Introduction#
In the past few days, I took some time to rewatch Chen Danqing's "局部" series and recorded some of the things that touched me. The semantics may not be coherent because my viewing time was not continuous, and some thoughts were skipped directly in my mind. The quoted parts are not copied verbatim, but rather merged within two or three episodes of the same topic, so that my future self can understand them.
Inducing Viewing#
The lack of perspective in Chinese painting is like a telephoto lens, while the standard perspective in Western painting is like a wide-angle lens.
This is completely opposite to my current understanding. I once quoted a similar theory in my own paper, which roughly means that the form of virtual reality technology can actually be traced back to the long scrolls of classical Chinese painting. This "inducing viewing" method is somewhat similar to panoramic photos on smartphones, with the only difference being that panoramic photos still have a perspective relationship. However, classical painting "flattens" the space for you to see, bringing not only visual immersion but also temporal immersion. The video also mentioned the relationship between painting and time, but unfortunately, my understanding is not deep enough to comprehend it.
A movie or a painting is actually about how the author induces the viewer's gaze.
This is a correct statement (not derogatory). Whether it's composition, arrangement of elements, scenes, or the internal movement within the frame, they all guide the audience on how to view the world through the author's eyes. It seems to imply another layer of meaning: if the "inducing" is successful, the image is already more than halfway to success. I agree with this. At the same time, protecting the "inducing" is something I often mess up in my own creations. Many times, when I get excited about creating, I tend to erase some of the originally planned "inducing" aspects. The work is innocent.
Seeing something and writing or painting it is a big step forward.
This reminds me of a sentence I read somewhere: "Never miss the five minutes after an idea appears."
Orson Welles, "Citizen Kane."
Bernardo Bertolucci, "1900."
Federico Fellini, "8½."
Andrei Tarkovsky, "The Sacrifice."
These are the films of three great directors mentioned in the book, known for their mastery of camera shots and scene arrangement. They are added to my watchlist.
Being enthusiastic about minor details, what matters is not the story but the scene.
Static frames are fine and can even create a unique style. But if it's a moving image, the story is still important.
Ancient paintings have been preserved in various works today in an unprovable and imperceptible way.
Think about it, it's true. Picasso once said, "Cézanne is our father." In theory, any film or TV work related to art today can find traces of the great masters of the Renaissance. I think the reason is that "How can a fish know the joy of a fish?"
The use of perspective in painting essentially assumes that the audience is also present.
Virtual reality or augmented reality breaks this "assumption," but at the same time retains perspective. It actually feels subtly similar to the decentralized thinking of Web 3.0. Everything is left to the audience. But it doesn't mean giving up "inducing." Masterpieces are full of "inducing."
If perspective led to the invention of photography and film, why hasn't the observation method of Chinese painting advanced to this day?
This is the most shocking sentence to me. I thought about it for a long time, but I have no words to respond.
Great Deviation#
Standards always expect the artist's deviation because no standard can encompass the countless variations of reality.
Just like the core argument in Gestalt psychology by Wertheimer: the whole is not equal to and greater than the sum of its parts. It advocates studying psychological phenomena through the dynamic structure of the whole. The so-called "everything the subject feels or experiences at the time, that is, the experience the subject grasps in the process of understanding the phenomenon. This experience is a meaningful whole, which is not completely consistent with the direct objective stimuli from the outside world."
If we apply this psychology to art, I think there are still some flaws in what people say online. But it is very appropriate for artistic creation.
All deviations do not come from the artist's creation, but from discovery.
There is definitely no absolute originality for humans. Is the form of life original? The popular saying is that the earliest life originated from the capillary cavities in ancient underwater volcanic rocks, gradually forming single-cell structures. If the situation is true, it can be considered original. Speaking of art, it is essentially a game of benevolent deception. Discovering new deceptive techniques is called creation.
If you want to fulfill your own style, you have to leave the predecessors in the way the predecessors left.
Don't worry about style; it will naturally change. What's interesting is the second half of the sentence. Going towards a predecessor and leaving a predecessor are not two distinct stages, but rather simultaneous processes. When you are going towards a predecessor, you are already leaving a predecessor. The way to go is to imitate. The way to leave is to imitate, but no longer imitate exactly.
To be continued.