Latest / Soft Ratios Research / The overlap belongs to both (on Language of Vision)

Transcript

The overlap belongs to both (on Language of Vision) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:09
  Figure: Soft Ratios Research.
• 0:12
  Ground: The voices are synthetic [pause] no act, just the thinking.
• 0:18
  Figure: Hoyd Breton, a designer at Soft Ratios Studio, teaching himself in the open [pause] which works better with a reply. [pause] If this is interesting, write a review with your thoughts.
• 0:30
  Ground: One subject at a time, twice a week [pause] Tuesday and Thursday. [pause] Today, a book called Language of Vision, and the man who wrote it.
• 0:40
  Figure: Chicago, nineteen forty-four. A book comes out — two hundred and twenty-eight pages, three hundred and eighteen pictures. A modern painting beside print advertising beside photography, many of the images presented without explanatory captions. You do much of the connecting yourself.
• 0:59
  Ground: So here's what I want to know by the end. How does a flat book — an argument built from text and pictures, many without explanatory captions — actually teach a person to see? And what kind of person believes that's even possible?
• 1:17
  Figure: The title is the claim. Language of Vision. The argument is that seeing is a language — that it has a grammar you can learn, and that most people never learned it. The man who wrote it is Gyorgy Kepes, a Hungarian painter who worked with Moholy-Nagy in Berlin and London, then followed him to Chicago's New Bauhaus. Eleven years later a historian named Frederick Logan called it the most influential single volume in art education in the nineteen forties and early fifties. Thirteen printings. Four languages.
• 1:50
  Ground: I want to slow down on the word language, because that's the thing that either holds or it doesn't. When you say a picture has grammar, I can feel roughly what you mean. But grammar is fixed. Nouns here, verbs there. Is he saying there's a dictionary of shapes? That a circle means one thing the way a word means one thing?
• 2:14
  Figure: No — and that's the thing he refused. Moholy, his teacher, talked about the visual elements as a well-stocked chest of tools. A dictionary. Kepes threw the dictionary out. He said meaning doesn't sit in the shape. It happens between the shapes, and it happens in you — in the act of pulling them together. His term is plastic organization.
• 2:36
  Ground: Plastic meaning—
• 2:38
  Figure: Not the material. Plastic in the old sense — formative, shaping, the way we say the plastic arts. Plastic organization is the ordering of flat things — spots, lines, planes, color — into something that reads as a living whole. And the surface itself, he says, is not a neutral backdrop. It's a field of forces. A point on a page pulls. A line has what he calls kinetic inertia — it wants to keep going in the direction it's headed. Things advance and recede on a flat sheet. He borrows a phrase from Mondrian for the balance he's after — dynamic equilibrium. Balance, but the live kind, held between forces, not the dead symmetry of two matched halves.
• 3:23
  Ground: So the page pushes back.
• 3:26
  Figure: And that's the door the whole book walks through. If the surface is charged — if the eye is always pulling forces into wholes — then you can compose depth without perspective. Without the vanishing point, the single fixed eye of the Renaissance. He even brought in a semanticist to help frame it — Hayakawa, whose introductory essay was called 'The Revision of Vision.' The pitch was that sight is a kind of communication, and like any language it can be cleaned up, corrected, taught. That's the ambition. Not a studio manual. A theory of perception with a social job to do.
• 4:05
  Ground: Give me the cleanest example. The one thing that, if I got it, I'd have the book.
• 4:10
  Figure: Page seventy-seven. Take two shapes and overlap them. Where they cross there's a shared patch. Now — this is the whole move — let both shapes claim that patch. Both own it at once. Kepes says you've just created a contradiction of spatial dimensions. Which one is in front? You can't say. So the eye does something strange to resolve it: it lets the shapes go transparent. They interpenetrate — his word — without destroying each other.
• 4:38
  Ground: Transparent like glass.
• 4:40
  Figure: That's the trap, and the whole later argument turns on it. Not transparent like glass. He's explicit. Transparency here implies more than an optical characteristic — it implies a broader spatial order. It means a simultaneous perception of different spatial locations. The overlapped patch reads now as the nearer shape, now as the farther one. It fluctuates. Space doesn't just recede — it flickers, alive, back and forth, and never settles.
