Painting by Alex Fraser and I don't think he gave it a name.
Unknown if he had a full vision of the result but it fascinated him after he had done it. He would show it to people and ask them to look it but obliquely so you don't look directly at the center.
Even as I type this, it is, for me, tremendously disturbing because it moves. It's bad science to reveal the outcome but, wtf, I ain't a sciencer so much as an observer.
Here's the punchline: it doesn't elicit that reaction in everyone and his theory was seeing the effect is an indicator of some type of artistry, creative drive, etc.
He was old enough at that time to find the fascination but not to push it through to a full-scale research grant. Unknown if it has been pursued by others and we're aware of completion theories, etc in psychology which may account for the mechanics but do not explain any relationship to creativity, which may or may not exist.
Side-note: someone on Fox (?), unknown where, was making a big deal out of sciencers studying what turns on a goldfish. Such rubbish! It's piffle. It's expensive rubbish!
Well, that's take another look at that, Fatuous Foxie, as there is just a wee bit more to it: (NWF: Asian Carp Threat to the Great Lakes)
The reason for studying what turns on goldfish gonads is because that may give sciencers some clue as to how to turn it off and obviate the threat.
Science, it's just not for Fox News.
No comments:
Post a Comment