Sell a movie idea featuring your characters to Pixar or Dreamworks.

You'd have to sell them on the idea of taking your characters 3-D with CGI or some animation technology.

You have to get a writer and get a script together.

Would it be a super-hero movie, or a sci-fi?

If you have great stories, get the narratives out there and build story boards for a movie.

Shop it around. If you got some really cool music to go with the animation, and your story is exciting and engaging, you might end up with a movie deal. That would be the most lucrative.

A good story, good sounds, and way-cool eye-candy. It could work.

Gotham: I've posted here before on my thoughts re your venture - initially negative, granted, but then I have a perspective on it.

I helped promote the Indo Japanese Ramayana in the UK years ago - a terrific entry into an untapped genre, I thought - I was'nt prepared for (a) the lack of interest (B) the conflicting agendas of people in the industry/ media here - most notably a bunch of cackling troublemakers at a screening who wanted an Indian themed animated feature to fail (actually after a few minutes they quietened down and remained open mouthed for the rest of the film...)

The film failed to launch in the US despite some experienced hands being involved and I wondered why...no point in doing a post mortem here but I learned a lot about trying to pitch this type of film, ie with unfamiliar characters, a semi religious slant (no one likes to be preached at)and the danger of over Westernising the characters to try and make them more saleable (end result : a dogs dinner)...

Kids of all backgrounds lapped it up though since they immediately cottoned on to the fantastical elements which Indian mythology is full of...

Sounds at the moment like you guys are just going through a check list of things that need to be done (eg Panchatantra, Ramayana and so on) - all well and good, but my advice is to throw a wobbly and do something totally original and left field with the source material - it's just too much of a no brainer and Hollywood can do it too (they've tried, believe me...)...where are the original stories and plotlines / characters ??

Your take on the Ramayana sounds cool though...best of luck with it...

R

Dear Gotham

Where is your market? If the US is to be part of it...

Bollywood heros have not been successfully exported to the US as yet. This is due in part to profound cultural differences between the US and India. The very passion with which you promote India's mythical heros and stories reflects your own immersion in your historical culture. The US is almost completely blind to the depth and complexities of it. So if your market is in the US, in part, how do you bridge that divide? The aspects of India's culture that have become integrated into US daily life have been almost completely denatured, and they took decades to enter mainstream US culture.

How do you bring the richness of your culture to markets outside India, without damaging your culture's values and vibrancy? Do you use a Japanese approach, where you leap over the current style gestalt and create a new one, as Japan did with manga / anime? A new style that combines aspects of a culture that's eons old with a new style never before seen, in other words, make your own wave? To do this, you cannot be so in love with your own culture that it overwhelms you, you have to stand outside it with a great deal of dispassion.

Because of my love of Hindi films, I look for any evidence I can find of the US accepting Hindi films more broadly. And it's not really happening. The biggest problem I have seen is the lack of understanding on the part of India's creative artists as to how absolutely ignorant the US is, generally speaking, about Indian culture. Thus, when India's artists try to promote films over here, they underestimate, by far, the amount and kind of education and materials that are needed to get publicists, promoters, and reviewers clued into about their products.

love, Heather

The chinese seemed to have a good job of 'exporting' their culture, mythology to the West through the medium of movies (e.g. Crouching Tiger, Hero, etc...)

In fact its done so without having to compromise on quality or style.

I personally feel whatever medium you choose to re-invent or re-interpret, the issue isnt whether you antagonize the purists but understanding the real essence or as you say substance of those truths and those truths shouldn't be lost nor the history forgotten.

As long you keep those 2 points:-
(i) preserve the perennial truths
(ii) dont forget the past symbols/stories

Then you are bound to be sucessful.

I'd be a fool to second guess how and why Manga /Anime took off outside of Japan - my suspicion is that it tends to centre on mans relationship to technology, and to some extent, nature and the dynamics of this relationship - this is a very accessible and prescient theme in the West, especially in the U.S - Manga is almost entirely about technology and the future.

The films of Hong Kong and martial arts took off in a big way since they had a cult following in the US long before Manga arrived, paving the way for "Crouching Tiger..." etc, and don't forget "Kaiju" eg Godzilla, which again took off due to its heavy technology, Man V Nature slant.

Sadly, to the U.S , India is still about "Baggy Pants Adventure" eg Arabian Nights type stories - no bad thing since this is a familiar access point to your market - mostly these films, though enjoyable, were basically hokum with scant regard for the finer points of the cultures they were plundering for stories...

I guess the thing you need to figure out is : what does India have to offer in terms of a perspective on contemporary life other than a reflection of the West (which is how Manga started out...) - and then feed this into your storylines - and more importantly, is it missing from what is already out there ??...or even wanted ???

..by the way...my mum says Hindi cinema is all about one thing : emotion - it's true...how many people actually cry during a Western film ? - as in do they even stir the emotions in a way that Hindi films do..?

The answer is: not much - they've become too mechanised and processed and packaged to the extent that the "drama" is devoid of any truth - this, I think, is what Indian cinema and literature has to offer, and it's what I get from the Ramayana etc over and above the fireworks and details of the story - the emotional depth and truth of the characters and their motivations...

The visual form is actually irrelevant...

"antagonize the purists, and surprise the naysayers."

Love that thought.

"Cultures preserve themselves by perpetuating their stories."

That thought seems to be making the rounds.... through the one mind.

So take the characters and paste them into the current "reality" / collective experience, then everyone can identify.

THE SACRED PHALLUS

Which I think is Linked to Lord Shiva?

There is good starting point. Where I am this symbol is making a come back.

If you go out to the clubs you can spot the bachelorette groups, sometimes there can be a dozen of them in one club, they display and carry this ancient symbol and disply it and take pictures with it. There can be dozens of these symbols. Many pictures are taken, probably ending up on My Space.

But you know what they do not know the story behind it....

Somebody needs to tell them.

So anyway The Ancient symbols of phallus and vagina are timeless and universal.

Controversy is a great marketing tool.

You could have a wise and cunning Lingus character for example.

I'm sorry Richard, but I've already covered that one..He's called "Dash Lingam", and he's a sort of Brit' Asian Flash Gordon...you heard it here first...

This is no reference to his crotch size, by the way...:)...but his erm...rocket...

R

I'm sorry Richard, but I've already covered that one..He's called "Dash Lingam", and he's a sort of Brit' Asian Flash Gordon...you heard it here first...

This is no reference to his crotch size, by the way...:)...but his erm...rocket...

R

Gotham

You may have heard of or seen these. There are new animation movies coming up in India like Hanuman and Krishna, that are based on these popular Indian Gods. I have heard great reviews about Hanuman. Just recently I heard something to the effect that India's Walt Disney bought the movie or the rights to it. Maybe that is a line you want to look into.

ARM

Well Ravi you must have a great mind.

All rockets eventually get consumed by a black hole.

...and explode in a shower of white droplets, like the Death Star...?

...great minds think alike...

Yes and the proverbial big bang and the formation of life as we emulate the entire cosomos in a surge of passion.

In one of Deepak Chopra's books, he tells a story of a young boy who changed the structure of his own DNA (I believe the story went that the boy did it in response to his mother's urging him to become well, to recover from disease.)

Which book was that story in? I'm desperately trying to find out! Thank you!

Dear Gotham, Suresh and Ravi

Re Suresh's #4 point about Chinese film exports, in terms of publicity and acceptance of the specific films he mentions, I agree, yet that run of films is not typical, so it can't really be used to generalize about China's success. In NYC, except for those exceptional films, China's films are not being shown in multiplex and neighborhood theaters. They can only be seen at arts houses, film festivals, and ethnic neighborhood theaters. It's true that China is establishing a reputation for quality productions. Can they follow it up? Only the future will tell us.