• 5:14
  Ground: That flicker — stay with it. It's the part you can feel in your body, and it's easy to talk past. [pause] Your eye isn't confused there. It's held. You're getting two true readings at once, and neither one loses. [pause] Most of what we look at resolves. You glance, it settles, you move on. This refuses to settle — and the refusal is the pleasant part. [pause] You'd think a picture that won't resolve would nag at you, like a name on the tip of your tongue. Instead it keeps you there. [pause] And I think that's the real discovery under all the theory. Not a rule about shapes. A feeling — that a made thing can hold you in two places at once and make that a place you'd choose to stay.
• 6:04
  Figure: And he'd say that holding is the meaning. Not decoration on top of the meaning — the meaning itself.
• 6:11
  Ground: So who picked this up and ran with it?
• 6:13
  Figure: Two men in Texas. Colin Rowe, an architect who'd studied under Rudolf Wittkower, and Robert Slutzky, a painter who'd studied under Josef Albers. Around nineteen fifty-five, fifty-six, they write an essay — Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal. It gets rejected; the Architectural Review turns it down, among others. It finally runs in a journal called Perspecta in nineteen sixty-three. It opens by listing terms like transparency, space-time, simultaneity and interpenetration, then credits Kepes with an especially useful definition of transparency and quotes page seventy-seven. Word for word.
• 6:55
  Ground: They took the definition whole.
• 6:57
  Figure: Every word of it. And then they did the thing he didn't do. They split it. Literal transparency, they said, is a material fact — actual glass, actual wire mesh, you can see through it. Phenomenal transparency is the other thing, the read, the implied — the flicker you get in a Cubist canvas, or on the face of a Le Corbusier building where planes seem to lie in front of and behind each other at once. And here's the move that matters: they turned it into a verdict.
• 7:26
  Ground: A verdict how?
• 7:27
  Figure: Kepes gave a perceptual principle. A description of what eyes do — neutral, in a sense; it happens whether the picture is good or bad. Rowe and Slutzky made phenomenal transparency a mark of quality. If your building had it, it was high modern architecture. If it only had the literal kind — the glass — it was the lesser thing. They took a fact about seeing and made it a way to rank buildings.
• 7:53
  Ground: That bothers me more than it seems to bother you. A description that becomes a standard of taste has quietly stopped being a description. Kepes says: here's what happens when shapes overlap. They say: and if it happens in your work, your work is better. That's a smuggle. Where in Kepes is the part that says the flicker is good?
• 8:16
  Figure: It isn't there in those words — the value is theirs, granted. But I'd push on smuggle, because Kepes wasn't neutral either, and that's the part people miss. The whole book has a stake. He thought the fluctuating image, the one that makes you integrate, was better for you than the passive one that hands you a finished view. He wanted an active eye because he wanted an active citizen. So they didn't invent the value out of nothing. They narrowed it — from what's good for a society down to what's good for a building. They kept the judgment and dropped the reason for it.
• 8:51
  Ground: That's the part I can live with. They kept the verdict and threw away the ethics that earned it.
• 8:58
  Figure: Which is the moment to ask the real question of this whole thing. We've been talking about a man who believed retraining the eye could re-integrate a broken society — that seeing better could make people better. That's a beautiful, enormous claim. So where did he learn to make images that won't resolve? What was he actually doing with figure and ground and the laws of grouping?
• 9:21
  Ground: You've got a face on this. Say it.
• 9:24
  Figure: During the war he ran a camouflage class. The Chicago School of Design, the early forties. Moholy filmed it — there's a nineteen forty-three film, Work of the Camouflage Class. And camouflage is the same science running backwards. [pause] Here's what's underneath it. His grouping laws come straight from Gestalt psychology — Max Wertheimer, who in nineteen twenty-three named the things that make the eye bundle separate marks into one figure. [pause] Proximity. Similarity. Good continuation — a line wants to be read as continuing. Closure — we close a broken outline into a whole. Those are the laws that let you see a ship as a ship. [pause] Camouflage exploits the same broad science in another way, especially by disrupting continuity and closure. Dazzle painting wasn't meant to make a ship invisible. It breaks the outline so the enemy can't reliably read its shape, heading, speed, or range. [pause] You take the laws that build a figure, and you use them to shatter one.
