Steinbeck, Log from the Sea of Cortez, 1941
in Kellert & Wilson (eds.), 1991 -The Biophilia Hypothesis, p. 55
mardi 30 mars 2010
Quote of the month
" It seems apparent that species are only commas in a sentence, that each species is at once the point and the base of a pyramid, that all life is related...And then not only the meaning but the feeling about species grows misty. One merges into another, groups melt into ecological groups until the time when what we know as life meets and enters what we think of a non-life: barnacle and rock, rock and earth, earth and tree, tree and rain and air. And the units nestle into the whole and are inseparable from it.... And it is a strange thing that most of the feelings we call religious, most of the mystical outcrying which is one of the most prized and used and desired reactions of our species, is really the understanding and the attempt to say that man is related to the whole thing, related inextricably to all reality, known and unknowable. This is a simple thing to say, but a profound feeling of it made a Jesus, a St. Augustine, a Roger Bacon, a Charles Darwin, an Einstein. Each of them in his own tempo and with his own voice discovered and reaffirmed with astonishment the knowledge that all things are one thing and that one thing is all things - a plankton, a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time."
lundi 22 mars 2010
March
A seminar on Digital Publishing inspired me to take up my blog. I haven't wrote in more than a month, although I do have things to say.
I have been working mostly on the concept of fractals, looking through their raw mathematical nature to try and see how they express in visual landscape. Indeed, it seems that what authors are discussing when they are talking about fractals in landscape, is merely the fractal-like properties of elements in landscape views.
These properties often reflect the complexity of the landscape, or an indicator of the balance between order and disorder in the scene.
However, it is still not clear to me how the concept of "fractal dimension" (usually applied to lines or patterns) can apply to a complex landscape scenes with different grounds and elements. What does it mean then?
Claims have been made that people tend to express a preference and a higher receptivity (physiologically, with lower stress levels and faster attention restoration) to scenes with a fractal dimension of D=1,3.
This fractal dimension is typically the one of clouds and mountain ranges, thus suggesting that human beings are being "tuned" to their environment (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2005).
But in reality fractals are mathematical objects. They do no exist in nature per se. They are produced by equations, which have been created (found) to model natural shapes that Euclidean geometry could not describe. The idea was to understand the geometry of objects such as coastlines. But it is important to understand that coastlines are not fractals. They have fractal-like properties and can be modeled by a fractal shape.
We are thus looking at an approximation, a model. When I will show landscape scenes to the participants of my experience, they will see a landscape and nothing else. The picture itself is not one of a fractal. It is only my own choices of interpretation which will determine the statistical properties of the image. The potential for bias is huge!
So, obviously, there is still a lot to be done for me to understand how fractal shapes express in landscape views and how to investigagte their potential influence on viewers' health. I am trying to write a short paper on that topic while waiting for the administrative paperworks to set up my experimentation at the NHS Lothian- University Hospital.
CHEUN K. C. & WELLS N. M., 2004 - The Natural Environment & Well-Being: Insights from Fractal Composition Analysis. HarFA - Harmonic and Fractal Image Analysis , pp. 76 - 82.
DUBOIS J. & CHALINE J., 2006 - Le monde des fractales. Paris: Ellipses Editions.
HAGERHALL C. M., PURCELL T. & TAYLOR, R., 2004 - Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology (24), pp. 247–255.
TAYLOR R., 2006 - Reduction of Physiological Stress Using Fractal Art and Architecture. LEONARDO, 39 (3), pp. 245–251.
TAYLOR R., SPEHAR B., WISE J., CLIFFORD C., NEWELL B. & MARTIN T., 2005 - Perceptual and Physiological Responses to the Visual Complexity of Pollock's Dripped Fractal Patterns. Journal of Non-linear Dynamics, Psychology , 9, pp. 89-114.
I have been working mostly on the concept of fractals, looking through their raw mathematical nature to try and see how they express in visual landscape. Indeed, it seems that what authors are discussing when they are talking about fractals in landscape, is merely the fractal-like properties of elements in landscape views.
These properties often reflect the complexity of the landscape, or an indicator of the balance between order and disorder in the scene.
However, it is still not clear to me how the concept of "fractal dimension" (usually applied to lines or patterns) can apply to a complex landscape scenes with different grounds and elements. What does it mean then?
Claims have been made that people tend to express a preference and a higher receptivity (physiologically, with lower stress levels and faster attention restoration) to scenes with a fractal dimension of D=1,3.
This fractal dimension is typically the one of clouds and mountain ranges, thus suggesting that human beings are being "tuned" to their environment (Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2005).
But in reality fractals are mathematical objects. They do no exist in nature per se. They are produced by equations, which have been created (found) to model natural shapes that Euclidean geometry could not describe. The idea was to understand the geometry of objects such as coastlines. But it is important to understand that coastlines are not fractals. They have fractal-like properties and can be modeled by a fractal shape.
We are thus looking at an approximation, a model. When I will show landscape scenes to the participants of my experience, they will see a landscape and nothing else. The picture itself is not one of a fractal. It is only my own choices of interpretation which will determine the statistical properties of the image. The potential for bias is huge!
So, obviously, there is still a lot to be done for me to understand how fractal shapes express in landscape views and how to investigagte their potential influence on viewers' health. I am trying to write a short paper on that topic while waiting for the administrative paperworks to set up my experimentation at the NHS Lothian- University Hospital.
CHEUN K. C. & WELLS N. M., 2004 - The Natural Environment & Well-Being: Insights from Fractal Composition Analysis. HarFA - Harmonic and Fractal Image Analysis , pp. 76 - 82.
DUBOIS J. & CHALINE J., 2006 - Le monde des fractales. Paris: Ellipses Editions.
HAGERHALL C. M., PURCELL T. & TAYLOR, R., 2004 - Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology (24), pp. 247–255.
TAYLOR R., 2006 - Reduction of Physiological Stress Using Fractal Art and Architecture. LEONARDO, 39 (3), pp. 245–251.
TAYLOR R., SPEHAR B., WISE J., CLIFFORD C., NEWELL B. & MARTIN T., 2005 - Perceptual and Physiological Responses to the Visual Complexity of Pollock's Dripped Fractal Patterns. Journal of Non-linear Dynamics, Psychology , 9, pp. 89-114.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