Re Suresh's #4 point about understanding the real essence -- I agree -- and yet it's the conscious respect for, and attention given to, the past, that so permeates Indian culture and society, that is part of the problem, I think. I have a feeling that consciously letting the past go is OK -- if it's imbedded in artists', writers', and filmmakers' psyches, it's going to come out anyway.

Re Ravi's #5, one of the reasons Manga took off is the style of drawing characters. But there are other things, too.

Re Ravi's #6, yes, emotion is at the center all things India, and that's one of the reasons the west avoids India's cultural products. So how to offer that luscious pill, that the west is so scared of, so they will learn to swallow it??

More thoughts, will come back later.

love, Heather

PS -- India's Jaan-e-Maan made it into one of NYC's biggest multiplexes in Times Square this year, a first for an Indian film at Diwali in NYC, I think. Don is being shown in two NYC theaters, but one is very small, and the other is on the East Side, not in the central Times Square area that gets all the heavy walk-in traffic from tourists and day visitors, that keeps Times Square theaters' attendance records high, and make those theaters among the most important film venues in Manhattan.

Oeh I had to react.. you make the teens out there (or is it here) very happy!!

Could you do like more updates (when they come to Europe and stuff?

Anyways keep up the good work.

Vada

Since the appearance of secular art in ancient cultures, tragedy has always taken precedence over comedy in the minds of both authors and audiences. It is considered more noble, perhaps more attuned to the lives most are forced to live. Everyone dies, even if nothing particularly funny happens along the way. It is, however, almost impossible to exaggerate the difficulties of writing comedy. It presents its own hurdles and limitations. While nearly all audiences will sympathize with the death of an infant, not all will agree that a dig on a politician is deserving of a laugh, particularly if they voted for him. The sheen of irony fades very quickly as one moves away from its source. One requires a full understanding of a subject before irony, in any of its forms, will be successful; thus one is greeted with "I guess you had to be there" or simply a blank-faced "I don't get it," every comedian's nightmare. Comedy has less historical and societal range than tragedy, which asserts itself through universal experiences such as betrayal, hardship, and death. Aside from the more obvious types of comedy, such as slapstick and invective, very little comedy sustains its nerve over time. The ancient Greek Menander or Roman Plautus won't keep even the most cultivated of cliques in stitches for very long. Shakespeare comes closer, and can even surprise with a very funny joke or situation; but Ben Jonson, faddishly funny in his own day, regularly falls flat now. Oscar Wilde will still win a smile, but the comedy of manners only succeeds when the audience knows which manners are being sent up. It's difficult to be transgressive when the boundaries have been effaced. Lewis Carol is whimsical, even oddly disturbing at times, but never really funny. Even T.S. Eliot's disarmingly amusing Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats is more cute than necessarily funny. Most of the time Eliot's humor (when not downright vicious) is dreary and mean.

Then there are the more base facets of comedy. A burp can be funny, if well timed, whether it issues from Falstaff or Homer Simpson. It's hard to suppress a smile when an otherwise elegant model stumbles slightly on the runway. Her preferred status is compromised, and it is funny so long as she isn't injured in any serious way. Shakespeare's invective remains among the most acutely felt of his comedic strengths. Even if the insults seem a bit archaic, it is the intensity and clarity of the slur that remains with us. We might say "boorish" and "meat-headed" instead of "churlish" and "dizzy-eyed," but the sentiment still stings. Many of the forms familiar to the ancients remain with us, often in very popular settings, most notably on television: satire (The Simpsons), parody (Saturday Night Live), buffoonery (America's Funniest Home Videos), and invective (Sanford and Son). There is also comedy as way of saying "Fuck You". This type has been popular in America, in one way or another, since the 1960s. Lenny Bruce shares some things in common with other mutinous intellects like William Burroughs.

Poetry, particularly in its shorter, tightly organized forms, can carry a comic punch rarely found elsewhere, as with A.R. Ammons's gem, 'Their Sex Life': "One failure on / Top of another." A combination of precision and catchy rhyme can result in an epigraph worthy of both library shelf and bathroom stall. Peter Washington's selection of Comic Poems for Knopf is far-reaching, surprising, and vastly enjoyable. One will encounter the usual conspirators, Ogden Nash, Cole Porter, John Updike, Dorothy Parker, Stevie Smith, the cocktail party crowd; there are also what could be thought of as deep album cuts by Lucilius, Palladas, Martial, and Robert Herrick; some unexpected visitors like Thomas Traherne, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Les Murray, Heinrich Heine, and G.K. Chesterton (who is, however, known for some extraordinary one liners). Alexander Pope and John Dryden, the Age of Enlightenment satirists hold court as well. This is fine powder room reading, and may be used to tame any crowd and lighten any event.

—Ernest Hilbert

Some Comic Poems:

HIS PLANS TO CON
he is sitting there
fucking his brains
wondering how can
he fuck the west
making millions
exporting Indian
culture to them
in cartoons of holy cows,
flying monkeys,
eight armed goddesses
and elephant-head gods.

he will be a failure
as he’s telling us all
his plans to con,
and no body gives
shit to the Indian
cartoons in the west
as already a new age
guru exporting Vedic
spirituality to the west
has been labelled an
“old foolish poop.”
***
POOR PAPA'S BOY NOW NEEDS URGENT PITY

He’s sitting there today
At the helm thrashing
All poems wondering
What went wrong with
His con plans of
Selling cartoons of the
East to the west.

Poor papa’s boy’s prayers
Now go unanswered,
Unheeded by holy cows,
High flying monkeys,
Eight-heads headed gods,
Elephant-headed Ganesha,
Bull riding Shiva and
Wife spurning Rama.

Poor papa’s boy now
Needs urgent pity.
***
YOU OLD FOOLISH POOP

Whatever he writes
Using cutting-edge physics,
Medicine or genetics,
Scientists trash him
Call him,“you old foolish poop.”

As he regurgitates Vedas
and speculates on the
Origin of man by
An intelligent design
And the doom of man
By burning fires
Falling from skies.

So long there are fools
There will be con-men
Selling their poop
To them for money

The past two days of my film class we discussed something along these lines. How films (and related media) fulfil the psychological needs of its audience. The example he uses often is the Western vs. Reality TV. Back in the day, when Americans were still all about the Manifest Destiny and praising the individual against nature and 'savages' and all that; the westerns were popular. Currently reality tv is the big thing, which he didn't explaining but I'd like to say it has something to do with the general aimlessness of the population, so they have nothing better to do than quarrel with eachother and try to get a lot of money for minimal work.

Today was largely about the horror film, and since each type of monster is symbolic of things in the collective psyche, certain things become popular at certain times (frakenstein was popular when science was really gearing up and people were scared as to where it would leave, vampires when diseases and fundamentalism are big issues, etc).. but it also has to do with the age of the audience, as people go through phases of what affects them how much and then most people lose interest in horror films (and facing their psychological fears and demons, my teacher would argue) as they get older.

Anyway, my point is, and i'm sure you're aware of this anyway, you're going to have to be very aware of what you use to catch the attention of america (i imagine you want more than that but as this is the only country i've lived in its all i can really talk about), and you're going to have to really tune into the current trends of the mass-conciousness/ collective unconcious of the country. and have some wicked goode advertising.

