Using Optical Illusions to Enhance Projection Design for Live Performance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USING OPTICAL ILLUSIONS TO ENHANCE PROJECTION DESIGN FOR LIVE PERFORMANCE A thesis submitted to the Kent State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors by Tiffanie T. Chau-Dang May 2020 Thesis written by Tiffanie T. Chau-Dang Approved by ________________________________________________________________, Advisor _________________________________________, Director, School of Theatre & Dance Accepted by ____________________________________________________, Dean, Honors College. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ……..…..…………………………………………………..…….. viii LIST OF TABLES ……..…………………………………………………………....…… x ACKNOWLEDGMENT ……………………………....…………………………..……. xi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………..…………….……..……. 1 II. SIGHT & OPTICAL ILLUSIONS …………………...…….…..……….. 2 Ambiguity …………………………..……………………………...…….. 4 Distortion ……………………………..………………………………...... 7 Paradox …………………………..………………....……………...…….. 9 Fiction ……………………………..…………………….....………...…. 10 III. EXAMPLES OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS USED IN LIVE PERFORMANCE ……………………………………………………… 11 Pepper’s Ghost ......……………..…………....…………………....…….. 11 Illusions in Dance …………………...………..…….....…………........... 12 Forced Perspective in Film ....….…………………………...………….... 13 IV. PROJECTIONS & INTERACTIVITY …………...……...…….…..…... 15 Projected Scenic Elements ..………..…………………………................ 15 V. INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY …………...……...…….…..……….. 17 ii i Motion Tracking …………..………………....……………………....…. 17 Arduinos ………………..…………….…....…………….....…………... 20 VI. APPLICATION TO A DANCE PIECE ………………………….…… 22 VII. CONCLUSION ……….…………………………………….….….…… 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………...…..... 25 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Young Woman/Old Woman ...………………………………...……….…...…… 5 2. Necker Cube …………………………………………………..…………..…...... 6 . 3. Ames Distorted Room Illusion (DRI) ...…………….………..………….....…… 7 4. Muller-Lyer Arrows ………….…………………………..…………………….... 8 5. Movement in Squares by Bridget Riley ..…...……….…………………...…..….. 9 6. Kanizsa Triangle …………………....…....……………………...……………... 10 7. Pepper’s Ghost …………………...………………………………...…………... 11 8. Holographic Image of Michael Jackson at the 2014 Billboard Music Awards ... 11 9. M.L. Fuller, U.S. Patent 518347 ….....…....……….…………………......…..… 12 10. M.L. Fuller, U.S. Patent 513102 …....…....…………………………...………... 12 11. Recreation of Loie Fuller’s Fire Dance from “The Dance” ………..….............. 13 12. Behind the Scenes of Lord of the Rings ………………………………...…........ 14 13. Forced Perspective in Lord of the Rings ………………………..………...…..... 14 14. Growing Tree to Show Passage of Time ………………………………………. 16 15. Scenes from Omote ….....…....…………………..…………………...…..…..… 18 16. Detecting IR Light in Isadora …....…....…………………………………...…... 18 17. Capturing Motion in Isadora Using an Xbox Kinect Sensor ………………...… 19 18. Scenes from Apparition ……………………………..…………......…………... 20 v 19. SPACEFILLER Shoe Platform ……………………………..…………......…... 21 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Richard Gregory’s Classification of Illusions ……...………………………………. 4 2. Reflectance of Transparent/Semi-Transparent Materials ………………………….. 22 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Nicholas Drashner, who supported me through the many iterations this project went through. You introduced me to the work of projections design two years ago and for that I will be forever grateful. I would also like to express my gratitude to my thesis defense committee members Asst. Prof. Tamara L. Honesty, Asst. Prof. Gregory King, and Dr. Brett Tippey. To Donald and Anne Palmer, who endowed the Palmer Honors Research Scholarship, this project would not have been possible without your generosity. To Sarah Mattison, thank you for your endless support and willingness to proofread my work. To my friends and family, thank you for your encouragement during this process. Lastly, I would like to thank all the teachers, medical personnel, essential workers, and all others who are working hard to keeping the world turning during the Covid-19 Pandemic. viii 1 I. Introduction Even though there are no records of optical illusions being studied until Epicharmus’ work in the 5th century B.C., evidence of their application in art can be traced back to the cave paintings of the Paleolithic Era. It is impossible to assign a specific date to the creation of illusions because they are not merely inventions, but a reflection of geometric forms seen in nature. This paper begins with an analysis of different optical illusions based on Richard Gregory’s research. It then looks at how illusions have been used in performance in the past, how projections can support commonly used optical illusion methods, and how we can use projections to incorporate interactivity into live performance. The aforementioned information is then used to help inform decisions regarding the application of projections to a choreographed dance piece. In this section, several different projection surface options are also discussed. Being able to use projections as a medium and output allows for many new paths of artistic exploration, but along with this opportunity comes the need to determine how the technology can have the most meaningful impact. 