p. 133-134
Matters are made worse by the fact that the eyes move almost continuously. Several times a second they jitter and bounce; they also make saccades and micro-saccades-that is, sharp, ballistic movements. As a result, the projection of an object you perceive to be still in facts jumps around on your eyeball, and when you track a moving object, its image stays still on your retina while that of the stationary background races across your eyes. Again, in order to explain how we manage to experience a stable visual world, we need to suppose, it seems, that the ability is achieved at some later stage in the processing of the original retinal information.

p. 142
The world is not a construction of the brain, nor is it a product of our own conscious efforts. It is there for us; we are here in it. The conscious mind is not inside us; it is, it would be better to say, a kind of active attunement to the world, an achieved integration. It is the world itself, all around, that fixes the nature of conscious experience.

p. 143-144
The retinal image is an image in a mathematical sense; it is a projection or a mapping. The retinal image is not an image in the sense of a picture – or, if it is, this is entirely accidental. How it looks, or how it reads, plays no role in its performance of its neurophysiological job description. Once we appreciate that the retinal image isn’t something that we see, we lose a grip even on what it means to say that it is upside-down. Upside-down, one must ask relative to what? Who’s to say what counts as upside-down in the head relative to the tasks faced by the nervous system?
[...]
Again, we don’t experience the retinal image; we don’t experience any image , in that sense. We experience the world.

—

Juhani Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, Wiley-Academy 2005

p.21
The technologically expanded and strengthened eye today penetrates deep into matter and space, and enables man to cast a simultaneous look on the opposite sides of the globe. The experiences of space and time have become fused into each other by speed[...], and as a consequence we are witnessing a distinct reversal of the two dimensions -a temporalisation of space and a spatialisation of time. The only sense that is fast enough to keep pace with the astounding increase of speed in the technological world is sight. But the world of the eye is causing us to live increasingly in a perpetual present, flattened by speed and simultaneity.

p. 35
Perhaps, freed of the implicit desire of the eye for control and power, it is precisely the unfocused vision of our time that is again capable of opening up new realms of vision and thought. The loss of focus brought about by the stream of images may emancipate the eye from its patriarchal domination and give rise to a participatory and empathetic gaze. The technological extensions of the senses have until now reinforced the primacy of vision, but the new technologies may also help ‘the body[...] to dethrone the disinterested gaze of the disincarnated Cartesian spectator’.

p. 40-41
Sensory experience become integrated through the body, or rather, in the very constitution of the body and the human mode of being.[...] Our bodies and movements are in constant interaction with the environment; the world and the self inform and redefine each other constantly. The percept of the body and the image of the world turn into one single continuous existential experience; there is no body separate from its domicile in space, and there is no space unrelated to the unconscious image of the perceiving self.
[...]
A walk through a forest is invigorating and healing due to the constant interaction of all sense modalities. [...] The eye collaborates with the body and other senses. One’s sense of reality is strengthened and articulated by this constant interaction.

p.65
The forest enfolds us in its multisensory embrace. The multiplicity of peripheral stimuli effectively pull us into the reality of its space.

—

Lawrence Weschler, True to Life. Twenty-five years of conversation with David Hockney, University of California Press 2008

p. 4
“I mean, for instance, wide-angle lenses!” Hockney exclaimed as we stood that afternoon on the deck overlooking his pool. “after a while I bought a better camera and I tried using a wide-angle lens because I wanted to record a whole room or an entire standing figure. But I hated the pictures I got. They seemed extremely untrue. They depicted something you never actually saw. It wasn’t just the lines bending in ways they never do when you look at the world. Rather it was the falsification – your eye doesn’t ever see that much in one glance. It’s not true to life.”

p. 6
Hockney led me back into a the studio and picked up a magazine, thumbing randomly to an ad, a photograph of a happy family picnicking on a hillside green. “See? You can’t look at most photos for more than, say, thirty seconds. It has nothing to do with the subject matter. I first noticed this with erotic photographs, trying to find them lively: you can’t. Life is precisely what they don’t have – or rather, time, lived time. All you can do with most ordinary photographs is stare at them – they stare back, blankly – and presently your concentration begins to fade. They stare you down. I mean, photography is all right if you don’t mind looking at the world from the point of view of a paralyzed cyclops – for a split second. But that’s not what it’s like to live in the world, or to convey the experience of living in the world.

