My research in these weeks was focused on water symbolism and droplets. In the past weeks, I started reading about intentionality as I wanted to start experimenting with unexpected/uncontrollable elements within my practice. One element that could be clearly difficult to control is water as it is hard to predict the possible pattern/shape it may create when in motion.
Representation of Water in Art
Looking at water representation in art, we can see that it started very early on. For example, we can find a representation of water in the Mayan Ruins of Chichén Itzá which is dated back approximately to 600 (Coe, 1987). What we can see in the art depictions of water is the capacity of the artists to transform different patterns that may emerge when water is in motion into simplified patterns and symbols (Macagno, 1992).
In early representations, water was an element within the painting rather than being the central subject. Only in more recent paintings, has water become a central theme (Macagno, 1992). When focusing on the specific shapes that we can find in art, one of the first that emerged in paintings was the wave. This is apparent in Egyptian or even Roman art (Fig. 1). Interestingly in Roman art shapes could even adopt rectangular shapes. This is believed to happen due to the material where the waves were painted.
According to Macagno (1992) the representation of waves with wavy lines seem to be a universal feature present in many different ancient cultures which did not have any contact between them. One of the most famous representations of waves can be found in the Great Wave of Kanagwasa. Interestingly, this represents three waves in one from left to right. This is done on purpose to represent something surprising given that in Japanese reading happens in the opposite direction from right to left (Cartwright & Nakamura, 2009).
Besides waves, jet waters have also been represented in art. Jets can happen when vases tilt. A good example is the fountains. The representation was again a wavy line to represent the instability (Macagno, 1992). Vortex has also been represented in art. While some cultures represented it as spirals others as concentric circles. Interestingly, as with waves and jets, we can see how they were simplified into geometric patterns for their artistic representation. What I found interesting about this reading is the idea that water has been present in artistic representations very early on. Importantly, its representation did not have a completely figurative approach as it was kept to the symbol or the minimum features to make it identifiable. This idea of detaching water from their hyperrealistic representation and its environment seemed connected with my project as I wanted to focus on water making different shapes to change its perception.
Going back to Perception
The change of perception is still a topic that underlines my practice. In these weeks, the dominant theme is water rather than shadow casts but still the possibility of altering how water is perceived was an ambition. In terms of perception, I continued reading some books on the topic which I did not explore previously. First, I looked at Art, perception, and reality where they make an important distinction between how perception is perceived by classical theories and how it is understood by more contemporary theories. According to Gombrich et al. (1994) while classic theories assume a passive role of the beholder, more contemporary theories define perception as a skilled sequential behaviour. According to these approaches, the beholder would have a more active role since what is perceived depends on the background of the viewer and the information they may actively seek. For example, when viewers might be confronted with the images produced in these weeks if reflecting upon the technical difficulties they might appreciate the images more. This subjective perception can be affected by previous experience (Arnheim, 1974). For example, the emotional response when confronted with my images can be different depending on whether the viewers may have seen similar images of droplets in the past. According to Arnheim (1974) different interpretations of the same element will only happen if what is in the display is ambiguous enough. In other words, if the photographs are too simple it is less likely this will trigger different meanings. For example, if we think about Edward Weston’s image Pepper N. 30 (Fig. 2), this shows a unique element that may trigger a limited amount number of meanings.
Thinking about my images, if I would only depict droplets this would lead to very limited meanings. Potentially people could try to find associations in terms of shapes (e.g., this droplet reminds me to a vase). However, if more elements are introduced, water is decontextualised making it ambiguous and with the possibility of triggering different meanings. This is in fact reinforced by the fact that water in motion is captured freezing the moment decontextualising it once more.
Despite the ambiguity, both the beholder and the artists are guided by schemas (Gombrich, 2000). When we think about the process of creation, we, as artists start with schemas, that is those elements that are essential and common in a specific element or class. If we think about the representation of water in art, schemas would correspond for example to the spirals used to represent a vortex. According to Gombrich (2000), we would use these schemas to then classify our impressions.
Overall, according to these authors, the visual experience would be encapsulated in a specific time and space (e.g., Arnheim, 1974). In the case of the images I plan to take during these weeks, the visual experience would emerge by decontextualising droplets by freezing their motion (time) and by accompanying water with other elements not representative of its category (space).
The Study of Droplets
Photographing droplets is not something new. The novel stance in this project is combining droplets with other elements to achieve such decontextualisation. However, if we look back at physics and the theory of fluids, we can see how scientists had an interest in capturing droplets from very early on. The first book that was published looking at splashes was in 1895 (The splash of a drop by Worthington). This book contains over 300 experiments in which Worthington analyses the different variables that come into play to achieve different types of splashes (Fig. 3).
This book was extremely helpful to consider the different patterns and shapes that can be achieved with droplets. As we can see in Fig. 3, one of the elements that are considered is the time between drops to achieve different types of splashes and collisions. Besides time, the type of liquid and concavity of the surface are considered in the book.
Some years later, the invention of the flash allowed photographers to freeze in time processes that were imperceptible to the human eye. For example, in 1936, Harold Edgerton captured a mil drop coronet (Fig. 4) thanks to the use of high-speed photography. This allowed not only freezing water but other objects in motion such as a bullet (Deegan et al., 2007).
We can see that the image by Edgerton was comparatively cleaner and with better quality than the ones produced by Worthington. We can appreciate in fact the important role of high-speed photography and the use of flash to achieve such outcomes. This is something that I will take into account in my own images as well so that I can freeze the droplets with the best possible quality.
Final reflection for my practice
Upon reading about water representation, droplets, and perception it made me think about my own images. First, although capturing droplets is technically challenging, I do not want to photograph droplets for the sake of it. I want these possible figures (splashes, collisions, etc.) to be embedded in a different context in which we would not normally expect water to happen. Importantly, this different context along with the possibility of freezing the water in motion should leave for further decontextualisation. In this sense, I aim to freeze water shapes that could potentially look like water sculptures integrated along with other elements in a still life image. It is noteworthy that this project emerges from the previous project in which I started playing with water considering this as a material that could behave unexpectedly. Hence, the final outcomes I can potentially achieve will be staged but with an element that will happen in an unexpected way. This is aimed at creating a visual tension in which the controlled and the uncontrolled co-exist.
References
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. University of California Press.
Cartwright, J. H., & Nakamura, H. (2009). What kind of a wave is Hokusai’s Great wave off Kanagawa?. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 63(2), 119-135.
Deegan, R.D., Brunet, P., & Eggers, J. (2007). Complexities of splashing. Nonlinearity, 21, C1.
Gombrich, E.H. (2000). Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation. London: Phaidon.
Gombrich, E.H., Hochberg, J., & Black, M. (1972). Art, perception, and reality. London: JHU Press.
Macagno, M. (1993). Aqua depicta. Representation of water in art and science. La Houille Blanche, (1), 17-28.
Worthington, A. M. (1895). The splash of a drop. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Alberto Gonzalez 