Also, generally speaking, Bollywood has not really been exported to the US. Not past the NRI population and the cult following (and we members of that are muchmuchmuch fewer in number than say, the anime cult following.. though most of us belong to that one too, interstingly enough). And everyone has heard of Anime or at least some of the shows (and manga is sold in stores alll over the place).. but 90% of the people I talk to had no idea India even made films before i randomly started going off about some new Shahrukh or Abhishek movie i recently saw. (not that my hindi film love is just with thoes two.. they are are just my favorites =)) But see, where commercials for new and cinemetographically amazing (as it seems only the epic-type films get theatre run) Chinese film previews play on tv and before other films... there is no publicization at all.. with the exception of maybe some big cities.. i have a friend who saw a KANK add on the side of a phone booth and took a picture for me..) so people have very little idea it exsists...

Dear Ravi (S)

I'm impressed!

love, Heather

I am so delighted to see what kind of ventures you are trying in India. Please continue your good spirit. As a simple average person and yoga fanatic I would like to suggest of a Original India Superhero called SUPERYOGI, who is like the ultimate YOGI with all extraordinary yogic powers(Highest level of consciousness) who can fly,walk in air,change his appearence at will and ever young. Dr. Chopra and you if can spend a min on this you can create a wonderful character.
Best of luck with all your ventures

Dear Ravi S

In #2 you said: "Kids of all backgrounds lapped it up though since they immediately cottoned on to the fantastical elements which Indian mythology is full of..."

Apparently, manga has been around for almost a century. And its roots actually go all the way back to Hokusai. Adult manga readers today were the kid readers of decades ago.

Even from the first manga of the 1950's and 1960's (the first modern manga) that I could find examples of, the structure of faces of virtually all characters was triangular, with large eyes, small noses and small mouths -- infantile features that trigger a postitive emotional response in most viewers/readers.

The basic style of manga art, and its purpose are imporant, too: Manga works are primarily black and white ink drawings with strong linear qualities that engage the eye and brain, and shape-based (rather than value-based) textures that keep the brain committed to its involvement with the pages. The purpose of a manga work is to tell a story is through pictures, not through text. In other words, manga is annotated narrative art, not illustrated stories.

These three main aspects of manga -- decades of building an audience, characters with baby-like faces, and the effectiveness of the art in engaging the eye and brain and telling a story, probably have a great deal to do with why manga took off. Though the first modern manga works were based on western newpaper comic strips, currently manga strongly influences both still and animated comic styles in the west, as well as styles of figure toys, both human and animal.

In terms of content, very much like Deepak's current story about Savitri, Ramana and Yama, manga has an apparent simplicity that overlays a real complexity. The simplicity opens the door for us, the complexity keeps us in the room.

The best manga works incorporate archetypes and myths that involve the viewer/readers' psyche on deep levels. Any of Hayao Miyazaki's stuff is a good example of this.

.......

One of the issues I've seen with introducing any of India's arts or culture to the west, is the very depth and richness of it: It's hard, if you live within that reality, to understand how deprived and clueless the west is about that richness and depth. And if you live outside that reality, it's hard to understand that that richness and depth really exist, and are not just a dream.

To make a market in the west -- especially the US -- for India's cultural products, both sides of that realization have to hit a few key people right in their hearts. If it hits them there, maybe they will figure out how to build the bridges needed.

love, Heath

INDIAN BARREN WOMEN WANTING CHILDREN

How interesting!
The guy who’s thinking
Of conning the west,
Selling Indian culture to them,
Is now wondering
If to sell Shiva’s phallus to them,
As if western women now want
Shiva’s lingam to love them.
What then of the
Indian barren women
Wanting children?

~White Wings

Dear Ameya

Maybe US's fascination with reality entertainment is due to a realization that so much of what they'd been watching for decades was shallow. Reality shows are pretty crass, but they do have some of the bite, complexity and depth of reality.

love, Heather

Thanks Heather,
One thing I've always maintained is that if you can capture people's imagination then you have them for life - once an idea or thought takes root it's impossible to dislodge it - I suppose this is why kids are a susceptible audience - the things which got me hooked on fantasy films are the things I saw as a kid.

I missed seeing a cheesy Indian version of the Ramayana when I was kid and had to settle for 2nd hand stories from my sisters about flying monkeys and a guy with ten heads which kept growing back when they were knocked off - this image has stuck with me for life as an enduring one...in fact NOT seeing it was infinitely more inspiring than seeing it - this is the dilemma with visualising Indian mythology, but also it's strength / dynamism since it is open to interpretation...

Personally I'm more interested in the WHY of these characters than the HOW - and at the moment film makers are scratching their heads about the HOW rather than the WHY...

By the way I reviewed Miyzakis' Spirited Away on my blog if you are interested in reading it...

R

Thanks Heather,
One thing I've always maintained is that if you can capture people's imagination then you have them for life - once an idea or thought takes root it's impossible to dislodge it - I suppose this is why kids are a susceptible audience - the things which got me hooked on fantasy films are the things I saw as a kid.

I missed seeing a cheesy Indian version of the Ramayana when I was kid and had to settle for 2nd hand stories from my sisters about flying monkeys and a guy with ten heads which kept growing back when they were knocked off - this image has stuck with me for life as an enduring one...in fact NOT seeing it was infinitely more inspiring than seeing it - this is the dilemma with visualising Indian mythology, but also it's strength / dynamism since it is open to interpretation...

Personally I'm more interested in the WHY of these characters than the HOW - and at the moment film makers are scratching their heads about the HOW rather than the WHY...

By the way I reviewed Miyazakis' Spirited Away on my blog if you are interested in reading it...

R

Thanks Heather,
One thing I've always maintained is that if you can capture people's imagination then you have them for life - once an idea or thought takes root it's impossible to dislodge it - I suppose this is why kids are a susceptible audience - the things which got me hooked on fantasy films are the things I saw as a kid.

I missed seeing a cheesy Indian version of the Ramayana when I was kid and had to settle for 2nd hand stories from my sisters about flying monkeys and a guy with ten heads which kept growing back when they were knocked off - this image has stuck with me for life as an enduring one...in fact NOT seeing it was infinitely more inspiring than seeing it - this is the dilemma with visualising Indian mythology, but also it's strength / dynamism since it is open to interpretation...

Personally I'm more interested in the WHY of these characters than the HOW - and at the moment film makers are scratching their heads about the HOW rather than the WHY...

By the way I reviewed Miyazakis' Spirited Away on my blog if you are interested in reading it...

R

whoops, sorry - in triplicate in typical Indian bureaucratic fashion...

Go to the root of your culture Gotham and please try to bring back all these miracles...

I am sure... you are the man!

Ravi, in speaking about the 'Why' vs. the 'How' of characters, I think each are equally important. The 'Why' often makes for interesting philosophy and character study while the 'How' often makes for compelling story (How does a character get what he wants?). Also, important is how the 'Why' is revealed. If stated up front and obviously, it's often uninteresting, rather than unfolding and engaging. Simply, a blurred line exists between the two in terms of informing each other. Filmmakers should be scratching their heads about both, not just one. I think the trend of filmmakers and storytellers of focusing on the 'How' rather than the 'Why' is for multiple reasons: art as only commerce instead of profit as an epiphenomenon of irrestible art (intentionality), and time yanking producers forward, leading to following markets instead of creating them (lack of leadership) -- to give only two reasons. And I'm not implying that it is easy to change the culture since there are few incentives and people are naturally risk-averse.