p. 10
“[...]Looking at you now, my eye doesn’t capture you in your entirety, but instead quickly, in nervous little glances. I look at your shoulder, and then to your ear, your eyes (maybe, for a moment, if I know you well enough and have come to trust you, but even then only for a moment), your cheek, your shirt button, your shoes, your hair, your eyes again, your nose and mouth. There are hundred separate looks across time from which I synthesize my living impression of you. And this is wonderful. If, instead, I caught all of you in one frozen look, the experience would be dead – it would be like…it would be like looking at an ordinary photograph.”

p. 66
“[...] For perspective to be fixed, time has stopped and hence space has become frozen, petrified. Perspective takes away the body of the viewer. You have a fixed point, you have no movement; in short, you are not there, really. That is the problem. Photography hankers after the condition of the neutral observer. But there can be no such thing as a neutral observer. For something to be seen, it has to be an account of the experience of that looking. In that sense it must deeply involve an observer whose body somehow has to be brought back in.”

p. 68-69
“[...] For instance, in the old Newtonian view of the world, in Newtonian physics, it’s as if the world exists outside of us. It’s over there, out there, it works mechanically, and it will do so with or without us. In short, we’re really not part of nature; it virtually comes to that. Whereas modern physics has increasingly thrown that model into question and shown it cannot be. Mr. Einstein makes things more human by making measurement at least relative to us, or anyway, to some observer; the supposedly neutral viewpoint is obliterated. There can be no measurement without a measurer. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is, of course, highly technical and specialized. It deals with a paradox in particle physics, showing how if you attempt to measure the velocity of a given particle you won’t be able to identify its exact location and vice versa. Previous to this, of course, science believed that given enough technical advancement, it would eventually be able to measure anything, but Heisenberg showed that this was not just a problem of not yet having the right measuring devices but that the problem was inherent in the nature of physical reality itself. The old conception of scientific inquiry had gone on as though we could measure the world as if we weren’t in it. Heisenberg showed that the observer, in effect, affects that which he is observing, so that some of those old borders and boundaries begin to blur, just as they do in cubism.
[...]
There’s that famous phrase of Gombrich’s about the triumph of Renaissance perspective – ‘We have conquered reality’ – which has always seemed to me such a Pyrrhic victory, again, as if reality were somehow separate from us and the world now hopelessly dull because everything was known and accounted for. These physicists, by contrast, were suggesting a much more dynamic situation, and I realized how deeply what they were saying had to do with how we depict the world, not what we depict but the way we depict it.”

—

http://mixmouse.net/blog/?p=6

Rune Peiterson: Digital as Tool

Rune Peiterson’s “Saccadic Sightings: Einstein and Bohr”, accessed through Rhizome, is definitely an illustration of the usage of digital technology as a tool, because the piece is composed of puzzling photographs that were manipulated with digital technology. One of the main things I took away from the artist’s statement about this piece is that “matter is always in flux”. I thought this piece particularly interesting because of its focus on the naked eye as a master of illusion. The piece comments on how human eyes are unable to reflect complete reality, and that there are always bits that are blurred or left out. I like the “hallucinatory” effect that Peteirson achieved through his digital treatment – it made the piece intriguing and kept me thinking and constantly wondering what the images actually were. Interestingly enough, the piece is also a critique on how the objects we perceive are shaped by our culture. Sure enough, while trying to figure out what the images in “Saccadic Sightings: Einstein and Bohr” were, I kept drawing images from my personal knowledge/image bank. Peiterson’s use of digital art as a tool was also interesting – he created a device that recorded his eye movements, basically imitating what the eye takes in before sending information to the brain and reorganizing it into a recognizable image. I like how when I look at this collection, I feel like I’m looking through someone else’s glasses (albeit extremely blurry ones) and feeling as if I am not completely in tune with my vision. It kind of relates to my senior project, which namely deals with dreams and how what we “see” in our dreams are only half-baked, warped bits of reality.

http://weblogs.nrc.nl/cultuurblog/2010/07/18/cs-maria-barnas-aanhikken/

—–

CS: Maria Barnas – Aanhikken

Ik heb altijd gedacht dat ik de enige ben die zich weinig kan voorstellen bij een vierde dimensie. Ik meende een vorm van ruimtelijke dyslexie te hebben wanneer mijn gedachten stokken bij het lezen over de relativiteitstheorie van Einstein.

