[A/H Series MAIN]  [AH Index]

A/H (series): Morphing (transformation)

See also: -[Translation]- (LIT entry) -[Entropy]- (mis-translation, interpreted text, etc) (as performed text) -[Translation]- (as morphing) -[Film: Fades, etc.]- (as film element) btw: it may help as your're reading this to listen Coltrane's "Greensleves Album" - "Chasin' the train". On this page: {Intro} {} {Morphing in Art} (visual properties) {Morphing properties of something} {Morphing properties via CONTEXT} {Transformation/Morphing via "Seeing"} (Seeing meaning "seer") {Abstract Morphing} {Time Morphing} {Film Morphing} {} {} {} {} {}


The concept of morphing is two-fold known: 1. Take pictures A and B 2. By "some process" turn A into B. Morph also refers to any change in form. Don't confuse with morpheus (the god of sleep; qv: -[
The Matrix]- Note that in super-hero speak the super hero (or villan, mascot, car) TRANSFORMS. I've chosen "morph" for the simple reason that when this technique became avail on computers - not using gel's or other cartoon methods. People thought we were talking about "The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers". Who were popular at the time. -[Power Rangers]- (in sf-film) In film, there is of course the fade and such which in reality transform either time or space - as such we might argue that they follow a "normal" transition/ morphing movement. On the otherhand, the possibility of being transformed is the process of living in terms of story, life, and of course travel. This reminds us of Chief Justice Oliver Wendle Holms ??sp?? comment: A mind expanded by a new idea rarely returns to its original dimensions. -- prob not an exact quote. As we mentioned before when a super-hero "transforms" from their secret identity to their "let's get down to business" form, we don't see it as "morphing". As such, the really first person to morph would have been the HULK. He doesn't transform consciously and in some cases where he wants to transform (morph) so that he can use his extra strength, he can't. Of course growth (and decay) are direct examples of morphing - or at least the "normal" passage of time. Of course, the true "morphing" occurs in such things as metamorphosis; eg, caterpiller to moth/butterfly. And of course, in terms of both theology and metaphysics the transformation involving death is the ultimate morph. We take as read the resurrection of Christ (whether that was Jesus or not), re-incarnation, and shape-shifting as examples in religion, theology, and metaphysics. And of course, in literature; eg, "Hunter S Thompson, R.I.P" in the introduction to his (finally) printed essays and articles: Saying goodby to the past on New Year's Eve.

Morphing in Art

NOTE: This section addresses ONLY the VISUAL content/properties of art things. The PROPERTIES are adressed in the next section: {
Morphing properties of something} In many cases the morphing is implied. For example, in paintings of the transfiguration of Christ or in the Annunciation of Jesus' mother angels or cherib signfy the incipient change. (see section of properties, in next section). In terms of both religion and politics, this transformation may be carried even more in-diectly by symbols. For example, the merging of the Upper and Lower Nile civilisations in Ancient Egypt meant that "crown" would now show both the cobra and the hawk. ??bird?? need gifs: 7th, 12th, and 15th dynasties And of course, in Ancient Greek mythologies, the gods readily morphed themselves. Zeus and the swan, etc In that era, the most important of these (in terms of Greek literature) was in fact (in my humble oppinon) was in Aethena who takes so many forms in order to help Ulyses. In terms of ritual and symbolism there-of, the rites of passage indicate the transformation. For example, in the traditional Christian marriage, the bride enters on her father's arm, and leaves on the arm of her (now) husband. They enter (word-wise) as bride and groom and leave as husband and wife. Note the word order of the phrases. Similarly for all rites of passage, as well as many state occasions. We take it as NOT read that all rituals are not necessarily morphic in nature.

Morphing properties of something

NOTE: We take it as read that an object (art object or sacred, person, etc) MAY have morphing properties. That is a picture of a long lost sibling can transform us just by gazing on it. In this section: {
Morphing properties of something} {Morphing properties via CONTEXT} {Transformation/Morphing via "Seeing"} (Seeing meaning "seer") When we take to morph the properties of something, then we are altering one of its attributes. The section above {morphing in art (visual properties)} morphing of ART OBJECTS - and as such addressed the property of the OBJECT'S APPEARANCE.

