How Relativity Screwed Things Up
We have had of late some discussion at Ricochet about art. Through links posted pursuant to that discussion it was posited that there has been in modern art a general move away from beauty, which idea got me thinking about where this trend started.
Around the turn of the twentieth century two unrelated events took place. The first started about 1870 and continued well into the twentieth century, which was the rise of impressionism in art. Impressionism takes its name from Claude Monet’s Impression, soleil levant (Impression, Sunrise).
What is important about this and other stunningly beautiful impressionistic paintings is that for the first time in art elements such as colour and motion became more important than line or definition. As can be seen in the above example forms are loosely outlined and, with the possible exception of the sun, every element is used by the artist in transmitting his impression of sunrise as a colour and not as a descriptive figure. It is, to say the least, a very idiosyncratic form of art more heavily dependent on the artist than the viewer for effect. Coincidently, the period also saw a rise of impressionistic music, which focussed on atmosphere, and impressionistic literature, which relies heavily on symbolism and association.
The second event important to the twentieth century was the publication in 1905 of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. The theory did not have an immediate impact mostly because not many in the scientific world understood it initially. To Einstein’s great disappointment, the phone did not ring after its publication. Eventually, however, its impact began to be felt, and the world slammed head-on into the concept of relative time. Although Einstein didn’t shout it from the rooftops, the constant that we had known in all our temporal dealings was no more. Science was saying to the world that the observer was vital to the measure and presentation of the greatest of all constants—time. Einstein held that if you travelled fast enough time stopped for you relative to someone who was not travelling. To this day, I don’t think we scientific peons quite get this. But, what the smartest man in the world seemed to be saying, indeed seemed to have proven, was that your facts depended on your view and my facts depended on mine.
Although not a clarion call to most, for some this lifted solipsist impression onto a pedestal from which it has yet to descend. With its white cane in hand Impressionism in paint, music, and literature, which to this point had only been tapping its way into a brave new world, now had scientific license to damn the cannon balls and barge right in. The view/viewer was what mattered. In a very empirical way Einstein, unbeknown to him, put beauty well and truly in the eye of the beholder. That there might be universal aesthetics at play mattered not one whit if the individual, the viewer, the artist, did not accept these universals. What’s more it became possible for the creator to dismiss the masses as ignorant of his overarching vision. The apotheosis of this solipsist bent surely (perhaps I should add. “Please don’t call me Shirley, given what follows.) must be deconstructionist literary theories that all but render language and authors’ intentions all but irrelevant.
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Before there was Einsteinian relativity, there was Galilean relativity (aka Galilean invariance), basically saying that "all inertial frames of reference are created equal". So to the physics geeks of the world, relativity (of some sort) is already more than 400 years old.
To a physics geek, "relativity" (in Einstein's sense) doesn't mean that "everything's relative", but something like this: what is universal is not time as an independent dimension (as Galileo and Newton thought), but the speed of light in a vacuum. In replacing one universal with another, the universe wasn't made "more relative", just the equations a bit more messy in order to take care of light-speed's upper bound.
Under Einsteinian relativity, the universe continues to obey rigorous laws irrespective of our feelings, just as it always has, only now the laws are somewhat more unified.
But, as you say, good luck getting the non-geeks to understand this. They hear "relative" in the word "relativity" and figure it's an excuse to throw a nihilistic party.
To the continued frustration of physics geeks everywhere.
Jul '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
"the smartest man in the world?"
I didn't realize George Stokes wrote the Theory of Relativity.
Jul '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Midget Faded Rattlesnake:
To a physics geek, "relativity" (in Einstein's sense) doesn't mean that "everything's relative", but something like this: what is universal is not time as an independent dimension (as Galileo and Newton thought), but the speed of light in a vacuum.
Bah. Tell that to Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen.
Aug '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Michael Tee
Midget Faded Rattlesnake:
To a physics geek, "relativity" (in Einstein's sense) doesn't mean that "everything's relative", but something like this: what is universal is not time as an independent dimension (as Galileo and Newton thought), but the speed of light in a vacuum.
Bah. Tell that to Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen. · Dec 2 at 4:22pm
As Nimtz & Stahlhofen are working at the quantum level (quantum tunneling), naturally the incompatibility of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is popping up...
Particles informing each other instantaneously over distances is a paradox under Relativity, true (info shouldn't travel faster than light-speed, which is finite), but not under Quantum Mechanics. So... I left this out of a less-than-200-word description to a layman of why physical relativity isn't the same as everything being relative.
But notice how I said that modern relativity left the laws of physics somewhat more unified -- "somewhat" not being the same as "totally"?