Van natuurkundelessen op school herinner ik me alleen de ezelsbruggen die ik nodig had om formules te onthouden. Ik weet niet meer welke oevers deze bruggen verbinden. Zo herinner ik me dat ik met het strekken van drie vingers – duim omhoog, middelvinger naar links, wijsvinger naar voren – de richtingen van een krachtenveld verbeeld, maar zou ik niet meer weten om welke krachten het gaat.
Van Einsteins relativiteitsprincipe herinner ik me dat mensen die erin figureren een voorkeur hebben voor treinreizen en raketvluchten. In een voorbeeld dat het mij gemakkelijk moest maken het principe te doorgronden, kreeg ik een tweelingbroer toebedeeld. Als mijn tweelingbroer sneller dan het licht – of in ieder geval erg snel – een ruimtereis zou maken, zou hij bij thuiskomst jonger zijn dan ‘zijn thuisgebleven broer’. Die thuisgebleven broer, dat was ik. Dat was nog wel het minst moeilijke om voor te stellen. Ik zou een lange grijze baard hebben. Mijn tweelingbroer zou er nog precies zo uitzien als toen hij vertrok.
Mijn natuurkundeleraar vertelde ter bevestiging van dit verhaal over twee gelijklopende klokken waarvan er in 1971 één op reis was gestuurd. Toen deze terugkeerde, bleek de thuisgebleven klok voor te lopen.
Ik heb altijd gedacht dat de kern van dit raadsel moest worden gezocht in het specifiek genoemde jaartal. Waarom zou mijn leraar het vermelden, als dat er niet toe deed? Aan de andere kant: wat zou het uitmaken voor de klokken op welk tijdstip ze van elkaar werden gescheiden?
Terwijl ik nog nadacht over het jaar 1971 waren mijn medeleerlingen allang formules aan het toepassen. Ik wilde weten of het per se een tweelingbroer moest zijn. Kon het niet een gewone broer zijn? Of zomaar iemand die mijn relatieve veroudering kon vaststellen?
Het gaat in mijn voorstellingsvermogen nog steeds mis wanneer ik probeer te begrijpen wat er met de ruimte tussen mij en mijn tweelingbroer is gebeurd. Waar ontmoeten deze ruimtes elkaar? Bestaat er een grensgebied waarin de tijden die zich van elkaar hebben losgezongen, elkaar ontmoeten, overlappen; of sluiten ze elkaar uit?
Scheikundige en filosoof André Klukhuhn hielp me tijdens zijn lezing – ter gelegenheid van Rune Peitersens tentoonstelling Saccadic Sightings: Einstein & Bohr bij Ellen de Bruijne Projects – af van het idee dat ik de enige ben die niet weet hoe de vierde dimensie eruit ziet. Hij stelt dat de mens daar nog niet toe in staat is.
Bovendien stelt hij – als in een gedachtenexperiment – dat de mens, tot het moment waarop de derde dimensie werd verbeeld, zijn omgeving niet als perspectivisch diep ervoer. Ter illustratie toonde Klukhuhn afbeeldingen waarin duidelijk wordt geworsteld met het verbeelden van diepte. Hij wees op een Egyptische tekening van een kar, getrokken door twee stieren. Het achterste dier wordt gesuggereerd door een verdubbeling van de contouren van het voorste. Deze tekening, waarin nét geen vat wordt gekregen op de derde dimensie, maakt zichtbaar hoe het begrip tegen een inzicht kan aanhikken.
Bijna, bijna begrijp ik wat een vierde dimensie zou kunnen inhouden. Bijna, bijna begrijp ik wat het betekent dat tijd relatief is.
Ik ben in de derde dimensie blijven steken. Deze oogt opvallend hol sinds ik tegen een vierde aanhik.

Dit artikel verscheen eerder in het vrijdagse Cultureel Supplement van NRC Handelsblad

Initiated in 2008, Saccadic Sightings began as a study of visual perception. Using a Mobile Eye, a scientific eye tracking device, Peitersen was able to film his field of view while simultaneously capturing the exploratory movements of his eye. He was interested in the ‘raw’ visual input captured by the retina before it was interpreted and processed into experience by the brain. Underlying this project were questions raised by quantum mechanics concerning e.g. the Uncertainty Principle and whether or not it is possible to speak of a world separate from our observation of it.

