7#   . @ @ @ @ J T T$ xx @  7* a  7 ( 7 7 a- 7 7 7 7 7 7 Anya Weber: Week 9 Response

Week 9 Response

Anya Weber

Interesting chapter, yet again. We're on a roll.

Here are my first thoughts on perpective, illusions, etc.:

1. Perspective illusions don't hold up under motion; it is motion that reveals them, exposes them as the illusions they are. Yet, everything we SEE is DEFINED by (our) perspective. Without perspective, we aren't seeing anything, or at least we're not understanding it. The fact that we can process the world intelligently is attributable to our ability to perceive and deal with this mosaic of impressions that rushes around us every time we look around. I find that pretty groovy.

2. If, on the other hand, we're looking at something and we start moving around it and it DOESN'T warp or change shape or distort, if it stays exactly the same as our perspective changes, then we know its fake--a painting of an arched ceiling rather than an arched ceiling, for instance. In other words, if something is static, we know its lower-dimensional. Therefore, movement seems to be the element which raises one dimension above another. I think that's pretty groovy as well.

3. But then again, if it is movement which separates dimensions, in what dimension does movement itself exist? Is it possible that movement as we define it is, itself, a perceptual illusion--a fourth- dimensional trompe l'oeil (WHOA I misspelled that maybe?)[OK now] Probably not, logically speaking, but I like that idea anyway. Has anyone ever speculated as to what dimension movement exists within?

Prof. Banchoff's comments
u& @:;CDKef|}FJ8 P-p=z!+  P &p&r9:HH(EG(HH(d'`=/R@H-:LaserWriter 8 New YorkWmE-w9.htmlThomas BanchoffThomas Banchoff