Nice try, but you can't fool me with this one today :-)
Edited on Dec 3, 2010 at 3:11pmJul '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
The speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant.
QED
And Einstein, for the most part, is widely overrated. I can think of at least 100 smarter people. He just had a better agent...
I'm no layman. But I am a scientist, which means I view scientific claims with skepticism, as opposed to the 'scientists' who are given to consensus science.
If were true, it would be a Law, not a Theory.
I still abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The rest, is well, the rest.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43pmJun '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Aside from capturing anti-matter at CERN, does anyone really know what's going on with quantum mechanics? Or is it just a deep well of competing theories, results, and egos, which is to say confused?
Oct '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Art and science have certainly had a long relationship!
Box cameras and impressionists appeared at almost the same time. While artists were beginning to produce work in which the painted surface was as important as the subject, photography began filling the demand for realistic images. The nearly contemporaneous development of paint tubes and portable cameras freed both artists and photographers from the studio – and empowered amateurs. Displaced by cameras, professional painting became increasingly abstract and two dimensional, a process which came to its logical reductionist end in the 1970's. Artists, and critics, have wondered in the wilderness ever since.
Einstein makes me feel less significant not more, in a universe which has moved beyond my layman’s comprehension. A juxtaposition of Einstein and the Cubists could be interesting, though. Picasso's multiple perspectives spring to mind. The Cubists were in business first, of course, but that doesn’t rule out cultural linkage. The surrealists were quite attracted to the idea of science, and scientific conceits. Salvador Dali was one of the first to make dramatic use of holograms – and open yet another artistic door. That “new” conjunction of art and technology (gene portraits!) has been fascinating to watch.
Oct '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Michael Tee:
And Einstein, for the most part, is widely overrated.
You might want to withhold judgment on that! His cosmological constant may make the mother of all comebacks.
Aug '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Michael Tee: The speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant.
QED
It's true, for example, that gravity appears to slow the speed of light (else gravitational lensing wouldn't exist). But gravity bends spacetime itself, and once this bend is taken into account, the local speed of light is still the same, and c remains c.
And you may still be awake enough to get into quantum electrodynamics (QED) tonight, but I'm not. (My limited understanding of QED, however, is that c remains c -- show me if it isn't so.)
No, I know you're not. But Cas said he was. Believe it or not, I'm trying not to get too obscure on Cas, meaning if I tell a simplifying lie that's not too big, I'm OK with that.
My physics professors "lied" to me by first teaching me that the universe was Newtonian. My math teachers "lied" to me by first teaching me that some functions "aren't integrable" when they are -- just not using Riemann integration.
So I'm "lying", too -- even in this post, I'm sure.
I can live with that.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 8:29pmOct '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
This post seems to allude on moral relativism, so I thought I'd comment.
My view on moral relativism is this: Morality is useless if a person doesn't understand it. You can teach someone your own personal view of morality, but in the end, if they disagree you should respect that--and try to provide a good example. They will learn from painful mistakes, if nothing else.
On the international front, obviously this doesn't apply. Human rights violations are human rights violations--the use of moral relativism is obscene in that sort of thing. Friendship and acceptance aren't going to cure despotic states.
Aug '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
The "relativity" underlying moral relativism has been around for as long as the written word. One of the key proponents of moral relativism, in the way that affects art, was Protagoras -- a pre-Socratic philosopher.
I am certain that the good VDH could give us several wonderful posts regarding Protagoras' legacy on philosophy and Ancient thought, as well as modern, but here are a couple of comments that could start a further discussion along the moral/artistic relativism line.
Much of the Socratic, or Platonic depending on your view of Plato's writings, experiment was to combat this kind of relativism. We could begin a discussion by reading Plato's Ion and its relation to modern artistic theory, then the Gorgias, followed by the Protagoras, the Symposium would be fun, and finish with the Timeaus.
Jun '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
It was also the new age of the machine. And to design machines is to keep going from the general to the specific. "I need this much horsepower, and this much torque, with weight limited to x, so what size and configuration engine?, what kind of heat transfer?, what size pipes?, how many bolts?, how can I standardize more parts to make it cheaper to manufacture?, etc. To design complex things, you first break it down into its simplest parts. It's not something you ever did with a draft horse.
Aug '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Correction:
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
...the incompatibility of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics...
If Michael Tee mentioned QED to remind me that special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified under QED, he is correct: it is general relativity that is still incompatible...
My apologies, M.T, for being such a liar -- as I knew I would be.
Sep '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Photography provided an opening for a new type of painting, but World War I validated that new art form. Please see:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1479657.ece
The Great War, with its incredible waste, had a larger role than science in changing social norms.