During his research Peitersen started looking into the way in which we construct our reality. Besides the physiological and psychological aspects of perception, scientific paradigms determine our view of the world. Peitersen became intrigued by how outdated but popular paradigms have developed into inflexible dogmas. The materialistic dualism of Rene Descartes, which presupposes a strict division of mind and matter, is such a dogma, which although discredited decennia ago by quantum physics, by thinkers such as Einstein and Bohr and more recently by neurological research, still remains the most commonly accepted and widely held world view. This raises the questions of why such a world view persists and what can be done to substitute it with a more adequate construction. Furthermore, Peitersen became convinced that it is art which shapes our understanding of reality. By formulating questions about perception, by visualizing conceptual constructions and making these constructions manifest in the world, art plays a much more fundamental part in the construction of our collective reality than we usually realize.

The issues raised will be the starting point of a public discussion in the gallery on Thursday July 8^th in which Robert Zwijnenberg (Prof. Art history, University of Leiden and founding Director of The Arts & Genomics Centre), André Klukhuhn (scientist and philosopher), Saskia Monshouwer (curator and anthropologist), Mariska van den Berg (curator SKOR), Voebe de Gruyter (artist), Huib Haye van der Werf (curator NAi), Anne Kienhuis (postdoc researcher at RIVM), Tamuna Chabashvili and Adi Hollander (artists PSWAR.org), Laura Schuster (phd student UvA, Imagined Futures research group) and others will participate.

Click here for biographical information of the speakers and participants.

The questions/statements I wish to reflect upon are:

-          Why does the Cartesian construction of reality still exert so much influence and what are the consequences thereof for how we think about science and art?

-          What would it take to destabilize this worldview and replace it with another, more adequate construction?

-          Which part might art play in this? Is it not so that art in particular is capable of shaping our idea about reality? And possibly functions as a precursor to the constructions as they are formulated by science and technology?

-          And, if so, which role does science play within the artistic domain. What sort of transformations are possible?

Program:

19.30

Doors open

20.00

Mariska van den Berg (freelance curator | editor) gives a brief introduction.

Mariska van den Berg – Introduction from Rune Peitersen on Vimeo.

Rune reflects upon dualism as perpetuated by the movies The Matrix and Avatar.

Click here for the accompanying powerpoint presentation.

Rune Peitersen – The Cartesian Theatre of The Matrix and Avatar from Rune Peitersen on Vimeo.

20.15-21.30

The speakers:

André Klukhuhn

The joint evolution of consciousness and space“(…) concerning the construction of the world by our consciousness. The people of antiquity, the middle ages, and of the renaissance experienced the world differently from us.” According to Klukhuhn, our (developing) consciousness and our experience of space and time are closely connected (Kant supplemented by Darwin).

Andre Klukhuhn – The joint evolution of consciousness and space from Rune Peitersen on Vimeo.

In her weekly column in the Dutch NRC Handelsblad, Maria Barnas contemplates the difficulties of grasping Einstein’s theory of relativity and how Andre Klukhuhn’s lecture at the minisymposium made her come closer to an understanding of the fourth dimension.

http://weblogs.nrc.nl/cultuurblog/2010/07/18/cs-maria-barnas-aanhikken/

Saskia Monshouwer

Saskia Monshouwer will present her recent essay Kunst, context, wetenschap. Mogelijke consequenties van het denken (over zien) (Art, context, science. (Over looking) the possible consequences for thinking) , written for the occasion. During this evening’s discussion Monshouwer will examine the following position: Due to the relation between both society and the public, art is able to mediate between science and society, and possibly destabilize an accepted worldview.

Saskia Monshouwer – Kunst, context, wetenschap. Mogelijke consequenties van het denken (over zien) from Rune Peitersen on Vimeo.

Rune Peitersen

Contact – Art as the Outer Limits of the Universe – what is the function of art? Is art capable of shaping our idea about reality? And does it function as a precursor to the construction of reality?

Click here for the accompanying powerpoint presentation.

Rune Peitersen – Contact-Art as the Outer Limits of the Universe from Rune Peitersen on Vimeo.