To respond to the original post, I think that Indian traditions, stories, and characters are inherently compelling cross-culturally. With the constant struggle between duty and individuality, life and death and life again, complex villains and heroes who succeed only once they know themselves and conquer doubt -- These are the timeless qualities of compelling drama. As this project grows, and I have no doubt that it will succeed, people will be exposed to the rich history, awe-inspiring and complicated culture, and empowering ideas of India in a unique and textured expression.

I think the difficultly lies in staying true to the source of the content because if that is held sacred with good storytelling these stories will fascinate any and all audiences. And I think doing this in the face of the current cultural climate is a challenge requiring strength, courage, vision, and at times compromise. For example if a story were to be made about a yogi -- and yes, I do think it could be interesting -- I hope that patanjali's yoga sutra were a primary source of inspiration, and that not simply the super powers of a yogi were emphasized but rather the path of becoming one would be a central theme, which requires as much moral & personal struggle and conflict as it is physically demanding. Enlightenment is the transcendance of body and mind. (And fortunately, doing this in the end, I think would make the story more compelling).

This post and discussion has sparked many ideas, only a few of which I am writing down. Thanks for all the riveting and engaging posts.

Dear Shankar

A brilliant comment.

Dear Gotham and Ravi

I'd like to recommend a book to you.

The book is called "Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing", by Margaret Livingstone (a neurobiologist) and David H. Hubel. The ISBN is 0810904063. Amazon has it in stock. I can't tell you how revolutionary the work in this book is. Ravi, it should just about make your hair stand on end. Gotham, I don't know how deeply you're involved in the arts, first hand -- but if you get the book and it seems no big thing to you, please pass it on to your lead artists and designers.

Livingstone is a scientist who studies how the eyes and mind process what they see. In this book, she writes about art. Just by skimming it, you'll pick up enough of her concepts so you'll really understand how people react to what they see.

When I read the book, I was galvanized at what I glimpsed -- it gave me a better basis for communicating visually, it wasn't all guesswork and instinct anymore, and as I began to use the concepts in my work, my work became much more effective, to a surprising degree.

Based on the concepts in that book, I can critique any piece of art that's not getting the expected response from its intended audience, and suggest what to do to get a better response.

............

I was thinking about the comparisons between India and Japan. It's not accidental that Japan turned into a world leader in auto and electronics design and manufacturing, as well as other areas like animation. Japan excels in looking for, accepting, and integrating feedback from its audiences and markets. Japan is always in a close dance with its consumers, and it responds to every move they make with a better one, always keeping the lead (at least so far). What Japan designs and makes, sells, because Japan goes to immense lengths to know what their audiences and markets want, don't want, and how things are changing. They don't lead or follow, they partner their audiences and markets, with great subtlety, sensitivity and dedication. This is one area that other countries can watch and learn from, and we can all watch and learn from it in our own lives, as individuals, too.

love, Heath

Dear Ravi

Spirited Away is brilliant. It's one of my favorite films, animated or not. For me, it's Miyazaki's best work. Of everything else he's ever done that I've seen, the only thing that is that good is the cat in Kiki, a cat so sketchly drawn, yet emotionally and psychologically right and alive. To those who don't know Miyazaki's work, that sounds slightly critical, so I have to also say Miyazaki is the world's best animation artist and director without any damned question, and everything he's ever drawn or written is worthwhile. In my first several sentences, I'm just saying I like these two Miyazaki diamonds -- one big, one small -- better than all the other Miyazaki diamonds.

love, Heath

Hi Heather,
I'll certainly try and root out the book - one thing I got "into" at Art college was the work of Ernst Gombrich, covering the history of art and "seeing", and Gestalt theories on perception, both of which threw up fascinating insights into how we see and interpret the world around us - so it's an interesting subject..

...here's my Spirited Away write-up...

http://raviswamianimation.blogspot.com/2005/11/spirited-away-etc.html

cheers,
R

Fact: The Japanese producer of the animated Ramayana I mentioned, originally approached Miyazaki to direct his film - reason : his character "Sheeta" from Laputa was a direct reference to Sita from the Ramayana - alongside other references in the film...

Heather,

It's fitting that you should mention that book on the first day I've posted here because I actually had a seminar with Margaret Livingstone in college. It was a cognitive neuroscience seminar about that very topic. It was right before her book was to be published and I think in many ways it served as an aural test ground for here arguments. In your description of the book, and where you found it helpful, you touch upon what was a central debate that the small group had: does knowing the science of seeing help inform your own art and creative expression. Truth be told, back then, I was a bit more naive, and a bit more stubborn, but in a positive sense also maybe a bit more iconoclastic: I didn't want anything institutional, especially rules of some kind, informing my art. I no longer believe that, and I think the book is excellent in helping figure out problems after you've created a painting but I find the information difficult to use as a method by which to create (Btw, I don't think you are necessarily saying that is how to use it). I think though that you bring up a seminal idea that I have spent much of my life weighing: to create from the outside in or to create from the inside out (Apologies if that lingo is obtuse. I don't know how else to express it at the moment). In fact, the answer is a bit of both in my most humble, honest, and experiential opinion -- I don't like thinking I have answers. It's a trap.

Most revelatory are the color images that she makes black and white to show how contrast is more important than color to make imges pop. Don't you think? All that said, I too highly recommend the book.

Dear Ravi

Great review. I agree about the comparison between Mnonoke and Spirited Away, in every respect.

As you say,

"Spirited Away features some stunning but subtle touches, and the animation is set at just the right level to tell the story effectively without trying too hard to impress..."

and further on you say,

"In Spirited Away, like the signs in the Theme Park, or even the discarded and crumbling shrines to nature spirits which mark the border between the real and the fantasy world which Chihiro enters which her parents, and which her mother casually dismisses as being shrines to nature spirits, the symbols are all around and clearly marked, but not in a way which is overly patronising."

All I can say is: exactly.

If you check out that book, please let me know how it affects you.

love, Heath

Dear Shankar

All I can say is wow! I'd like to sit at Livingtone's feet for a few months.

I had no expectations of the book when I got it. I was developing design class material, and was also working on a web design problem I had no solution for. I saw the book, I'd seen it reviewed in the NYTimes, and so got it, and thought it was unrelated to the class and the design problem. As it turned out, it helped with both -- its effect on my work was serendipitous in the timing, and otherwise.

It gave me great material for my class, enabling me to teach people who had little design experience to see the way our eyes and brains really see. When I taught some of the book's material, I taught it in the context that it can help a designer understand what their instincts are saying, or what a client's instincts are saying, about some work, and if the instinctive verdict is negative, develop a fix without throwing out the entire effort. And, the core issues of web design are stickiness and traffic direction, from my pov -- and her principles are ideal in figuring out how to make something stickier, and how to move the user along to the next place to be.

I wrote a couple of articles about how Livingtone's concepts can be used to resolve a web design problems. You can get to them here: http://evolt.org/node/60261 and http://evolt.org/node/60270. (Please forgive the terrible writing, I'm not a writer and they need a really serious rewrite.)

As I work these days, there is a little feedback loop between what I do, and what I know from Livingtone, that skews my work more in the direction I want it to go. But I haven't been able to go back to the book for several years, because I've been afraid to give its concepts more space in my mind than they already occupy. As result of this conversation, though, I've decided to reread it.

Regarding removing color information from a piece, that was a technique I'd used before I read the book, because my web design work had to be legible for colorblind users; I'd realized accidentally that it helped me improve my design work. (The classic artist's technique of squinting has the same effect, btw.) Once I'd read the book, I finally understood why it worked, and had confidence teaching the technique.

love, Heath

Omg, I just realized I misspelled every instance of Livingstone in comment 37!

