Nature

The Exposure of Time

Gianni Sarcone

Not so long ago, before the digital age, photographs were fixed on silver gelatin photographic paper. But there are other, far more powerful mediums capable of freezing a moment — sometimes even an entire civilization — in space and time: ash and forest.

Take Pompeii. In AD 79, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius abruptly brought life in the city to a halt, burying its streets, houses, and inhabitants beneath volcanic debris. Pompeii became, in a sense, a three-dimensional photograph of a precise moment in time. Walking through its streets today, we can still see traces of everyday life interrupted: decorated houses, shops, familiar objects, inscriptions on the walls. Everything seems to tell us what was happening just moments before time stopped: the bustle of the streets, voices mingling, merchants calling out to passersby, children crying, lovers meeting away from prying eyes. As if all those lives had been imprinted in stone.

Then there are the Maya cities, such as Palenque. Here, the shutter seems to have worked much more slowly. It did not capture a single moment, but the gradual disappearance of an entire civilization. After the city was abandoned, the tropical forest slowly covered its temples, palaces, and plazas, until it almost completely absorbed them.

At Pompeii, ash stopped time. In the Maya cities, it was the forest that covered it.

Two very different ways of preserving the past: one through a sudden interruption, the other through the slow return of nature. In both cases, what we discover today bears a strange resemblance to a photographic image — except that here, the image is three-dimensional, and its frame is time itself.

And there is something quite extraordinary about that: time, which normally erases everything, has left an image behind. An image without film, without a camera, without a photographer.

And perhaps that is the most haunting photograph of all: one that no one ever took, but that time itself developed.

Pompei
Pompeii
Palenque
Palenque

Is Nature Already a Work of Art?

Gianni Sarcone

Art may not be exclusively a human affair. Nature has its own creative force and aesthetic power. Crystals, shells, clouds, and landscapes produce forms and patterns that we often find as fascinating as works made by artists.

Without disturbing Kant too much—and his somewhat dated distinction between natural and artistic beauty—where does art actually begin?

Nature: the original artist?

Nature creates without any apparent intention. It does not try to please us or express an idea, yet it can produce forms of extraordinary complexity and beauty.

  • Spontaneous beauty: Crystals, landscapes, spirals, symmetries, and biological patterns can display structures we perceive as beautiful.
  • Creation without a plan: Nature produces forms without an artist, a blueprint, or even an audience.
  • Our first inspiration: From the beginning, humans have observed, imitated, and transformed natural forms into their own creations.

For Kant, this is precisely where the difference lies: a work of art involves intention and a concept of what it is supposed to be, whereas natural beauty can be appreciated without knowing any purpose behind what we see.

But is intention really necessary?

Does art require intention?

The idea that we must know what an artist intended in order to understand or judge a work has been questioned for a long time. In 1946, William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley famously called the attempt to use an author’s intention as the basis for interpretation the “intentional fallacy.”

And art can go even further.

It can be improvised, accidental, discovered rather than made. It can emerge from a chance encounter between an object and a particular way of looking at it.

Leonardo da Vinci already understood this. He suggested looking at stains and irregular patterns on old walls because they could trigger visions of landscapes, battles, figures, and strange compositions. Chance could become a generator of images.

In other words, the work is not always entirely in the object.

Sometimes, it appears in the eye of the beholder.

Take a stone polished by the sea. It might suddenly remind you of a sculpture by Henry Moore. Nobody sculpted it. Nobody intended it to represent anything. Yet your brain detects a form, gives it meaning, and perhaps even sees a sculpture.

So—is it art?

From found object to readymade

With Marcel Duchamp, things get even more complicated.

The readymade takes an existing object, removes it from its ordinary context, and presents it as art. Duchamp began exploring this idea as early as 1913 with Bicycle Wheel.

The object itself may have little or nothing to do with traditional ideas of beauty. What changes is the context, the choice, and the way we look at it.

Art therefore moves, at least in part, from something made by the artist to something that can be selected, discovered, and reframed by the artist.

And this makes the boundary between creating and discovering surprisingly thin.

A natural form can resemble a sculpture. A stain can become a landscape. An ordinary object can become a work of art. And sometimes a work becomes art only because someone recognizes it as such.

Perhaps the artist does not always create something from nothing.

Sometimes, the artist does something more subtle:

he reveals what everyone else was looking at but never saw.

So where, exactly, do we draw the line between art and non-art?

And ultimately, what makes something art: the object, the artist’s intention, or the eye of the beholder?

How fast do we actually see the world?

Gianni Sarcone

Our visual system does not work like a camera shooting at a fixed number of frames per second. There is no single human “FPS.”

Reality is continuous, but our brain processes visual information on different time scales. Some visual mechanisms are remarkably fast; others are much slower. What we perceive depends on what we are looking at, the stimulus, its brightness and contrast, and even where it falls on the retina.