Robert Zwijnenberg

Robert Zwijnenberg brings together art, humanities en science so that they may learn from each other. According to Zwijnenberg, this interaction can produce new forms of art as well as new theories and methodologies. This evening he will reflect upon the role of science within the artistic domain: What sort of transformations are possible?

Robert Zwijnenberg from Rune Peitersen on Vimeo.

21.30 – 23.00

The guests and public are involved in the discussion.

Moderated by Mariska and Rune.

Texts ‘Einstein & Bohr‘ and ‘Contact – Art as the outer limits of the Universe‘

Ellen de Bruijne Projects

Rozengracht 207 A

1016 LZ Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

www.edbprojects.nl

The Mini Symposium was made possible with the support of The Netherlands Foundation for Visual Arts, Design and Architecture.

Observing Uncertainty - Underpass, 200x150 cm, inkjet on paper, 2010

THE VIDEOS FROM THE MINI SYMPOSIUM JULY 8th ARE NOW ONLINE.

In Dolores Rune Peitersen will be showing the most recent installment, Einstein & Bohr, from his ongoing project Saccadic Sightings from July 3^rd to August 28^th.

Initiated in 2008, Saccadic Sightings began as a study of visual perception. Using a Mobile Eye, a scientific eye tracking device, Peitersen was able to film his field of view while simultaneously capturing the exploratory movements of his eye. He was interested in the ‘raw’ visual input captured by the retina before it was interpreted and processed into experience by the brain. Underlying this project were questions raised by quantum mechanics concerning e.g. the Uncertainty Principle and whether or not it is possible to speak of a world separate from our observation of it.

During his research Peitersen started looking into the way in which we construct our reality. Besides the physiological and psychological aspects of perception, scientific paradigms determine our view of the world. Peitersen became intrigued by how outdated but popular paradigms have developed into inflexible dogmas. The materialistic dualism of Rene Descartes, which presupposes a strict division of mind and matter, is such a dogma, which although discredited decennia ago by quantum physics, by thinkers such as Einstein and Bohr and more recently by neurological research, still remains the most commonly accepted and widely held world view. This raises the questions of why such a world view persists and what can be done to substitute it with a more adequate construction. Furthermore, Peitersen became convinced that it is art which shapes our understanding of reality. By formulating questions about perception, by visualizing conceptual constructions and making these constructions manifest in the world, art plays a much more fundamental part in the construction of our collective reality than we usually realize.

These are the considerations underlying the most recent work. In one image we see the track travelled by the searching eye. It is superimposed on a video still of an urban landscape: a snapshot, out of focus but still implying an overview. In the second work, a combination of several images, the overview is abandoned in favor of fragmented visual acuity also referring to the passage of time. Both works are linked to the text Einstein & Bohr.

The issues raised will be the starting point of a public discussion in the gallery on Thursday July 8^th in which Robert Zwijnenberg (Prof. Art history, University of Leiden and founding Director of The Arts & Genomics Centre), André Klukhuhn (scientist and philosopher), Saskia Monshouwer (curator and anthropologist), Mariska van den Berg (curator SKOR), Voebe de Gruyter (artist), Huib Haye van der Werf (curator NAi), Anne Kienhuis (postdoc researcher at RIVM), Tamuna Chabashvili and Adi Hollander (artists PSWAR.org), Laura Schuster (phd student UvA, Imagined Futures research group) and others will participate.

Click here for biographical information of the speakers and participants.

Program can be found here (English) and here (Dutch).

Texts ‘Einstein & Bohr‘ and ‘Contact – Art as the outer limits of the Universe‘

To this show Vesna Madzoski wrote a text for Rhizome.org, “Black Hole of Vision: On Rune Peitersen’s Saccadic Sightings”

Saccadic Sightings is generously sponsored by The Arts&Genomics Centre, Leiden, www.artsgenomics.org,, Stephen Oliver Associates, London, www.s-oliver-associates.com and The Netherlands Foundation for Visual Arts, www.fondsbkvb.nl

Observer Effect #Underpass Sequence, 60 Lightjet photos, 2010

Observer Effect - Underpass Sequence, Installation view

Observing Uncertainty - Underpass, Installation view

In Dolores Rune Peitersen will be showing the most recent installment, Einstein & Bohr, from his ongoing project Saccadic Sightings from July 3^rd to August 28^th.