• 10:22
  Ground: So the transparency that won't resolve, and the warship you can't resolve, come from the same broad science.
• 10:31
  Figure: Transparency sustains two spatial readings [pause] dazzle breaks an outline so the target is harder to read.
• 10:39
  Ground: I want to be careful not to make this cheaper than it is, because there's an easy version of this thought and it's wrong. [pause] The easy version is: aha, the redemptive seeing was really weaponized seeing all along, gotcha. I don't buy that. A trick isn't good or evil — the eye does what the eye does, and the same fact about closure serves the painter and the camoufleur making the ship harder to read. [pause] What unsettles me is the institutional continuity. He moves from teaching students to break an outline for wartime camouflage to arguing that better seeing could help repair society. The record here doesn't tell us how he experienced that tension.
• 11:29
  Figure: Or the war was just a job, and the book was the belief.
• 11:33
  Ground: Maybe. But then the belief has a convenient blindness built into it.
• 11:38
  Figure: Which is exactly where a scholar named John Blakinger lands. His book — Undreaming the Bauhaus, twenty nineteen — is the hard reassessment. Kepes goes to MIT in nineteen forty-six, stays until the seventies, and in nineteen sixty-seven he founds the Center for Advanced Visual Studies. The dream is artists and scientists in one room. He called it interthinking. Interseeing. Beautiful words.
• 12:06
  Ground: And the funding?
• 12:07
  Figure: That's Blakinger's knife. The center leaned on MIT's defense apparatus. Kepes met with the head of the Instrumentation Lab — the missile-guidance people. He visited Lincoln Laboratory — radar. The center's big project, Explorations, drew sponsors like Raytheon and General Electric, firms building ballistic-missile work with the other hand. And back in nineteen fifty-six he'd published a book, The New Landscape in Art and Science, full of gorgeous images — X-ray, microscope, sonar, stroboscope, infrared — hung next to modern paintings as one shared new beauty. Many of the scientific images he aestheticized originated in weapons research. Blakinger's question is whether that humanized technology or supplied military research with a humanistic gloss.
• 12:56
  Ground: And Blakinger's verdict is—
• 12:58
  Figure: He won't give one, and that's the honest part. He names two readings and refuses to pick. One: Kepes was a humanistic gloss on an inhumane institution — the pretty face that let it feel civilized. Two: he was genuinely trying to turn technology from the inside, to bend it toward something human. His phrase for what Kepes became is the artist as technocrat. And he leaves the ambiguity standing on purpose, because it doesn't resolve.
• 13:28
  Ground: It flickers.
• 13:30
  Figure: Now as the closer figure, now as the further one — his own words about the overlap, turned back on the man.
• 13:37
  Ground: Did anyone say this to his face at the time?
• 13:40
  Figure: One person, hard. Sibyl Moholy-Nagy — Moholy's widow, an architectural historian in her own right, so not an outsider. Someone from inside the family. In a letter dated the fifteenth of March, nineteen sixty-five, three pages, she goes after him. She says he eulogizes the very century whose devastation he claims to mourn. And then the line: get out of MIT and Cambridge as fast as you can to save your soul.
• 14:10
  Ground: That isn't a review. That's someone trying to pull him out.
• 14:14
  Figure: From someone who'd known him for decades. A year later, another letter — she calls the big Vision plus Value volumes he was editing book puzzles. Then, in the same breath, she grants that his paintings show a gift for original vision you'd never guess from the books. So even the attack admits the eye was real. She wasn't doubting he could see. She was doubting where he'd parked it.
• 14:39
  Ground: Then let me push on the softest thing in the whole book, because we keep coming at it and never landing. He says this visual language is universally intelligible — that it speaks to the literate and the illiterate alike. Everyone, everywhere, reads it the same. That's the claim that lets the redemption work, isn't it. If seeing is universal, then teaching everyone to see better could actually knit a fractured world back together. But it's also just — not true. Is it.
• 15:17
  Figure: Defend it for a second before you bury it. There's a real thing under it. Some grouping tendencies, including closure and proximity, are widely observed. But they are tendencies, not proof that visual perception is identical across cultures. So the base isn't nothing.