Flicker is a good example.

When a light flickers fast enough, we stop seeing individual flashes and perceive a steady light. But there is no universal cutoff such as 30 or 60 FPS. Under some conditions, humans can detect flicker well above 60 Hz, and the threshold changes with luminance, contrast, stimulus size, retinal location, and other factors.

And detecting a very brief visual event does not mean that we see at 250 FPS. Temporal resolution is not a single number. Different visual tasks have different limits.

Then there is the famous wagon-wheel illusion.

A spinning wheel can appear to slow down, stop, or even rotate backward. In films, this is a straightforward consequence of the camera sampling the motion at discrete intervals. Interestingly, similar effects can also occur under continuous illumination, suggesting that temporal sampling or aliasing may also occur within the visual system itself. The exact mechanism, however, is more complicated than simply saying that the brain “takes snapshots.”

And what about the feeling that time slows down during danger?

It can certainly feel that way. But experiments have found no evidence that frightening situations suddenly increase our temporal resolution—as if the brain switched to a higher frame rate. Instead, the experience seems to involve changes in attention, memory, and the way the event is reconstructed afterward.

So forget the idea that your brain runs at 30, 60, or 250 FPS.

There is no single frame rate for human vision.

We don’t simply record reality.

We construct our experience of it.

Bear-ly Seal

Gianni Sarcone

People often ask where my ideas come from. There is no single answer. They tend to surface quietly, shaped by places I’ve seen and cultures I’ve crossed.

“Seal or Bear?” grew out of that kind of moment. An animal suspended in the vastness of a frozen world—emerging from an ice hole, yet refusing to settle into a single identity. Is it a polar bear? A seal? Or something that holds both readings at once?

Bear of seal?

The idea came to me while traveling through northern Canada, surrounded by the stillness of Arctic landscapes and the deep presence of Inuit traditions. That silence has a way of sharpening perception—of making ambiguity feel natural rather than puzzling.

First created in the 1990s, the illusion went on to become a reference point in visual perception studies and later found its way into textbooks.

More recently, the “Seal or Bear?” illusion will be featured by the NHK Educational Corporation as part of a 2026–2027 educational series on psychology and visual perception.

Life Within Life

Gianni Sarcone

Inside plants and living beings, there are remnants of ancient independent beings that once lived on their own, long before becoming part of the cellular world we know today. Known in biology as “organelles,” these are the living proof of ‘endosymbiotic theory’. They survive not as ghosts, but as symbiotic, working structures—still active, still essential, still carrying their own ancient logic.

From the host cell, these once-independent bacteria receive what any free organism would constantly struggle to secure: a stable, protected environment. No predators. No sudden shifts in conditions. A controlled internal world with steady access to water, nutrients, and chemical balance. In short, they are sheltered inside a living system that maintains their continuity.

Chloroplasts are the light catchers. You can think of them as tiny green alchemists, turning sunlight and water into stored energy, like weaving daylight into sugar. They belong to plants and algae, quietly building the foundation of almost every food chain on Earth.

Mitochondria are the fire keepers. They don’t create energy from light, but unlock it from what we consume, breaking down fuel to release usable power for the cell. Without them, nothing in the body moves, thinks, or repairs itself.

There is also a quieter detail: mitochondria are inherited almost exclusively from the mother. They pass from mother to child through the egg, like an intimate biological thread, while paternal mitochondria are usually removed after fertilization. Every cell therefore carries a subtle maternal imprint within its energy system.

In simplified terms, chloroplasts harness sunlight and water to generate sugars, storing energy in chemical form, while mitochondria release that stored energy for the cell by breaking down those molecules. One captures energy from light; the other unlocks it from organic matter—together sustaining the energetic cycle of complex life.

Different but Equal

Gianni Sarcone

It’s not uncommon to read, on a snack package, the phrase “with chocolate taste,” often printed in bold uppercase. The wording plays a subtle trick on the mind. Most people assume the product must contain chocolate. Yet a flavor is not a substance. More often than not, what we bite into carries only the impression—an illusion—of chocolate.

The same applies to color. Our brain is just as easily misled. Colors behave like flavors: they may smell—pardon… look—like a particular hue, but they are subjective sensations rather than fixed properties of the outside world. They shift with context, changing according to their surroundings. More striking still, identical colors can appear different under certain conditions, while different colors may look the same. This phenomenon is known as color induction.

Even texture plays a role. It can alter how we perceive a color’s intensity and tone. Take beer and an egg yolk: they may share the same orange hue and gradation. Yet the brain reads them differently. The glass and the liquid are perceived as translucent, so their color seems lighter, duller, more diluted. The yolk, by contrast, appears opaque, with a richer, more glossy, more solid color.

In this picture, the beer and the egg share exactly the same orange gradation.