Initiated in 2008, Saccadic Sightings began as a study of visual perception. Using a Mobile Eye, a scientific eye tracking device, Peitersen was able to film his field of view while simultaneously capturing the exploratory movements of his eye. He was interested in the ‘raw’ visual input captured by the retina before it was interpreted and processed into experience by the brain. Underlying this project were questions raised by quantum mechanics concerning e.g. the Uncertainty Principle and whether or not it is possible to speak of a world separate from our observation of it.

During his research Peitersen started looking into the way in which we construct our reality. Besides the physiological and psychological aspects of perception, scientific paradigms determine our view of the world. Peitersen became intrigued by how outdated but popular paradigms have developed into inflexible dogmas. The materialistic dualism of Rene Descartes, which presupposes a strict division of mind and matter, is such a dogma, which although discredited decennia ago by quantum physics, by thinkers such as Einstein and Bohr and more recently by neurological research, still remains the most commonly accepted and widely held world view. This raises the questions of why such a world view persists and what can be done to substitute it with a more adequate construction. Furthermore, Peitersen became convinced that it is art which shapes our understanding of reality. By formulating questions about perception, by visualizing conceptual constructions and making these constructions manifest in the world, art plays a much more fundamental part in the construction of our collective reality than we usually realize.

These are the considerations underlying the most recent work. In one image we see the track travelled by the searching eye. It is superimposed on a video still of an urban landscape: a snapshot, out of focus but still implying an overview. In the second work, a combination of several images, the overview is abandoned in favor of fragmented visual acuity also referring to the passage of time. Both works are linked to the text Einstein & Bohr.

The issues raised will be the starting point of a public discussion in the gallery on Thursday July 8^th in which Robert Zwijnenberg (Prof. Art history, University of Leiden and founding Director of The Arts & Genomics Centre), André Klukhuhn (scientist and philosopher), Saskia Monshouwer (curator and anthropologist), Mariska van den Berg (curator SKOR), Voebe de Gruyter (artist), Huib Haye van der Werf (curator NAi), Anne Kienhuis (postdoc researcher at RIVM), Tamuna Chabashvili and Adi Hollander (artists PSWAR.org), Laura Schuster (phd student UvA, Imagined Futures research group) and others will participate.

Click here for biographical information of the speakers and participants.

Program can be found here (English pdf), here (Dutch pdf) and here (link)

Texts ‘Einstein & Bohr‘ and ‘Contact – Art as the outer limits of the Universe‘

Ellen de Bruijne Projects
Rozengracht 207 A
1016 LZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands

www.edbprojects.nl

Saccadic Sightings is generously sponsored by The Arts&Genomics Centre, Leiden, www.artsgenomics.org,, Stephen Oliver Associates, London, www.s-oliver-associates.com and The Netherlands Foundation for Visual Arts, www.fondsbkvb.nl

studio view

studio view

studio view

digital composite

Matters are made worse by the fact that the eyes move almost continuously. Several times a second they jitter and bounce; they also make saccades and micro-saccades-that is, sharp, ballistic movements. As a result, the projection of an object you perceive to be still in facts jumps around on your eyeball, and when you track a moving object, its image stays still on your retina while that of the stationary background races across your eyes. Again, in order to explain how we manage to experience a stable visual world, we need to suppose, it seems, that the ability is achieved at some later stage in the processing of the original retinal information.”

Alva Noë, p. 133-134, ‘Out of our heads’, Hill and Wang 2009

In his new book, Out of our heads, Alva Noë advocates a radical change in how we think of the consciousness and how to resolve the Cartesian dualistic dilemma. The above quote refers to the problems which arise when trying to explain the visual world as something separate from the perception of it. It also very neatly sums up the technical starting point for Saccadic Sightings.

Read ‘Divided Landscape’, a text on the exhibition by Mariska van den Berg.

Various installation views of works from the series ‘Observing Uncertainty’ in GIST Gallery :

The first examples hereof are to be shown at GIST Gallery Amsterdam, Oct. 16th – Nov. 21st 2009 (see News). The show, Divided Landscape, is curated by Carolien Stikker, who has invited artists who work with vision and perception, to show works alongside her. There will be an essay on the subject by Mariska van den Berg.

Due to the method I have developed to create the images (multiple screenshots combined in Photoshop), they are almost impossible to scale. The originals vary in size from 150/100 cm to 18/13 cm. The images below don’t do justice to the detail, but may give a general impression.