional physics films running on entrance to room 202 were
to provide a visual and audio envelopment of the participants. The
films place the spectator inside of the physics, reducing its
overwhelmingness by making it part of the performance.
Using complementary opposites generates a circular discussion,
making it difficult to reflect this interaction of ideas in a
linear, time defined manner. This was dealt with in part by having
people physically move.
Moving the participants (audience) between the two rooms had them
experience spatially, two complementary opposites: to echo
physically the mental experience. Traveling people around the
"circle" from objective reality to subjective enforced understanding
of reality as a construct. The rooms are complementary opposites:
the round, clean, spacious, quiet rotunda vs. the rectangular,
cluttered, crowded, noisy room 202. In the video piece using house
right, house left and center video I actually ran in a circle from
video camera to video camera. The sound of the running evoked a
circle while the watchers viewed it in a rectangular format,
side-by-side in a rectangular room.
This conversation is to generate thought/discussion, different ways
of seeing, and an awareness of how we deal with information as we
move between theoretical and applied work in graphic design.
Following the performed conversation an interactive conversation
took place. The audience remained and talked about the concepts
presented for more than an hour. This conversation reflected that I
successfully conveyed the content and concept of my presentation to
the audience.
film :
Anderson, Lauri, dir. Home of the Brave. Multi-media performance by
Laurie Anderson. A talk normal production. Warner Reprise Video,
1988. (color, 90min)
Reggio, Godfrey, dir. Koyaanisqatsi. Score by Philip Glass. 1988.
(color, 87min)
Morris, Errol, dir. A Brief History in Time. Based on the book by
Stephen Hawking. Paramount, 1992. (color, 84min)
Capra, Bernt, dir. Mindwalk. Paramount, 1991. (color, 110min)
Morris, Errol, dir. The Making of A Brief History in Time.
Paramount, 1993. (color, 30min)
interviews/conversations :
Baker, Lee. Masters of Divinity.
Bailey, Ruffin. Minor in Religion.
Beck, Lisa. Masters of Landscape Design, SOD, NCSU.
Bratton, Charlie. BS in Electrical Engineering, project engineer
Capitol Information Systems. Current project : Interpath,
information access project through internet. e-mail, cbratton @
interpath.net
Brody, Elizabeth. Graduate student in Architecture, SOD, NCSU.
Brown, Donna. Graduate student in Geology, NCSU.
Buda, Natalie. Graduate Student in Graphic Design.
Elwahad, Amgad. BS in Electrical Engineering. Graduate Student in
Computer Science, integrated manufacturing systems, NCSU.
Lowrey, Austin. Professor of Graphic Design, SOD, NCSU.
Olin, Sam. Graduate student in Architecture and Landscape Design.
Parker, Belva. BS Speech Communications. Manager of rock bands and
theatre technician.
Dr. Reynolds, Stephen. Associate professor of physics, NCSU and
concert violinist.
Roland, Chris. Researcher in Physics Department, NCSU.
Rooney, Jeff. Graduate student in Graphic Design, SOD, NCSU.
Saavedra, Lisa. Student of Speech Communications, Minor in Spanish.
Spadaro, Joani. Assistant Professor of Graphic Design, NCSU.
Snider, Mike. English teacher turned poet.
Stewert, Jim. Student in physics, NCSU.
Valero, Jeff. Student in architecture, SOD, NCSU.
Veladota, Christy. BFA in creative writing, Emerson. Poet.
Whitt, Mike. Telecommunications Analyst, Office of Science and
Technology, Office of the Governor > Governor, North Carolina.
print :
Anderson, Lauri. United States. New York : Herper and Row, 1984.
Barthes, Roland. The Responsibility of Forms : Critical Essays on
Music, Art, and Representation. Trans. Richard Howard. New York :
Hill and Wang, 1985. (orig, French 1982) P99/B29513/1985
Barthes, Roland. Image, Music,Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York :
Hill and Wang, 1977. (orig, French 1977) PN37/B29
Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. New York : Hill
and Wang, 1972. (orig, French 1957) AC25/B3132/1972b/cop.2
Bartusiak, Marcis. Through A Universe Darkly : A cosmic tale of
ancient ethers, dark matter, and the fate of the universe. New York
: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
Bolen, Jean Shinoda. The Tao of Psychology : Sychronicity and the
Self. San Francisco : Harper & Row, Publishers, 1979.
Burt, Forrest D. and E. Cleve Want. Invention and Design : a
rhetorical reader. New York : Random House, 1975.
Cage, John. Silence : Lectures and Writings by John Cage.
Connecticut : Wesleyan University Press, 1939.
Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels
Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston : Shambhala,
1991. 530/CAP
Cioran, E.M. The Temptation to Exist. Trans. Richard Howard. Chicago
: Quadrangle Books, 1968. AC25/G513
Davis, Philip J. and Reuben Hersh. Decartes' Dream : The World
According to Mathematics. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986.
Derrida, Jaques. Acts of Literature. New York : Routledge, 1992.
PN98/P43/D44/1992.
Derrida, Jaques. Dissemination. Chicago : The University of Chicago
Press. 1981. AC25/D45513
Derrida, Jaques. Lecture at Duke. 1993.
English inside and out: the places of literary criticism. Ed. Susan
Gubar and Jonathon Kamholtz. New York : Routledge, 1993.
Fjermedal, Grant. The Tomorrow Makers : A Brave New World of
Living-Brain Machines. New York : MacMillan Publishing Company,
1986.
Folger, Tim. The Ultimate Vanishing. Discover, October 1993, vol.14,
no.10. The Walt Disney Company, 1993.
Grudin, Robert. Time and the Art of Living. New York : Ticknor and
Fields, 1982.
Hawkes, Terrence. Structuralism & Semiotics. Berkeley : University
of California Press, 1977.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History in Time. New York : Bantam Books,
1988.
Hawking, Stephen. Hawking on the Big Bang and Black Holes. River
Edge : World Scientific, 1993. QB991.B54/H39/1993
Huxley, Aldous. The Devils of Loudun. London : Chatto & Windus,
1952.
Jorge Luis Borges : Modern Critical Views. Ed. Harold Bloom. New
York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986. 863/JOR
Kundera, Milan. The Art of the Novel. Trans. Linda Asher. New York :
Harper and Row, publishers, 1988. (orig. French 1986)
Leshan, Lawrence and Henry Margenau. Einstein's Space and Van Gogh's
Sky : Physical Reality and Beyond. New York : Collier Books, 1982.
Lightman, Alan P. Einstein's Dreams. New York : Pantheon Books,
1993.
McCorduck, Pamela. "America's Multimediatrix : With a new book, new
show, and new album, Laurie Anderson reinvents herself -- again."
Wired. Mar. 1994, pp79-83, 136.
McLuhan, Marshall, and Quentin Fiore. The Medium is the Message. New
York : Bantam Books, 1967.
Moraitis, George. "The Psychoanalyst's Role in the Biographer's
Quest for Self-Awareness." In Introspection in Biography : The
Biographer's Quest for Self-Awareness. Ed. Samuel H. Baron and Carl
Pletsch. Hillsdale : The Analytic Press, 1985, chapter 16.
Norman, Donald A. Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human
Attributes In the Age of the Machine. Reading : Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1993.
On Aesthetics in Science. Ed. Judith Wechsler. Cambridge : The MIT
Press, 1978.
Peterson, Ivars. "Chaos in Spacetime : Looking for answers in the
"black Box" of general relativity." Science News. Dec. 4, 1993. pp.
376, 377.
Schroeer, Dietrich. Physics and its Fifth Dimension: Society.
Reading : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1972.
Shlain, Leonard. Art and Physics : Parallel Visions in Space, Time
and Light. New York: Quill, 1991.Barthes, Roland. The Semiotic
Challenge. Trans. Richard Howard. New York : Hill and Wang, 1988.
(orig, French 1985) P99/B28613/1988
Searle, John. Mind, Brains and Science. Cambridge : Harvard
University Press, 1984.
Serway, Raymond A. Physics : For Scientists and Engineers.
Philadelphia : Sanders College Publishing, 1982.
Stanislavski, Constantin. An Actor Prepares. Trans. Elizabeth
Reynolds Hapgood. New York : Rutledge.
Stephens, Mitchell. Jaques Derride : The Father of deconstruction
considers the statement 'Deconstruction,' and finds it lacking." The
New York Times Magazine. Jan. 23, 1994, pp.22-25.
Stevens, Peter S. Patterns in Nature. Boston : Little, Brown and
Company, 1974.
Talbot, Michael. The Holographic Universe. New York : Harper
Collins, 1991.
Talbot, Michael. Mysticism and the New Physics.
Talbot, Michael. Beyond the Quantum.
Tarkovsky, Andrey. Sculpting in Time : Reflections on the Cinema.
Trans. Kitty Hunter-Blair. New York : Alfred A Knopf, 1987. (orig.
1986)
Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York : Pantheon
Books, 1992.
Weisskopf, Victor F. The Privilege of Being a Physicist. New York :
W. H. Freeman and Company, 1989. 530/WEI
Zukav, Gary. The Seat of the Soul. New York : Simon and Schuster,
1989.
Zukav, Gary. The Dancing Wu Li Masters : an overview of the new
physics. New York : William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1979.
530.1/Zukav