Heather and Ravi Swami, I read your comments and I hope this post might interest you. I would like to recommend Dr. VS Ramachandran’s upcoming book, “The Artful Btain” in anticipation.

Here’s an extract from the book:

“There are hundreds of types of art; Classical Greek art, Tibetan art, Khmer art, Chola bronzes, Renaissance art, impressionism, expressionism, cubism, fauvism, abstract art; the list is endless. But despite this staggering diversity of styles, are there some general principles or "artistic universals" that cut across cultural boundaries? Can we come up with a "science of Art"? Science and art seem like such fundamentally antithetical pursuits; one is a quest for general principles whereas the other is a celebration of human individuality — so that the very notion of a "science of art" seems like an oxymoron. Yet that’s what I will suggest in this chapter — that our knowledge of human vision and of the brain is now sophisticated enough that we can speculate intelligently on the neural basis of art and maybe begin to construct a scientific theory of artistic experience. Saying this, as we shall see, does not in any way detract from the originality of the individual artist, for the manner in which she deploys these universal principles is entirely up to her. (After all, knowing the rules of grammar does not diminish our appreciation of Shakespeare’s genius!)”
The full article can be found at:
http://www.interdisciplines.org/artcog/papers/9/7

Dr. VS Ramchandran talks about Art and his book in this interview:
The Marco Polo of Neuroscience: V.S Ramachandran

He’s had patients with absent limbs that ache, others convinced that they are dead or that their parents are imposters, and yet others who vividly sense numbers as colours or flavours. Now he’s turned his attention to perhaps the wiliest question of all: What is Art? Acclaimed neuroscientist Professor V.S Ramachandran is celebrated as one of the most creative and colourful communicators about the brain and its discontents. Author of the Phantoms in the Brain, and now, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, the passionate Rama joins Natasha Mitchell this week.
Some excerpts wotrth quoting here:
(For the full interview visit:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/stories/s1358883.htm
)
…..
Natasha Mitchell: Too busy. Look he charts what is really the extraordinary momentum that the brain sciences have gathered over the last 20 years. But look he’s worried too, because he has a sense that neuroscience is trying to create a theory of everything, that it simply isn’t qualified to offer. He’s worried about reductionist explanations of human nature. Do you share his concern?

Ramachandran: There are two problems which are sometimes confounded. One is if you reduce everything to neurons, like falling in love, or ambition, or pride, or joy, or the self - my God does that mean there’s no love? And that’s a fallacy because you know explaining something doesn’t mean you explain it away. So for example – supposing two people are making love and a crazy scientist comes along and says “look, this is just neurons in the septum and neurons in the hypothalamic nuclei, these are all the neurons that are firing away, that’s all there is to it”. And then the lover turns to his girlfriend and says “you mean that’s it, it’s just chemicals, it’s neurons firing away, you’re not really in love?” She could then argue “no, on the contrary this proves it’s all real, that I’m not faking it”. “Look, look at the pattern of activity, it shows it’s real.”

Just to emphasise that when you explain something in terms of component parts you enrich your understanding a bit you certainly don’t diminish from the experience or detract from the experience. That fear is not justified.

The other deeper fear which I think may be justified is a time will surely come, say 500 years from now, maybe earlier when you create the “brain into vat” scenario that philosophers often talk about. I can take your brain before it starts degenerating, before you die, before you become old, put it in a vat with a culture medium, supply oxygen, stimulate all the right patterns of neural activity. So you can be whoever you want to be. You can be a combination of Bill Gates and Einstein and some Olympic athlete - whoever you want to be.

Natasha Mitchell: The disembodied self.

Ramachandran: It would still be you, it would still be you, OK, I can arrange that and there’s nothing in science that forbids this. All neuroscientists would predict that this is going to happen some day, right? Now people often quibble about you can’t get it exactly right but that doesn’t matter. But now, if I give you a choice – “you can have this vat, you can be the brain in the vat, or you can be who you are”. Most people pick the latter, they say “oh I’d rather be who I am, I don’t want to be the brain in the vat even though it sounds good”.

But there’s no way you can logically justify that, you have to bring in religion, or faith, or something like that, you can’t logically defend your choice of the real you, the real brain. Because if you think about it, you are a brain in a vat, the vat is called the cranial vault, the culture medium’s called the cerebro-spinal fluid and you are supplying oxygen and nutrition and instead of stimulating it with electrodes, I’m stimulating it with photons. You look around the world, OK, it’s just different kinds of energy interacting. So all I’m doing is asking you to choose between two vats, so that’s going to be a serious dilemma and there I would agree with Steven Rose. You and I don’t have to worry about it, but it will be a problem a few hundred years from now.

Natasha Mitchell: We are expecting to see a new book from you down the track in Australia called The Artful Brain, and you’re certainly well known for brave and creative hypothesising, always a good skill in the sciences, but tell me, what motivated you as a neuroscientists to take on that’s one of the wiliest question of all and that is - What is Art?

Ramachandran: Well you know I was on a sabbatical in India about 7 or 8 years ago and seeing patients in the hospital and there was a dry spell, not that many patients - so I was walking around the temples looking at Indian art. And I was raised on these religious icons, these sculptures. And then when I went to the West you know I was trained in a tradition of Western art. But suddenly there was an epiphany and I started looking as these, they started haunting me day and night and I suddenly began to see their beauty as great works of art, independent of mythology or religious connotations.

So then I started asking - are there artistic universals? Despite the staggering diversity of artistic styles you see across the planet, you know, there is cubism, there is impressionism, expressionism, classical Greek art, Renaissance art. In spite of all this diversity could there be some common principles that cut across cultural boundaries?

Then I came across the Australian bower birds and then I said “my God, they are creating these amazingly beautiful bowers”. The male bower bird is a drab little fellow but as a sort of Freudian compensation he creates these amazing bachelor pads which have got archways, lawns and he decorates them with little berries, certain coloured berries grouped into the red berries in one group, blue berries in another group – there is symmetry, there is ‘grouping’, there is colour contrast - all the aesthetic principles which we deploy in our art, here’s a bird brain deploying the same principles. So not only are there aesthetic principles across cultures maybe even across phylogenetic lines, across species. That’s what I tell some of the art historians whose start arguing with me about, ‘how can there be artistic universals?’

Natasha Mitchell: It is a controversial question though isn’t it? They would argue that art is a celebration of human individuality and the human creative spirit. In all its diversity.

Ramachandran: Sure but that doesn’t deny the existence of universals. I mean you can have universal principles but the manner in which an individual artist deploys those principles is entirely up to him or her. And that’s where his intuition, his genius comes to play. And of course cultural factors play a tremendous role in the emergence of art, otherwise you wouldn’t have different types of art, you wouldn’t have Renaissance art, Indian art, Tibetan art. But if you already that and that’s what art historians spend their time doing, the study the variation imposed by culture. But there a very few people studying aesthetic universals, let’s not call it Art because it’s a loaded word, but aesthetic universals. And that’s what I’m doing and some of my colleagues, Marge Livingstone and Semir Zeki…are also doing.

Natasha Mitchell: By looking for universals you’re suggesting there may be some common biological or neurological bases to all aesthetic experience….

Ramachandran: Absolutely.

Natasha Mitchell: So this is in a sense tapping into the fact that our brains evolved in highly camouflaged environments and in a sense we’re constantly probing our visual world, searching for meaning.