2 II. Sight & Optical Illusions Richard Gregory, a British psychologist, is known for his work during the mid- 1900’s regarding cognitive psychology (the study of mental processes) and how it relates to perception. In his journals, he “denies that (sight) is controlled (exclusively) by stimuli” and emphasizes “the importance of general background knowledge and logical thought process” (4). His studies on how perception is a dynamic process which allows the brain the ability to “fill in the blanks” and make predictions based on the previously mentioned factors, is now the most accepted theory among present day cognitive psychologists. It is believed that this ability was developed as a survival instinct and continues to bring “richness to vision”. The downside of this is that sometimes our brains can confuse what we see (perceived appearances) and what we know/believe (accepted realities). Hermann Von Helmholtz, a German polymath, psychologist, and physicist, states that “visual perceptions (and perceptions in general) are predictive, never entirely certain, hypotheses of what may be out there” (5). Gregory also refers to perceptions as hypotheses, that are susceptible to distortion, paradoxes, or fictions. These errors and inconsistencies are what create illusions. In his journal article for the Australian Journal of Psychology, titled “Perceptual Illusions”, Peter Wenderoth defines “illusions (as) discrepancies between reality and 3 perception which occur as a result of normal sensory functioning and which are as yet unexplained” (147). Gregory takes this idea one step further and creates a detailed taxonomy which separates physical and cognitive illusions into separate classes. He also briefly mentions physiological illusions and how they fall somewhere between the physical and cognitive. Physical illusions are typically caused by either a disturbance of light between objects or disturbances of neural signals between objects and the retina. Cognitive illusions deal with the incorrect application of the Gestalt Laws and misleading knowledge of the objects. Gestalt, meaning “configuration” or “pattern”, is a school of psychology founded by German scientists in 1920. They were the first to document empirical research regarding perception and believed in the idea that perception is greatly influenced by context clues because “a grouping of elements such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (3). Gregory breaks each of these classes down further by sorting each group based on what kind of illusion is exhibited. These subcategories are ambiguities, distortions, paradoxes, and fictions. In his taxonomy, “class” refers to the explanation of how the illusions are caused and “kind” refers to the nature of the response (3). Wenderoth points out that the taxonomy surrounding illusions is greatly debated among scholars. However, it is not the classes that are disputed, but rather which commonly studied illusions fall under each class. This brings us back to the definition of an illusion as an unexplained discrepancy in our normal sensory function. 4 Richard Gregory’s Classification of Illusions (Physical) (Cognitive) Type Optics Signals Rules Objects Ambiguity Cataract, mist, Retinal Rivalry Figure Ground Necker Cube fog (any loss of (each eye is (typically set by image quality) stimulated by Gestalt Laws) dissimilar images) Distortion Astigmatism, Cafe Wall Müller-Lyer Size-Weight Ames Room Illusion illusion. Moon (small object (Münsterberg Illusion feeling heavier than Illusion) (perception-depth) a larger object of the same weight) Paradox Looking Glass Rotating Spiral Tri-Bar, Penrose Magritte Mirror (one’s image in After-Effect Triangle (back of head seen wrong place, self in (image appears to reflected instead of two places at once) expand and face) contract) Fiction Rainbows, After-Images, Kanizsa Ink Blots, Man- Moiré Patterns Mach Bands Triangle in-the-Moon (exaggerated contrast between shades of gray adjacently placed) Ambiguity The first kind of illusion discussed by Gregory is Ambiguity, which is typically caused by loss of image quality, retinal rivalry (when each eye is stimulated separately by dissimilar images), or misinformed perception (which can be explained by the Gestalt 5 Laws). The three main Gestalt Psychology Laws are Closure (patterns of dots that “belong” will