
In2
Remark: The link In2 is a Quicktime movie of about 4.1MB. It can be viewed with open
source viewers such as e.g. Xine.
About In2:
In2 is a looped video/movie which shows
a "mathematically distorted zoom" into an infinitly dense painted, itself
repeating picture. Artistically the self-deforming comic type painting of a
humanoid serves as
a more or less ironic comment on issues such as
self-conception, self-concentration, identity search a.s.o. It may belong
to the species of
Reflexive Alloselves :-)(see Marcos Novak).
Technically I would like to call In2 a
"moving still" and that's
why:
In2 is given by a pairing of a
painting (i.e the still) on one hand and a
family of
mathematical transformations, which act on the painting as deformations,
one the other hand. The deformations as well as the paintings are
mutually inspired. In the sequel I won't comment on the artistic content
of this pairing, but on this construction.
The mathematical transformations can be e.g. "realized" by a certain
deformation of the image in
time (i.e. a movement). This can be compared to a "zoom" in a
movie. (Likewise one could "realize "these transformations e.g. by a
deformation via a slider
in a Java applet.)
That means: By making a choice for the realization (i.e. for example
by choosing the velocity of a "zoom"), one determines the APPEARANCE of In2.
Moreoever: given an appearance for In2 this
choice COULD be altered in a determined way (e.g. choose another "zoom"
velocity), as one knows about the original
construction of the still and its possible deformations.
And even more - having the information about the possible deformations
one could do completely without the "zoom", but instead choose only a small set of
specific stills (may be even only one still)
as representatives for the still and its deformations.
Choosing one specific representative is comparable to choosing to paint a scene from
one specific viewpoint. The difference to a moving still
is that the painter of a painting (in contrast to the moving still)
usually doesn't let
the spectator know the set out of which the choice was made.
A similar thing
happens in movie making. Here one usually rather avoids explicit zooms,
but replaces them with cuts. This is possible as everybody
understands this "choice of representatives". Everybody knows
that if one sees first a long shot and then a close up
(the two representatives) then
there lies a family of scaling transformations in between
(i.e. a "coming closer" or "zoom"). And so - instead of showing the whole zoom - it is
enough to show the two stills around the gap left by the cut.
However it is only SOMEWHAT clear how this "zoom" could
have looked like. And the "somewhat" is actually crucial to the movie.
In a moving still the "zoom" is may be hidden
inside a mathematical formula, but it is precise and can be recovered.
Moreover in the case of In2 the described "guessing" of the
"zoom", as in the case for the movie, would not
work as well,
as here the "zoom" is not coming from an everyday experience.
It is a distorted "zoom". It is described by mathematics and
is called a family of transformations.
Nevertheless one COULD still choose two stills as representatives -
just as in a movie.
One could even choose just one still.
And actually this is what M.C. Escher (may be unknowingly?)
did in his drawing "The Picture Gallery".
In the project Escher and the Droste Effect at the University Leiden
mathematicians were "filling in the gap"
in order to give a better
understanding of the mathematical transformations connected with this drawing.
Looking at their work one can see that it is possible to
interprete Eschers work as a still from a (twisted) zoom.
So the picture gallery is also a "moving still".
I was inspired by the work of Escher and the group in Leiden.
For In2 I used the zoom-droste-part
of their work but did not do the "twisting".
Instead of the "twisting" I "distorted"
the zoom in order to get the insideout feeling. (For more on that see technical
and mathematical description).
In2 is conceptionally similar to the
the follow-up project InU2.
Technical description:
In2 makes use of the following fact:
In a central perspective (or one point perspective)
the principal point is the projection of the point of sight upon the
plane of the image.
Consequently - if one zooms into a central perspective in a way that
the principal point is kept fixed (which is the same as a
radial scaling) then this appears as a a walk into the "missing" third
dimension of the two dimensional canvas (i.e. a change of viewpoint).
Among others this fact was beautifully used in the project
at the University of Leiden , where a "twisted scaling"
was used to simulate
a walk into the "missing" third dimension of a (twisted) cityscape
drawn by M. C. Escher.
Furthermore an image displays the socalled "Droste effect" (or Matryoshka effect)
if one draws the image in such a way that the scaling by a certain factor
gives back the original image. The picture of Escher, which was used
in the project at Leiden University displayed the Droste effect
(for the "twisted scaling").
In In2 different mathematical transformations as in the project
in Leiden/in Escher's picture are used, nevertheless the transformations
are mathematically connected.
In In2 a somewhat "distorted scaling" (hyperbolic
transformation) is used for a walk into
a humanoid. Here the observer zooms INTO the left eye of
the displayed humanoid and zooms OUT OF the right eye. After the
"distorted scaling" by a certain factor the original image is again
restored, i.e. the Droste effect had also been implemented.
Mathematical description:
The transformations are hyperbolic transformations, i.e.
certain types of Moebius transformations
(Cf. e.g. Dubrovin, Fomenko, Novikov "Modern Geometry" Part II
for details). The two fix points of the hyperbolic transformations
are the same for all transformations applied to the
image (as a domain in C). They are in
the eyes of the humanoid.
The Droste effect is constructed similarily as in the
project at Leiden. Just conjugate (in terms of composition of maps)
the family of scaling transformations (scaling is a special Moebius
transformation) with a Moebius transformation which maps the
zoom-in fix point to zero and the zoom-out one to infinity.
(remark: In In2 the point between the eyes is mapped to one -
this fixes the conjugating transformation)
Note: There is no adjusted rotation in the universal
covering ("twisting") like in the
Leiden project (for more details please refer to their very nice
mathematical description in the Notices of the AMS Volume 50, Nr. 4,
April 2003).
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Tim for the help with the Java programming!
© Nadja Kutz, July 2004
In2 was featured by Doron Golan on
DVBlog.org on August 15, 2005.