Complex Specified Art
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
in the world? Naturally this Artist will be unspecified, it could be
space aliens, it could be God. It is beyond science to discover this
Artist, but we can prove that an Intelligent Artist must exist.
Many people think that science and art don't mix, and that the
methodology of science precludes discovering Artistry.
But with my revolutionary concept of Complex Specified Art will change
all that.
Consider a work of art such as the sculptures on Mount Rushmore.
Clearly they are complex.
Or consider a jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa. If you throw the pieces
on the floor, they will not make an artistic picture.
It is a complex task assembling a jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa. But
clearly there is a specification - the picture on the box is the
specification. This specification is what is called 'detachable'
- to use technical language. You can send the box to somebody else,
and they can examine other pictures and determine scientifically if any
given picture matches the specification of the Mona Lisa.
Clearly then the Mona Lisa is a work of art, and it is both complex and
specified. It is - in the technical language of information theory -
Complex Specified Art.
There are many other examples of Complex Specified Art. A painting by
numbers set will not paint itself. Each number on a painting by numbers
set codes for a specific colour. These colours are 'expressed'
during the development of the picture.
The chance of writing numbers at random on a piece of paper and having
these numbers code for a painting is 10 to the minus 130, well below
the limit of what can be produced by chance.
So a painting by numbers set is complex.
And it is also specified. The specification of Constable's 'The
Haywain' in a painting by numbers version of it is a clearly
recognisable pattern.
If SETI researchers found a space capsule containing Constable's
'They Haywain', they would recognise it as an artistic work
immediately. Although my theories are ground-breaking and
revolutionary, they are also already routinely employed in other fields
of science.
So now at last we have a truly scientific procedure for recognising
works of art. Are they complex? Are they specified? If so, they are
examples of Complex Specified Art. No longer do we have to rely on
people saying , I can't define works of art, but I know art when I
see it.
Archaelogists around the world will use this CSA technique to determine
if the artefacts they found are natural objects or works of art.
I cannot say whether I should be regarded as the Galileo or the Sir
Isaac Newton of the art world for at last putting art on a truly
scientific basis. That is for history to judge.
Consider a painting of a beautiful sunset. That is both complex and
specified (the specification of a sunset includes a sky and a sun for
example). It is therefore complex specified art, and so must be a work
of art.
But the sunset itself is also complex and specified and so is also a
work of art. Complex specified art can be transferred from one medium
to another, as can be seen by the way that the CSA in the Mona Lisa can
be transferred to a jigsaw puzzle of pieces of the Mona Lisa.
The CSA in the beautiful sunset can be transferred to a painting of a
beautiful sunset, but the CSA originated in the sunset.
So there must have been an Intelligent Artist to create the beautiful
sunset.
Naturally science can only detect CSA and cannot say anything about who
the Artist was or how He created CSA.
But we can now refute scientifically people who claim that a picture of
a beautiful painting is the work of an artist, but deny the artistry we
see in nature.
Thompson
> these numbers code for a painting is 10 to the minus 130, well below
> the limit of what can be produced by chance.
You might want to visit a gallery soon and take another look at your
data. In the last century those odds shifted a bit.
T
--
'I don't know anything about math, but I know what I like.'
Bobby D. Bryant
> Can we prove scientifically that there is an Intelligent Artist at
> work in the world? Naturally this Artist will be unspecified, it
> could be space aliens, it could be God. It is beyond science to
> discover this Artist, but we can prove that an Intelligent Artist
> must exist.
>
> Many people think that science and art don't mix, and that the
> methodology of science precludes discovering Artistry.
>
> But with my revolutionary concept of Complex Specified Art will
> change all that.
Can your filter distinguish Art from mere craft or hackwork?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
zawa...@yahoo.com
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Can we prove scientifically that there is an Intelligent Artist at work
> in the world? Naturally this Artist will be unspecified, it could be
> space aliens, it could be God. It is beyond science to discover this
> Artist, but we can prove that an Intelligent Artist must exist.
>
>
>
> Many people think that science and art don't mix, and that the
> methodology of science precludes discovering Artistry.
>
>
>
> But with my revolutionary concept of Complex Specified Art will change
> all that.
Matthew Isleb
> The chance of writing numbers at random on a piece of paper and having
> these numbers code for a painting is 10 to the minus 130, well below
> the limit of what can be produced by chance.
But you forget that the same could be said for any similarly large set of
data. Take any sufficiently large random sequence of numbers. The
chances of another sequence appearing exactly like the original is
10^-130 (or some really low number). Why should the "artistic" set be less
likely to be duplicated "by chance?"
-matthew
inquis...@mac.com
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Can we prove scientifically that there is an Intelligent Artist at work
> in the world? Naturally this Artist will be unspecified, it could be
> space aliens, it could be God. It is beyond science to discover this
> Artist, but we can prove that an Intelligent Artist must exist.
>
>
> So there must have been an Intelligent Artist to create the beautiful
> sunset.
>
>
> Naturally science can only detect CSA and cannot say anything about who
> the Artist was or how He created CSA.
Why do people go on about "an" artist or "a" designer, when using the
singular flies in the face of logic. Who could ever conclude that a
daffodil and an elephant were designed by the same designer? Or a
platypus and a butterfly? Only someone who is starting from a purely
religous belief in a single God, of course! It is more logical to talk
about a team of designers (or artists), each either working on
individual species or specializing on a system (e.g., immune systems).