• 15:34
  Ground: The base is the eyeball, sure. But he doesn't stop at the eyeball. [pause] He jumps from humans group nearby marks all the way to this picture means the same thing to everyone. That jump is the whole con. [pause] Because what a picture means is never just what the eye does with it. A Cubist canvas doesn't mean freedom — or carry the same cultural significance — to someone who was never handed the frame that makes Cubism legible. [pause] He mistook his own education for human nature. The grouping is a tendency, not a universal law. The meaning is a room he grew up in and forgot had walls.
• 16:21
  Figure: I'll concede most of that. The universalism is the dated part — it brackets culture and history and calls what's local human. What I'd keep is smaller and harder to shake: the level where it's almost true is the level where it's almost useless. Nobody was fractured over whether a line continues. They were fractured over what the lines meant. And there his universal language had a mother tongue, and it was European modernism.
• 16:50
  Ground: So the weakest claim is the one carrying the most weight. Pull it, and the redemption comes down.
• 16:56
  Figure: And what's left standing is the craft.
• 16:59
  Ground: So what actually survived him? Not the promise — the promise you just talked me out of.
• 17:05
  Figure: The eye survived. And it survived through a person, which is the part I like. Muriel Cooper. She turned up at MIT's publications office in nineteen fifty-two and worked alongside Kepes there. She becomes the first design director of the MIT Press — she's the one who designed the Bauhaus book, and Learning from Las Vegas. And in the mid-seventies she starts something called the Visible Language Workshop.
• 17:32
  Ground: Visible language — the name certainly echoes Kepes's project.
• 17:37
  Figure: It's the same idea grown up. In nineteen eighty-five the workshop becomes one of the founding research groups of the MIT Media Lab. And her last work — she was flying through type. Letters and words arranged in a deep space you could move around inside, near and far, the words themselves advancing and receding. You can read it as extending his dynamic-field premise — the picture plane as a field of forces, except now the plane has depth and you're standing in it. She taught the next ones — John Maeda, Lisa Strausfeld. When she died she was the first woman to hold tenure at that lab. Her collaboration with Kepes is documented. But a direct line from page seventy-seven is an interpretation, not a documented handoff.
• 18:23
  Ground: And the lines that aren't documented — the ones people love to draw?
• 18:28
  Figure: Two worth naming as kinship and nothing more. Karl Gerstner, in Switzerland, published Designing Programmes twenty years after Kepes — the idea that a designer builds a rule, a programme, that generates a whole family of solutions. It rhymes, because both refuse taste-by-whim, both want an order that isn't arbitrary. But Gerstner's order lives on the page, procedural, almost a recipe. Kepes's order lives in perception, in the eye doing the work. Same question — how does order become non-arbitrary — two different answers. Kinship, not influence.
• 19:09
  Ground: And the other one.
• 19:11
  Figure: The Japanese idea of the charged interval — the active emptiness, the space between that isn't empty at all. Kepes's fluctuating plane rhymes with it hard. He once hung a Japanese landscape beside a photograph of ink blooming in water, so he heard the echo himself. But the temperaments are opposite. That interval prizes subtraction, stillness, the pause. Kepes prizes tension, interpenetration, the flicker that won't sit down. Both refuse a dead decorative surface — from opposite ends. A rhyme, not a road between them.
• 19:48
  Ground: Here's what I keep landing on. He built the perfect image for his own problem and couldn't see that he had. Two shapes, one shared patch, both claiming it, and the eye refusing to say which is on top — and that's him. The camouflage teacher and the mender of a broken world, overlapping in one man, and neither reading cancels the other.
• 20:11
  Figure: The whole time we've been trying to decide which Kepes is in front. And the book he wrote says: stop. That's the wrong question. The patch belongs to both.
• 20:21
  Ground: And it doesn't stop flickering.
• 20:25
  Figure: It doesn't. You can learn everything about him and it still won't resolve — and by his own account, that isn't a failure of the picture. That's the picture working.
• 20:35
  Ground: What if the honest picture of a person is the one that refuses to resolve — and the moment we decide which half is really them, we've stopped seeing them?