Introduction#
In the past few days, I took some time to re-read Chen Danqing's "局部" series and recorded some of the things that touched me. The semantics may not be coherent because the time I spent reading 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 mobile phones, 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 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 (without negative connotation). Whether it is composition, arrangement of elements, scenery, or the internal movement within the picture, it is all about guiding 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 picture is already more than half successful. 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 a part of the originally planned "inducing." 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 arrangements. They are included in the watchlist.
Being obsessed with minor details, the important thing is not the story but the scene.
Static frames are fine and can even form a unique artistic style. But if it's dynamic imagery, 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 television work related to art today can find traces of the masters of the Renaissance. I think the reason is that "How can a fish know the joy of 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 feels somewhat 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 and couldn't find a response.
The Great Deviation#
Standards always expect the author's deviation because no standard can accommodate 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 that the subject feels or experiences at that moment, which 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 is said 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 tiny 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 benevolent deception. When new deceptive techniques are discovered, they are called creations.
If you want to achieve your own style, you have to leave the predecessors in the way of the predecessors.
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 clearly 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.