The Object as Morpher

(The King's Touch) Let us take morphing in the sense of "transformation". We know that "The King's Touch" was long exploited by royalty as a transference from the gods that since there is an hierarchy of authority, that they as "next to the highest" could perform miracles and such. Note that this is NOT the same in many cultures/belief systems; most notably in the role of Shaman, Witch/Witch Doctor, Intercessor, Seer, etc. Refer to my paper on "Artist as Shaman". Note that in reality, the "kings touch" in connecting (in the case of Christianity) with Christ as intercessor. It is almost certain that Christ did NOT exhibit any attributes of a Witch/Witch Doctor (as healer, herbalist, etc). However, there is evidence of Christ as Shaman (healer through touch and as diviner of "other world" forces). We take as READ these similarities for what they are worth. As such, we are led immediately to the power of relics, pilgramages, and all purification rites. We take these as READ as inherent properties of sacred objects. Now, as to whether we can ALTER these, transfer them, or even erase them is a question for the detailed texts of the belief system - or at very least a metaphysical discussion of such. We do NOT take as read the art act nor the transformation itself which we discuss in the section after the next one.

Morphing an Object

Let us now look at physically changing the object. Regardless of any other methods or approaches to the object. Take a text object like the following: so an argument about buying "all those expensive paper plates and spices" yes, but we're using stryofoam plates bay leaves, irregano, basil you know something other than *merely* salt and pepper??? That's why i end up buying ONE squash and cooking it for myself - what's that yellow stuff??? Is THAT corn???? ...(silently looks at the ceiling and mouths the words "Why me????).... ...(wanh, wahn, whaaaa)... fade to commercial.

Morphing properties via CONTEXT

As Umberto Ecco reminds us: "Context is King".

Transformation/Morphing via "Seeing"

(Seeing meaning "seer") Here we take "seeing" to mean primarily in the role as a seer. Note that this can be a role as "self-seer" if we look at something in a new way and hence perceive new or hidden properties of the object - art object or otherwise. The act of seeing is of two natures: 1) Looking 2) Acting When we look into the object and learn more about it, then we (as diviner) attach more content to the object. Just by looking at it, we transform it (at least in our mind or our perception of it, or (if we teach - leader concept) we may alter how others see the object). This may lead to more people LOOKING at the object and thus particpating in the morphing of the object and its non-apparent content. In ACTING, we must active participate in the object. This be as simple as touching it (again the King's Touch as well as that of relics, scape goats, etc). or it may be as drastic as destroying it; eg, the role of the sand paintings in Navajo Shamanistic healing practice where the sands "absorb" or (through the shaman's actions/words/etc) "balance" the illness or other in-correctness of the person, tribe, universe. Note: The concept of creating the object in the first place can be viewed as "discovering" the object (inventing). We can also think of it as put-ing it into actual (existant) form as with Hegel's triad: God creates all concepts Man perceives these as ideas Man builds the object (gives it form) Thus, for each object: God, Man, Object all form an inter-dependent mirroring of the meta-process Concept, Idea, Form. As i recall, this is discussed in Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit". Finally, we note that areas of study such as physics, art history, archaeology, etc. are in reality (usually) a NON-VISUAL morphing of the inert properties of the "found object" (whether it is a "quark" (and hence "quark-ness"), a "lost artist" (eg, Egon Schille), or a re-interpretation of previous ideas concerning a site/mound, causes (and effects) of wars, movements, etc, etc. It is important to remember that according Reverend Berkley (pron: Bar klay) "To be perceived is to exist" But what the nature of that existince IS, is morphed by "seeing" it.

Abstract Morphing

We take as read that for the most part this form of morphing is (almost by definition) MODERN.

Time Morphing

Film Morphing

See also: -[
Film elements]-