Philosophy

Komorebi: The Beauty of Passing Moments

Gianni Sarcone

With age, I have developed a quiet awareness—a deliberate minimalism that allows me to step back from the current of life, much as an artist steps back from a canvas to see it whole. I am a solitary person by nature. I have little appetite for the frenzy of our times: the endless accumulation of possessions, the demands of social obligations, or the constant stream of noise competing for our attention. I prefer distance, silence, and the freedom to observe without being swept along.

There is a Japanese word that captures something of what I feel: komorebi (木漏れ日).

It describes sunlight filtering through the leaves of trees, scattering shifting patterns of light and shadow across the ground. Yet it also speaks to me of the fleeting beauty of things that cannot be held still. It stirs a quiet blend of serenity and melancholy, a feeling that passes through my senses and reaches the deepest part of my being, where I feel closest to my true self.

Komorebi brings to mind Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Both touch on light, shadow, and the limits of human perception. Yet while Plato urges us to look beyond appearances, I find myself lingering over them.

A breeze moves the branches, the light shifts, and the pattern changes. What appears in one moment will never be exactly the same again. Nothing needs to be captured, explained, or possessed. I only need to be there to witness it.

Beauty has less to do with permanence than with attention. A moment does not lose its value because it passes; its transience is part of what makes it matter.

We spend so much of our lives trying to hold on to people, places, feelings, and even former versions of ourselves that no longer exist. Yet life, like sunlight through the leaves, is always moving. What slips away may never return, but we have known it, if only for a moment.

To notice komorebi is to pause and recognize that impermanence is not the enemy of beauty. It is inseparable from it.

The light filters through. The leaves move. For a fleeting moment, the world is simply as it is.

That is enough.

Ceci n’est pas une perspective

Gianni Sarcone

An impossible orange structure embedded in a surreal, Magritte-like painting.

This image is part of a book project exploring visual illusions through paintings inspired by the styles of well-known artists. The idea is to revisit familiar artistic languages—Magritte, Picasso, and others—through invented works that play with visual illusions, perspective, and perceptual paradoxes.

I’m developing this as a richly illustrated book for a broad audience interested in art, perception, and visual thinking.

I’d be interested in hearing from publishers or art-book editors who might like to explore the project.

Χρόνος and Καιρός

Gianni Sarcone

“The part of life we really live is small. For all the rest of existence is not life, but merely time.” — Seneca

Chronos measures time; Kairos gives it meaning.

The ancient Greeks had more than one word for time.

There was Χρόνος (Chrónos), the time that flows relentlessly, measured by clocks, calendars, and the ageing of our bodies. It is the time that runs, pushes us forward, and often makes us feel we are always late for something.

But the Greeks also spoke of Καιρός (Kairós): the right moment, the opportune moment, the instant when circumstances come together and something becomes possible. Unlike Chronos, Kairos cannot be measured in hours or minutes. It must be recognized.

Perhaps we spend too much of our lives chasing Chronos, when we should sometimes pause and listen for Kairos.

There is a time to sow, a time to harvest, and a time to let the earth rest. There is also a time to act, and a time to wait.

Interestingly, other ancient cultures developed similar ways of thinking about time. In Sanskrit, Kāla (काल) refers to time in its chronological and universal sense, while Ritu (ऋतु) describes time as a season or a qualitative moment—a period defined by its particular nature and significance.

The curious thing is that time does not pass at the same speed for everyone. A minute of anxiety can feel like an hour, while an entire afternoon of happiness may disappear in an instant. A child experiences summer as an eternity; an adult may wonder where the years have gone.

Chronos is the time we share. Kairos is the time we experience.

The deepest mystery of time, for me, is not how quickly it passes, but why it feels so different depending on who we are, what we are doing, and what we are waiting for. Two people can share the same hour, the same year, even the same lifetime, yet experience it in profoundly different ways. The distance between them is not measured in space, but in the way they inhabit time—as if they were living in different dimensions.

Which kind of time are you living in today?

kairos, time experienced

Credit:

The image shows a relief of Kairos, the personification of the opportune moment. Why the long hair at the front and the bald back of his head?

The symbolism is brutally simple: when Kairos approaches, seize him by the hair. Once he has passed, there is nothing to hold on to. No amount of regret can bring the opportunity back.

The original reliefs associated with Kairos are preserved today at the Archaeological Museum of Trogir, Croatia, and the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.