Since the idea of ID cries out for teamwork, why aren't the ID folks at
least proposing that their alternative to evolution is intelligent
design by "one or more designers"? Because that would be contrary to
their religious beliefs!
Inquisitor #1
Cyde Weys
> The chance of writing numbers at random on a piece of paper and having
> these numbers code for a painting is 10 to the minus 130, well below
> the limit of what can be produced by chance.
Weys says:
Not true at all! The chance of making a modern art painting is
1 - 10^-130.
--
~ Cyde Weys ~
Sub veste quisque nudus est.
Cyde Weys
>
> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Naturally science can only detect CSA and cannot say anything about who
>> the Artist was or how He created CSA.
>
> Why do people go on about "an" artist or "a" designer, when using the
> singular flies in the face of logic. Who could ever conclude that a
> daffodil and an elephant were designed by the same designer? Or a
> platypus and a butterfly? Only someone who is starting from a purely
> religous belief in a single God, of course! It is more logical to talk
> about a team of designers (or artists), each either working on
> individual species or specializing on a system (e.g., immune systems).
>
> Since the idea of ID cries out for teamwork, why aren't the ID folks at
> least proposing that their alternative to evolution is intelligent
> design by "one or more designers"? Because that would be contrary to
> their religious beliefs!
Cyde says:
You make a very valid point that I've never heard anyone answer before (nor
have I even thought of!) See, it's because I was raised monotheistic, and
even now I still have monotheist leanings (despite being atheist). So when
someone says "intelligent designer", I know they're really talking about
God, and my concept of God only has one, so to me "intelligent design"
equals "THE Judeo-Christian God". But you've shattered my preconceptions
on the subject. You're right, it does make a lot more sense that it would
be multiple intelligent designers rather than one. I want to see someone
bring up this point in court or to Dembski or Behe. I want to see how much
popularity the ID movement has behind it when it's now positing everything
is the work of intelligent designers.
er...@swva.net
>
(snip)
>
> Consider a painting of a beautiful sunset. That is both complex and
> specified (the specification of a sunset includes a sky and a sun for
> example). It is therefore complex specified art, and so must be a work
> of art.
>
>
> But the sunset itself is also complex and specified and so is also a
> work of art.
But the complex specification is also complex and specified, so it's
complex specifications all the way down.
(snip)
Eric Root
Robert J. Kolker
It's a Miracle
way possible.
For instance everything in the universe is just a variation of a
cone,cube or a sphere. You can make a rectangle by moving a cube through
space. You can make anything in the universe by moving those three
objects through space.
The trick that will make you believe that an artist has talent is that
an artist doesn't draw objects. For instance to draw a hand you don't
draw individual finger if you do it will look awkward. You draw the
negative space shaped like a cone in between the fingers. The secret is
drawing the negative with the three universal objects by moving them
through space.
The only complexity is the composition you chose because ultimately your
just communicating an idea but your not using something obvious like a
language if your a visual artist. Writers are artists that specifically
use language as art and musicians use sound. I don't know how
composition works in those areas but ultimately the complexity comes
from the idea being communicated but it comes out of composition.
If your going to apply specified complexity you have to apply it to
composition but that is just where ideas are communicated. Most people
think all art is subjective but it's really not. If someone makes a
composition and 50 people have different ideas what your saying then
thats not being subjective because some people aren't intelligent enough
to get it.
Take cubism it makes me clueless I don't get it because my intelligence
just can't see the composition. My father would probably see it because
he thinks that way.
The specified complexity is in the composition. It would be nice if I
could paint white on white like Norman Rockwell but it wouldn't affect
specified complexity one bit if I could but it would be doubtful I could
sell a painting for a million dollars if I can't do white on white like
Norman Rockwell.
So really an artist is just a communicater there isn't anything
supernatural about artistic integrety and art isn't as subjective as you
think because integrety isn't subjective. If I make a composition and I
know it has integrety and 50 people don't get it. It's not subjective
because integrety isn't subjective if you don't get it the integrety
that isn't there is with you and not me I made great art with integrety
if you didn't get it you may never get it.
So the only thing different about an elephant flinging paint cans on a
canvas and something I can create is my painting will have integrety.
Take the artist in ST petersburg that painted a picture of a little girl
sitting on a chair with her legs slightly opened enough to cast shadows
on her crouch. The composition had the shadow in her crouch the central
focus so your eye always landed on the shadow making you look up the
dress.
That painting which isn't pornographic had enough integrety to have
politicians looking up girls dresses protesting child pornography. The
intent of the artist was to protest child pornography not create child
pornography. The artist had integrety and created a firestorm of protest
and hundreds of thousands of people went to see the painting. So in this
case the artist had integrety by making himself look like a
pedophile.The people who thought he was a pedophile were stupid
including the politicians who didn't get it and thats not subjective.
I don't know how you apply specified complexity to integrety though.
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
Andrew Arensburger
> Sayeth :
> > The chance of writing numbers at random on a piece of paper and having
> > these numbers code for a painting is 10 to the minus 130, well below
> > the limit of what can be produced by chance.
> Not true at all! The chance of making a modern art painting is
> 1 - 10^-130.
You must be thinking of the MST3K episode in which Joel's
invention was the paint-by-numbers Mark Rothko: a blank canvas with
the number 1 in the middle.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
If things were left to chance, they'd be better.