semeiotica
evolutionary design ecology

Archive for April 29, 2006

Statistical Epistasis and the Kuleshov Effect

One of the striking similarities between biological signals and artistic signals takes place at the levels of genetic and screen space organization. Genetics of course refers to the study genes and, often times, to the mutations that underly changes in their phenotypic effects. By screen space, I am referring to the movies, film, video, cinema, and even video games.

Statistical Epistasis is a phenomena observed in populations whereby the effect of a one gene is determined by the genetic background against which it is expressed. The result is that it can be difficult to predict the effect of a gene or mutation unless its interactions with other genes or loci are known. Across generations statistical associations of these interactions can develop in populatiions because there is non-randomness in the heritability of these “complexes.” This is called linkage disequilibrium in population genetics.

Simply put, the effect of element a in the array is influenced by elements b, c, or d. They must be able to freely segregate but they may become linked by their combined effect on the fitness of the system/organism. Physical linkage (i.e. directly next to each other) is possible but not necessary.

The Kuleshov Effect was observed by Lev Kuleshov around 1918 through a series of experiments done using stock footage. Kuleshov intercut an image of an expressionless man, with a bowl of soup, a girl, and a child’s coffin in turn to illustrate the effect editing could have. The audience interpreted the sequence of the man and the soup to mean that he was expressing hunger, while the man/coffin complex communicated sadness. Thee audience attributed these effects to the man’s acting- even though the same shot of the man was used for each “complex.” This was a controlled experiment: the image of the man was held constant, but the background on which it was employed changed the meaning or effect of that image.

The Kuleshov Effect is similar in that a is also affected by the influence of b, c, or d. However, b, c, or d must by physically adjacent to a in order for the effect to occur. That is, the shots must occur in sequence while for epistasis, they need not be next to each other. Nonetheless, the combined effects of the filmic interactions may select for “enhanced” or de-emphasized meaning.

Kuleshov Effect – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Epistasis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the price of metaphor: notes and afterthoughts from Lewontin’s umich talk about metaphor in biology

“the price of metaphor is eternal vigilance…”
–Arturo Rosenblueth and Norbert Wiener

if art is visual metaphor

and art who’s goal is communication

communication of scientific concepts

theory precedes the metaphor

metaphors should not be built on misunderstandings

metaphors are constantly in the process if modification

one of the concerns of scientists in creating these relationships between art and science is that artists don’t do their homework or focus on superficial aspects of the concepts, work, tools, or artifacts…

why? because often times these visual metaphors are not based on an understanding of the issues and theories…

and so research precedes construction of visual metaphors…but does experimentation and continuous rearticulation of the visual metaphors somehow push the understanding of the theory? For whom? the artists? the scientists? the public?

If the processes of artistic visual research IS going to push the articulation and understanding of scientific understanding, then it too must be transparent and available outside of the studio— as process unveiled…