Monday, February 1, 2016

Digital Means Digital

I've said it before here - I don't take "digital art" seriously at all. As a Stuckist and Remodernist, I'm all about painting and photography made on real equipment in the real world, not pixels that only inhabit the electronic imaginary fantasy-land known as The Internet.

But when on Mars, do as the Martians do. I enjoy twiddling around with MSPaint (the world's crappiest image software) to make weird little patterns out of nothing, and then tossing them aside and forgetting about them. I also employ digital techniques to treat my fine-art photography, sometimes with an eye for hyperrealism, sometimes with an eye for Glitch Art, sometimes with no eye at all.

But recently someone on that Internet thing "corrected" me to say I shouldn't be using the #digitalart hashtag on these treated photos, because in their view, digital art means only computer-generated bullshit.

No.

It's so elementary that I shouldn't even have to explain it; it should go without saying that since photography is art, a digital photo digitally altered on digital software on a digital device and dumped to a digital forum is, ipso facto, digital art. This would be obvious to anyone on any past point of the historical time-track, right up until a few years ago. I'm not going along with the new-think of commoners who have so fully assimilated the digital world into their lives that they consider it undifferentiated.

And on my pieces that appear both on the #digitalart and #nudeart hashtags, there's always an element of collage going on, even when it isn't apparent to the viewer. I'm not just slapping a filter on a photo and serving it. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Get it? Got it? Go. Oo-rah. Semper Fi. Over and out.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Invisible Terrestrial Entities

So there's this physicist from Italy, one Ruggero Santilli, who recently made a rather jaw-dropping announcement: he and his company Thunder Energies (based in Tarpon Springs, Florida) have perfected a special telescope that allows "Dark Matter" to be viewed and photographed.

Now, this in itself, if true, is a pretty big deal. And Santilli, though viewed by many as a bit fringey, is a "real" scientist with a considerable cv and pedigree; he's been published in reputable scientific journals, won legit awards, etc. So when I heard about this awhile back, my interest was piqued and I've been keenly watching their progress.

But then something happened that Santilli hadn't predicted: his telescope started picking up strange invisible things right here on Earth. Things that did not appear on the conventional telescope placed side by side with the Santilli telescope. They seem to behave intelligently yet also mechanically, says Santilli, and for lack of a better term, he calls them "Invisible Terrestrial Entities".

Cue Lovecraftian music.

The photograph above, taken by Dr. Santilli from room 775 of the Vinoy Renaissance Hotel in St. Petersburg, purports to show one of these entities as viewed in time-lapse moving in the sky above Tampa Bay. The photo below, taken on January 16 in a scan of the western night sky from Tarpon Springs, shows a different-looking but equally puzzling phenomena. The object vanished from view soon after sighted. (You can read the whole story in a PDF press release here.)

And still more images have been produced by Santilli and Thunder Energies, although they're of a more squidgy nature and not terribly edifying. They look like they could be anything, anywhere, really. But they are interesting, and I am interested.

How does this thing work? Apparently by way of a postulated anti-matter-world version of light. Let the professor explain:

"Since matter and antimatter annihilate at contact into light, as a condition for its existence at the classical macroscopic level, antimatter must have all characteristics opposite to those of matter. For instance, matter-light has a positive index of refraction while, as a condition for its existence, antimatter-light must have a negative index of refraction.

Consequently, the focusing of images of matter-light require convex lenses as occurring in the Galileo telescopes, while the focusing of images of antimatter-light requires concave lenses, as occurring in Santilli telescopes.

The above features imply that none of the refractive Galileo-type telescopes existing on Earth or in space can detect antimatter-light because they are all based on convex lenses.

Similarly, we will never see images of antimatter-light with our naked eyes because our cornea is convex, and as such, it disperses images of antimatter-light all over our retina. The sole possibility to detect images of antimatter-light is via images on a digital or film camera."

I dunno.

I am planning to make a drive up to Tarpon Springs sometime soon and drop into Thunder headquarters and see this gizmo for myself. I'll send you a copy of the report.