Ramachandran: That’s correct and every early stage in vision involved a segmentation of objects and discovering objects in a camouflaged environment. It’s associated with its own ‘mini Aha’, and the jolt comes back, prompts a further surge for object like entities. And what the artist does is create as many of these ‘Ahas’ to more optimally titillate the visual centres in your brain and the accompanying limbic reward than you can by looking at a natural object. So that’s why I call ‘art visual foreplay before the final climax of object recognition’.

Natasha Mitchell: It’s interesting and it’s amazing to think that artists do all this without even really knowing they’re doing it. Art, you are suggesting there, exploits what is really a close wiring between the visual parts of our brains and the emotional parts of our brains.

In fact you’ve done some fascinating work with different patients for whom that connection is compromised in some way. Can you give me some examples there?

Ramachandran: Well we haven’t specifically worded on patient’s reactions to art but I can tell you that there are patients with epileptic seizures who we think have a process called ‘kindling’ where the sensory input and its links to the emotional limbic core of the brain are heightened. And this may give them a heightened appreciation of colour space or a heightened appreciation of form. And some of these people suddenly start writing poetry or in the case of Van Gough producing beautiful colourful paintings. And I think his epileptic seizures may have actually contributed to his empathy for colour, and his ability to portray these gorgeous colours in his paintings.

And also there are people with what we call Capgras syndrome who have a disconnection between vision and emotion. So things they look at don’t evoke emotions anymore and we have had people say that things which used to be pretty, like flowers, are a bit bland, are no longer pretty. And therefore you may be seeing a derangement in these very connections which I’m talking about which are involved in producing those multiple mini ‘Aha’s’ creating a aesthetic experience.

Natasha Mitchell: I guess people with Synaethesia, back to them for example have a sort of heightened ability, to create or generate or experience metaphor.

Ramachandran: Absolutely.

Natasha Mitchell: And your sense is that their unusual capacity has bigger implications, they might even offer a window into the nature of thought and of language in all our brains.

Ramachandran: That is correct. I mean as I mentioned in the Deakin Lecture the other day it turns out that…. I just explained that Synaethesia was caused by cross activation. This could be actual wires, new wires which do exist in them which don’t exist in us – people who are not gifted who don’t have synaethesia - or it could be disinhibition of pre-existing connections right. Now why does this happen, why does the cross activation happen. It turns out synaethesia runs in families so there may be a gene mutation that causes excess connections between adjacent brain regions. Why would that be? Well it turns out all of us are born with excess connections connecting everything to everything in the brain. I mean that’s an overstatement.

Natasha Mitchell: And they get pruned as we grow.

Ramachandran: And then they get pruned to create the modules in the adult brain. Now if that pruning gene is defective, or the gene that allows inhibitory insulation between adjacent brain regions is defective then you’re going to get spontaneous cross activation or cross wiring between number and colour.

Ramachandran: I believe the gene is selectively expressed in the fusiform you get this quirk called ‘number colour synaethesia’. But now what if the gene were expressed everywhere? Now here comes the punch line. It turns out synaethesia’s eight times more common among artists, poets and novelists and this is something that we have also confirmed in our lab but nobody knew why and nobody even suggested why this might be.

We were suggesting if the same gene is expressed throughout the brain instead of just in the fusiform gyrus, you’re going to get a more cross wired brain, you’re going to get a great propensity towards metaphorical thinking. Linking seemingly unrelated conceptual realms, like when you say “ It is the east and Juliet is the sun”. OK Juliette is…

Natasha Mitchell: Clearly not the sun…

Ramachandran: Not the sun.

Natasha Mitchell: But your suggestion is in fact we’re all closet synaethetes to an extent.

Ramachandran: To an extent we were actually synaethetes as children and we retain residual synaethetic propensities as adult and this gene varies in the population, in its frequency and there are some outliers who have more synaethesia than others, and they are the ones we call artistic types, people who are artistic, or poetic, or people who are creative in the sciences. Now somebody asked me the other day, ‘well how come if the gene is so good and makes us all creative, how come we don’t all have it?’

Natasha Mitchell: And it’s not a single gene necessarily we should add.

Ramachandran: Not necessarily a single gene maybe a small subset of them. But the reason we don’t all have it – well first of all evolution takes time maybe one day we will all have it and that’ll be a good thing. And secondly it may not be a good thing for everybody to be poetic and artistic. If you have a neurosurgeon doing surgery in your brain you don’t want a creative neurosurgeon, you want him to stick to the….

Natasha Mitchell: Well they need to be creative within their bounds don’t they.

Ramachandran: Exactly. You want some people to think outside… some outliers who are creative, and that’s why the gene has the frequency that it does.

Interesting stuff...one other thing I came to the conclusion about (in my own clumsy way) is that the brain actually "sees" things in black & white...why ?...well, experiments into synthetic image interpetation, as in AI, seem to point this way - but also because our relationship to text over the image indicates that the brain is more adapted to a lack of colour - or rather that colour works at a more superficial level, and the brain actually requires shades of light and dark in order to interpret the world...

..why is it that we think a B/W film is somehow better than one made in colour ? - or that it appeals to the intellect ?? - (even a B/W Godzilla film is somehow a classic ...)

When did we evolve from pictograms to language, as in type and symbols and why do these communicate more effectively than images, which can do the same thing..?

The image, as in painting or film has evolved into a language - this language can involve or be common or it can develop into one which excludes or seems obscure to the viewer - the general public for example , can say that they do not "understand" modern art, but then it frequently only communicates to a select band who understand the language - rather like the visual equivalent of Sanskrit...

Why drag this into a debate about comics & animation - well, comics , like film can be seen as a common visual language which is accessible to most people - and this is perhaps a clue to the success of Manga - it's been said before that literacy in Japan is low compared to other countries, and that Manga bridges that gap by using the visual form - no need to learn a complex, even for the average Japanese person - language with zillions of characters...

“..why is it that we think a B/W film is somehow better than one made in colour ? - or that it appeals to the intellect ?? - (even a B/W Godzilla film is somehow a classic ...)”

The simple explanation is that, while watching a color film, the brain has a lot of information to process. (Visual tasks take a tremendous amount of resources in our brain)On the other hand in a black and white film the brain need not spend resources, to say for example, assigning meaning to the color of a character’s eyes, the color of the shirt he/she wears etc. Therefore the emotion of the characters, the acting, and facial expressions, forms and geometry are better analyzed by the brain and gives an artistic feel to the film.

A color painting like that of a Mona Lisa is different from a color film. The brain doesn’t need to use a lot of resources as in perceiving motion and ever-changing pictures in a motion picture. There fore B/W films have less diversions and are better at conveying the “acting” and forms in the film.

DO YOU HAVE SYNESTHESIA?

Read this speech to know more about color, numbers, sound and the universal principles of art, which is worth quoting here:

Synesthesia and the Universal Principles of Art
Speaker: V. S. Ramachandran, MD, PhD
University of California, San Diego

HIGHLIGHTS

•Synesthesia may be more common among artists and poets than in other people, and at least one form of synesthesia arises from cross-wiring between the color center and the number areas of the brain.

• Studying synesthesia and other "quirks" of the brain can yield insights into the biology of metaphorical thinking, language, and other fundamental brain activities.

•Universal principles may govern our appreciation for art, and these principles may have underlying evolutionary significance.

THE MINGLING OF NEUROSCIENCE AND ART:

V. S. Ramachandran, a neuroscientist based at the University of Calilfornia, San Diego, offered two mini-presentations, one on the neurobiology of a sensory eccentricity called synesthesia and another on the universal principles that govern our appreciation for art.