How a Human Bone Inspired the Eiffel Tower

Gianni Sarcone

Few people know that the human femur—the body’s largest and strongest bone—played an indirect role in the thinking behind the design of the Eiffel Tower.

Part of the tower’s structural logic can be traced to Swiss engineer Maurice Koechlin, chief engineer in the firm of Gustave Eiffel. While determining how forces would travel through the iron frame, Koechlin applied a principle that places material along the natural paths of tension and compression.

A comparable pattern had been described earlier by Zurich anatomist Hermann von Meyer. His research revealed that the femur’s internal structure forms a network of delicate struts known as “trabeculae.” These tiny elements follow the directions of mechanical stress inside the bone, creating a highly efficient system of support—even though the femoral head sits off-center from the shaft.

The mathematician Karl Culmann later showed that these trabecular patterns correspond closely to the principal stress lines calculated in engineering. His method, called graphic statics, provided a visual way to map how forces move through structures.

This link between anatomy and engineering influenced nineteenth-century structural thinking. The same principle—placing material only where forces demand it—guided the development of lighter, more efficient frameworks in bridges, cranes, and reinforced-concrete designs.

Glittering Eyes of the Night

Gianni Sarcone

The ‘glitter’ you see on this wolf spider comes from the eyes of the babies she carries on her abdomen. Like cats, owls, and other nocturnal hunters, wolf spiders possess a reflective layer behind their retinas called a “tapetum lucidum,” which amplifies even the faintest light and makes their eyes glow in the dark. This tiny adaptation turns the forest floor into a stage where predator and prey perform under the faintest moonlight.

Nature often converges on similar solutions, weaving common threads through vastly different lives. It’s fascinating to think that very different species—arachnids and mammals alike—have evolved the same “superpower”: the ability to see in near darkness.

Next time you spot a tiny flash of light on a night hike, remember: a wolf spider might be staring right back, sharing with you the magic of the nocturnal world.

A Hidden Time Machine

Gianni Sarcone

We all carry within us a time machine—hidden in plain sight, right in the middle of our face. It may sound unlikely, but the NOSE is the only sensory organ capable of transporting us into the past without our even realizing it.

Our sense of smell activates memories like no other. A single scent can unlock a precise moment from childhood or early adulthood: the fragrance of oranges at Christmastime, melting snow during your first school field trip in winter, the scent of your sweetheart’s sweater the day you met, your grandmother’s simmering tomato sauce during Sunday lunches, the waxed floor of your grandparents’ house, school glue in primary class, the sunscreen of beachside summers, old book ink in the town library, the leather of your first satchel, or the aroma of fresh coffee at dawn when everyone else was still asleep…

The nose is a powerful trigger for nostalgia because the olfactory bulb, where smells are processed, is directly connected to the limbic system—the brain’s emotional and memory center. This close link allows smells to summon vivid memories, often with startling clarity, and sometimes, with them, an unexpected flood of emotions.

Each smell opens a door to a suspended instant—fragile, vivid. It’s an inward journey to a hidden past, a place buried deep, that suddenly bursts forth like a firework of nostalgia.

Each of us holds a palette of scents capable of bringing us back—suddenly, vividly—to a time that’s gone. Mine carries rustic, earthy tones: my maternal grandparents were farmers, and I spent much of my early childhood with them in the mountains of Irpinia.

I remember the sticky perfume of freshly harvested tobacco leaves, the white film of yeast clinging to wine grapes, the wild asparagus gathered by riverbanks, the unmistakable sweet scent of the ceuze—what we called mulberries in dialect—and the zenzifero, a local mint that gave ricotta ravioli its delicate fragrance…

I doubt I’ll ever stumble across those long-lost smells again—or perhaps they’re just dormant, waiting. But if they do return, that would be the most beautiful time travel I could ever hope for.

And you? What scents carry you away to other times, other worlds?

smell memory, nose

Umbrella Illusion

Gianni Sarcone

One of my illusions from the late ’90s. Take a look at the colorful umbrellas in Figures A and B of the table below—are they the same or different? About 80% of people will say that Umbrella A has jagged, zigzag edges, while Umbrella B has a smooth, wavy outline. But here’s the trick—you’ve been fooled by the brightness contrast of the rays inside the umbrellas. In reality, both umbrellas are identical in shape, perfectly congruent.

This illusion works even when only the lines of the shapes are emphasized. As demonstrated in the table below, the outline of Umbrella A appears jagged and zigzagged, while Umbrella B seems to have, once again, a smooth, wavy outline.

This illusion shows a phenomenon called curvature blindness, which was rediscovered in 2017 by Japanese psychologist Kohske Takahashi. He created a powerful variant and studied its impact on how we perceive shapes.

© Kohske Takahashi – The wavy lines appear different depending on the background and how the repetitive dark color is applied to them.

Read more