May '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Beauty is not in decline, but people's perception of what is beauty hasn't evolved. Impressionism had many influences from science, technology and art history. The new developments in the study of optical effects, color, and perception informed a lot of their work. Studying Chevreul's Law in my Color Theory class literally transformed the way I saw color. Just as linear perspective influenced art, so did atmospheric perspective. And Impressionists weren't the first to be intrigued by color and the mark of the brush (pressure, elegance, form). The Poussinistes (drawing) Vs. Rubenistes (color) had been at it for a while and I'd assert the Impressionists played for Team Rubens. The mark is still seducing contemporary painters. It still seduces me. Another important development came in 1841 with the invention of the collapsible paint tube. Preserving paint was a big issue. The advent of linseed oil-based paints extended the drying time, but your paint dried on the palette, which meant having to mix paints every day (I’ve done this. It sucks) which was time consuming and costly. It was more practical to begin paintings with an underpainting and build up layers (glazes) of rich color.
May '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
cont'd
But some of us can’t resist smearing paint on a canvas like peanut butter on bread. We love bravura strokes and alla prima too much. The collapsible tube provided a more transportable and economical palette and opportunity to paint outdoors. Oh, don’t forget developments in photography: a slice of life, cropped images, contemporary subjects. All these wonderful things were happening around them, new media, discoveries and technology to understand and process. And the music! I used show slides to my classes of Impressionist work while listening to Debussy and Cubists while we listened to Stravinsky. A whole new way of seeing. This is still happening today. If you don’t believe that in the words of John Cage, “beauty is now underfoot where ever we take the trouble to look,” you aren’t looking hard enough. Stand before a Velazquez, a Rubens, a Rembrandt. Note their brevity of stroke creating a mere suggestion of form. Your eye defines it. If anything, the Impressionists engaged with the viewer even more, inviting his eyes, his mind to mix the broken color and perceive form. They were continuing an increasingly more open dialogue with the artist and the viewer.
Oct '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Cas Balicki:
But, what the smartest man in the world seemed to be saying, indeed seemed to have proven, was that your facts depended on your view and my facts depended on mine.
I hope you're saying this facetiously.
About the only way one could interpret special relativity or Einstein's views in this way is to so water down the science as to make it meaningless or to deliberately twist it into something it is not.
It seems absurd to blame Relativity of all things.
There does seem to be this obsession however, on the part of the arts and humanities to try and justify their opinions and give them weight by posing them in the guise of having a scientific basis.
Which makes me think of the Sokal affair, where the physicist Alan Sokal submitted a paper called "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to the journal Social Text. The paper was completely made up and was written by Sokal to test the rigor of review at the postmodern Social Text and demonstrate that they would publish complete garbage as long as it supported their biases.
Oct '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Now if you wanted to "blame" a scientific theory for relativism in art, you'd be better off blaming Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (although the latter is a mathematical theorem without a "physical basis").
Like relativity, I think there is a lot of bunk that these are used to justify, but from a purely philosophical point, they are far more dangerous to notions of absolute truth. Godel's Incompleteness theorem being the most dangerous of all, particularly since it is not a "physical" theorem.
Jun '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Science does not allow us to collect a personal and unproven set of facts, that's just not on. But if we look at an example of of how a view might determine what we see, I give you two individuals one on the ground and one looking down from the bomb bay of a plane. When the bomb drops the viewer in the bomb bay sees the bomb falling in a straight line down while the individual on the ground sees the bomb falling at an approximate angle of 45 degrees (in addition to gravity acting on the bomb it is also propelled by the plane's forward velocity). This or a like observation, known since about the renaissance by the way except then the vehicle was a boat, stimulated Einstein's thinking. If I am not mistaken, Special Relativity holds that it is possible for both viewers to see what they see because time alters for the bomber (the traveller), allowing both viewers to see what they see despite the FACT that one line (the hypotenuse) of fall is significantly longer than the other.
Jun '10
Re: How Relativity Screwed Things Up
Still, when it comes to art, we are dealing mostly with the scientifically illiterate. I hope, I am not blaming anyone for anything. What I am trying to say is that we are propelled into our world view, whatever that may be, by a personal and not necessarily scientifically provable set of assumptions. Where Relativity may have a specific meaning to a physicist, it does not a layman, who might latch onto the idea of Relativity as justification for an irrational view, thought, or action. Can I prove this? No. At least not if you do not accept the many and various things people might do on the assumption that it will prolong their lives or that if black turned up on the roulette wheel in the last spin the next must surely result in red.