Synesthesia is defined broadly as a mingling of the senses. People with the condition may see a color when they look at a number, or hear a tone when they see a color. First described in the 1800s, synesthesia has long been dismissed by neuroscientists as a quirk that occurs in a few individuals. The condition has variously been ascribed to drug use, residual memories from childhood, the overuse of metaphor, or a belief that synesthetes are just plain crazy.
None of those explanations is satisfactory, said Ramachandran. The fact that drugs exacerbate synesthesia could in fact suggest that it is caused by a mechanism in the brain. The "memories-from-childhood" theory fails to explain why synesthesia is hereditary. Couching synesthesia in terms of metaphoric thinking doesn't get you very far because we don't understand how the brain produces metaphors. "In science, you can't explain one mystery with another mystery," he said.

THE SCIENCE BEHIND SYNESTHESIA

Ramachandran and his colleagues have discovered that synesthesia is a sensory phenomenon with a definable neuronal basis. They conducted clinical tests on synesthetes that conclusively ruled out the possibility that synesthetes were simply "making it all up." He found that the condition is far more common than originally thought, occurring in perhaps one out of every 100 people. Studying this condition may yield insights into how the brain functions, he said.

"Synesthesia may give an experimental foothold for understanding more elusive aspects of the mind, such as what is a metaphor."

Synesthesia may give an experimental foothold for understanding more elusive aspects of the mind.To uncover the neurological basis of synesthesia, Ramachandran and his colleagues tested synesthetes who see numbers as having distinct colors—5 might be identified as red, or 6 as green. When nonsynesthetes looked at numbers, the only area of the brain activated was the area that processes numerical symbols. However, when a synesthete viewed a number, the area that processes color, known as V4, lit up too. Both the number area and the color area are located next to each other in a part of the brain called the fusiform gyrus. "These people appear to have some accidental cross-wiring so that when they see a number it activates the color area."

For these types of synesthetes, termed "lower synesthetes," it is the numerical figure, or grapheme, that triggers the color, not the numerical concept. A Roman numeral "five" (V) has no color, Ramachandran and his team discovered. That fits with the cross-wiring theory, he said, because the grapheme, not the higher numerical concept, is what is represented in the fusiform gyrus.

Another piece of evidence for the cross-wiring theory comes in the discovery of a color-blind synesthete. Because of a disorder in the eye's color-detecting receptors, this individual could not see the colors of the real world. Due to cross-wiring, however, he could see colors in his mind's eye whenever he looked at numbers.
Ramachandran believes there may be a genetic basis to cross-wiring because synesthesia runs in families. It may be, he hypothesized, that something goes wrong with a gene that governs pruning of neurons during fetal development, although this has yet to be proven. Synesthesia is eight times more common in artists, poets, and novelists. Is it possible that the cross-wiring in their brains makes them more prone to metaphorical thinking?

HIGHER SYNESTHETES

Not all synesthetes see graphemes as colors. Some see days of the week or months of the year as having colors. There may be a region of the brain responsible for abstract sequences, and it may be that this area is cross-wired with the color region. Crucially, in these "higher synesthetes," it is the numerical concept, not the grapheme, that induces color.

Synesthesia offers a window on how the brain functions in typical people. We all have synesthetic properties, Ramachandran suggested. Synesthesia-like abilities may allow us to relate two seemingly different aspects, such as shape and sound. In one experiment, Ramachandran and his colleagues showed that people associate round-shaped letters with undulating sounds such as in the nonsensical word booba and angular letters with sharp sounds such as in the word kikki. This cross-modality abstraction indicates, said Ramachandran, only perhaps half in jest, that

"we are all synesthetes but we are in denial about it."

What is the purpose of associating rounded images with undulating sounds, and angular figures with sharp sounds? After all, said Ramachandran, the images are just a bunch of photons hitting the eye, whereas sound is simply the excitation of hair cells in the ear. The tongue is a muscle. These things appear to have nothing in common, he said.

Yet our brains can perform cross-modality abstractions instantaneously, combining sound, vision, and other sensory inputs. Research shows that these inputs are processed in the angular gyrus, a part of the brain that may be involved in the coordination of physical activity, such as tree climbing, which would have been essential for survival during our evolutionary past.
Ramachandran theorized that once the angular gyrus developed, humans started to use it not only for tree climbing but for abstract thought. People with defects in the angular gyrus experience problems with arithmetic and are horrible with metaphors, said Ramachandran. "These are people with intact comprehension, but they cannot understand [a phrase like] 'all that glitters is not gold,'" he said.

THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF ART

Turning to what he called the more speculative part of his talk, Ramachandran ventured a list of universal principles that he believes define what art "is." These principles transcend cultural boundaries and tap into behavioral tendencies with roots deep in our evolutionary past. His list of "laws of aesthetics" consists of nine elements, of which he described three in the remainder of his talk.

• Peak shift
• Grouping
• Contrast
• Isolation
• Perceptual problem solving
• Symmetry
• Visual rhythm / repetition
• Balance and harmony
• Metaphor

Bronze sculptures from the Chola period in India a thousand years ago are revered because they express the epitome of feminine poise and grace, charm and sensuality. But the Victorian art historians of the 19th century judged the statues appalling because they were not realistic: the waists were too narrow, the breasts too big, the posture provocative. But art has nothing to do with realism, said Ramachandran: "It is about producing pleasing effects in the brain."
Yet an artist cannot simply randomly distort a human figure and expect to generate a pleasing result. There appear to be some principles that cut across cultural boundaries.

"Art has nothing to do with realism. It is about producing pleasing effects in the brain."

One of these principles, he suggested, is that exaggerated forms invoke a greater response than the natural form. This phenomenon may be explained by studying animal behavior. If a rat learns that a rectangular shape connotes that he will soon be fed, he is likely to prefer shapes that are even more rectangular, longer, and skinnier. This "peak shift" is used in art to create caricatures. Take Nixon's craggy brow and big nose, amplify them, and the result looks more like Nixon than he does! Similarly, the Chola artists of India amplified certain aspects of the female form, such as the curves and posture.

Animal behavior studies may also shed light on how to explain how peak shift can account for the appeal of abstract art. Herring-gull chicks are born with the urge to peck at the red beak of their mother to beg for food. But research by Niko Tinbergen has shown that if a stick with red stripes is substituted for the beak, the chicks peck even more insistently for the food. The striped stick appears to hyperactivate the chick's neurons even more than a red beak. Ramachandran thinks the same thing happens with abstract art. These works carry clues that activate subconscious emotions of evolutionary significance. "Human artists, through trial and error, intuition and genius, have discovered the figural primitives of human vision," said Ramachandran. "They are producing for your brain the equivalent of a stick with red stripes."

Another universal principle of art is the principle of isolation, commonly phrased as "less is more." Picasso's three-line drawing of a female derriere is more sensual than a Playboy pin-up, and so why would a line be more artistic than a full picture? The answer is that your visual system contains bottlenecks, said Ramachandran. You can only attend to one parameter at a time, so when you view a detailed picture your brain actually has to do more work to process it. "What the good artist is doing is saving you all that labor," said Ramachandran.

The good artist may be using these techniques quite unconsciously. It may be that certain parts of the brain are active when using different artistic techniques. For example, the part of the brain that allows the drawing of proportion may be strong in an autistic child who drew a surprisingly lifelike horse but who is mentally challenged in other ways. "What artists do through years of training, the child is able to do ... spontaneously," because he is able to isolate and focus on the most important details.