In Between the Strokes

Gianni Sarcone

These two minimalist Zen compositions exploit our brain’s tendency toward pareidolia and the Gestalt principle of closure: we instinctively connect isolated strokes, filling in what is missing until a familiar presence begins to emerge.

A few seemingly unrelated brushstrokes can be enough to suggest something—or someone—we recognize.

Can you see the hidden figures?

☞ For further exploration, visit my Subliminal Faces gallery.

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

YAACOV AGAM — YOU NEVER SEE IT ALL

Gianni Sarcone

“When I finish a work, it is just starting.” — Yaacov Agam

One of my favorite Op Art artists and a true visionary, Yaacov Agam (Hebrew: יעקב אגם) was a pioneer of kinetic and Op Art. His work explored movement, color, time, and perception, making the viewer an active part of the artwork rather than a passive observer.

Born in Rishon LeZion in 1928, Agam studied at the Bezalel Academy in Jerusalem and later with Johannes Itten in Zurich. He moved to Paris in 1951, where he became one of the leading figures of the European avant-garde. His first solo exhibition was held there in 1953.

Agam died in June 2026, at 98, after receiving the Israel Prize for Visual Arts. His work is represented in major museums around the world.

Among his most remarkable achievements is the Salon Agam, commissioned by President Georges Pompidou for the private apartments of the Élysée Palace and created between 1972 and 1974. Now in the collection of the Centre Pompidou, it is essentially a kinetic environment: walls, doors, ceiling, carpet, color and geometric forms change as the viewer moves through the space.

Agam understood something fundamental about visual art: the work is not always what you see. It is also what happens when you move, look again, and see something different.

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?

Newspeak and Esperanto: When Simplifying Language Simplifies Thought

Gianni Sarcone

At first glance, Orwell’s Newspeak in 1984 and Esperanto seem to have little in common. One is the fictional language of a totalitarian regime; the other was created by L. L. Zamenhof as an international language designed to make communication easier between people from different countries.

Yet they share an interesting structural principle: the simplification of language through regularity and word formation.

In Newspeak:

good → ungood → plusgood → doubleplusgood

Instead of good, bad, better, or excellent, one basic word does much of the work through prefixes and modifiers.

A surprisingly similar pattern exists in Esperanto:

bona → malbona → pli bona → bonega

good → bad → better → excellent.

The resemblance is structural, but the intentions are radically different. Esperanto uses regularity to make a language easier to learn and to generate words without memorizing endless irregular forms. Zamenhof’s aim was not to restrict thought, but to facilitate international communication.

Newspeak, by contrast, is designed to reduce the space in which thought can operate. Its ultimate purpose is not merely to simplify communication, but to make certain ideas increasingly difficult—or eventually impossible—to formulate.

There is, however, an intriguing historical footnote.

For decades, it has been speculated that Orwell’s antagonism toward his aunt’s husband, Eugène Lanti, a French socialist and prominent Esperanto speaker, may have influenced his conception of Newspeak. The claim remains speculative, not an established fact. But the story is fascinating in its own right because it leads back to the 1920s and 1930s, when many people on the political left regarded Esperanto as more than a neutral language: they saw it as a vehicle for international solidarity, social change, and working-class emancipation.

That makes the apparent linguistic connection even more intriguing—but it is important not to confuse historical speculation with evidence.

The deeper issue lies elsewhere.

A language does not merely describe thought. It also provides many of the distinctions through which we organize it.

Words do not correspond one-to-one with things or ideas. They exist within a network of synonyms, antonyms, associations, contrasts, and cultural practices. Meaning is therefore, in an important sense, holistic: a word cannot be fully understood in isolation from the larger linguistic system in which it lives.

If excellent, remarkable, magnificent, admirable, and exceptional are all reduced to variations of good, we have not merely simplified the dictionary. We have reduced the palette of distinctions available to us.

Of course, structural simplicity does not automatically produce impoverished thinking. Esperanto is a good example: a language can be highly regular and economical while remaining capable of expressing complex ideas. The danger begins when simplification stops removing unnecessary complexity and starts removing meaningful distinctions.

And that is perhaps the point worth remembering:

Distinctions matter.

So don’t be afraid of linguistic complexity. When you write, use a good thesaurus. Look at the synonyms and antonyms. Explore the neighboring words and the subtle differences between them. Then choose the word that says exactly what you mean.

Because language is not beautiful despite its complexity.

Language is beautiful because of it.

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.