As we view art, we fall prey to another universal principle known as grouping. We seem to have an innate preference for grouping together like colors, as when you match the colors in your tie to those in your jacket, or when you match your drapes to your sofa. Similarly our brains seem to enjoy assembling parts into a whole. When you look at psychologist Richard Gregory's famous picture of a Dalmatian dog(To see Visit the URL at the end of the post), at first it looks like a bunch of splotches, then suddenly it all clicks, you glue together parts and have an "Aha!" feeling. Why do you feel such satisfaction?

Art "is visual foreplay before the final climax of object recognition."

Our penchant for grouping colors and shapes reveals much about the evolution of the brain, said Ramachandran. "Our visual system evolved to read camouflage and to segregate and find objects," he said. "If you see some patches of yellow behind green foliage, and the brain glues the patches together and discovers a lion, there is a jolt to the limbic system saying, 'Pay attention!'"

As one looks at a camouflaged image, said Ramachandran, the brain is working overtime to decipher it. Neuroscientists now know that the brain does this in an iterative fashion, providing partial solutions before arriving at a conclusion. "Art involves producing multiple visual 'Ahas!,'" said Ramachandran. "It is visual foreplay before the final climax of object recognition."

http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/main.asp?intSubSectionID=3574

VS Ramachandran has come up with about ten aestetic universals, the priciple of isolation, can explain why B/W films are better than color films in an artistic sense.

"Another universal principle of art is the principle of isolation, commonly phrased as "less is more." Picasso's three-line drawing of a female derriere is more sensual than a Playboy pin-up, and so why would a line be more artistic than a full picture? The answer is that your visual system contains bottlenecks, said Ramachandran. You can only attend to one parameter at a time, so when you view a detailed picture your brain actually has to do more work to process it. "What the good artist is doing is saving you all that labor," said Ramachandran."

All artists and non-artists, please see and listen to the full presentation of VS Ramachandran on synesthesia and universal laws of Art with slides, and images of many art works of various periods including picasso's works.

Excellent presentation. He is a good orator.

URL:

http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/ebrief/000500/presentations/ramachandran/player.html

Or click my name.

...or perhaps "colour" = emotion, as compared to light & shade = intellect or interpretation - the subtle versus the visceral...

It's worth looking at German cinema of the 20s & 30s for clues as to how ideas about perception and expressionist art filtered into the medium and provided a visual language which in turn was exported to Hollywood and in fact, early Indian cinema - working around a limitation of a lack of colour and sound to tell stories visually in a memorable way...

I always remember a shot from a Raj Kapoor film which might be seen as "iconic" - a womans face half lit so that one side is in total darkness and the other lit - what I read from this image is that we are being asked to imagine that the dark side represents her thought, or indecision - a dilemma or just the part of a person which cannot be visualised in a conventional sense - thought...either way, you wonder if it would have had as much impact if it had been in colour...

..is this what we mean when we say a scene is very "graphic"..?

"...or perhaps "colour" = emotion, as compared to light & shade = intellect or interpretation - the subtle versus the visceral..."

the interplay between light and shade heightens the artistic expressions that includes emotions, when watching a performance in film noir.

Why is that some of the greatest performances on screen is in a B/W film?

Great performances are noted for the "emotions" they can invoke in the viewers.

"color" is definetely good for certain art works. When it comes to great performances in a film, those are definetly in a b/w film. You can see a stark contrast between the performances of an artist who worked in b/w films and also acted in color films. There are many such examples in Hollywood and Bollywood.

Dear Ravi and TT

It may be something altogether simpler, when it comes to film -- acting performances -- b/w films made in the era of color are low budget, which would affect everyone's sensibilities, because they'd be closer to the realities of survival -- not buffered by a cushion of money -- lower salaries.

When you see a b/w film in a colorized version, the sense of the quality of the acting is not diminished at all. However one's own engagement with the film is. The introduction of color information actually triggers connections in an entirely different part of the brain -- please read that book mentioned in comment 32 above to see what that's about.

love, Heath

"..is this what we mean when we say a scene is very "graphic"..?"

No. If a scene is very "graphic", it means that it is very descriptive with minute details that includes color and vividness.

Probably you are hinting at the often used term "less is more" in Art, which VS Ramachandran calls "the principle of isolation".

"The answer is that your visual system contains bottlenecks, said Ramachandran. You can only attend to one parameter at a time, so when you view a detailed picture your brain actually has to do more work to process it. "What the good artist is doing is saving you all that labor""

"When you see a b/w film in a colorized version, the sense of the quality of the acting is not diminished at all. "

Not True. You are speculating too much...

Why do you think that the performance of Liam Neeson is so much better in Schindlers list, than any of his other films. That was one reason why Spielberg shot most of the film in B/W, the other reason being to have the feel of 1940's.

I looks like you're on to something good here Gotham. I like this idea and it seems many others do
too! All the best! Sask.

"When you see a b/w film in a colorized version, the sense of the quality of the acting is not diminished at all. "

"However one's own engagement with the film is. The introduction of color information actually triggers connections in an entirely different part of the brain."

Our brain perceives the picture differently. Therefore the performances are perceived differently. So are the emotions coonected to those perceptions. They cannot be exactly same.
Any Indian who had seen many b/w Indian films can easily tell the differnce in the performances of actors who played b/w roles and also color roles. I am not talking about the overall feel of the movie. I a talking specifically of the performance-- the facial expressions, the charm, the beauty and emotions of the charecters in b/w, when analysed in parts and not in overall scheme of the script.

You may contest about Liam Neeson's performnace in Schindlers list as being an unique performance due to the unique script, and the directors ability. But as a fan of Liam Neeson, I can tell the differnce, he is at a different level atltogether -- even when you analyse any particular scene in the film.

Listen to the presentation of VS. Ramachandran in Post #44, to see how perception happens in a human barin(The last slide I think). In that he illustartes the "classical view" and the "new view" about how we peceive visual information. I am not sure if the book you recommended is based on the classical view.

If you haven't seen the presentation, it is worth a look as it talks about Art, vision and the Universal principles of Art.

"Sin City" is a good example of a deliberate attempt at an aesthetic - another is the recent all CGI French film noir (whose title escapes me right now...) - both pitched at "adults" - by implication a more sophistacted audience , or at least one which decipher the symbolism of "noir"..

...neither were particularly "low budget" though I get your point, Heather...

...would an all B/W film appeal to kids ? - certainly, although commercial reasons suggest that this may not come from Hollywood - even if kids still watch and enjoy old B/W comedies, eg Laurel & Hardy.

..I'd suggest the ways in which colour is used in films aimed at kids approaches a narcotic level, as in colour influences mood more directly than B/W, which appeals to the intellect / cognitive parts of the brain...

Oh dear...

:)
R

Color is an essential ingredient in the environment from which we evolved. It communicates emotion and creates mood. Color has an emotional impact that can delight you or distress you and sets the mood for your experience.

In a b/w film, these universal feelings and subjective feelings relating to color don’t act as a distraction to the aesthetic beauty and the impact of seeing and feeling the performance of the characters. The experience could be highly emotional with the overall impact of b/w vision and sound. Color communicates emotion and mood of both negative and positive. But, “color” is not essential to feel the emotions of the characters performing in a film, and acts as a hindrance in invoking the right emotions from other primitive regions of brain than the color region of our brain. “Less is more” works wonders in film noir in conveying the emotions of the performances.

Color theory and color psychology indicates how different colors have different artistic effects on the mind.