PARASITES INSIDE OF VIRUSES?
Ludwig Plutonium
anth...@scripps.edu writes:
> In article <31bdjr$p...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, <Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu>
>
> writes:
> When we find viruses inside of viruses, that feat will propell
> > virology and biotechnology to newer heights.
>
> It's been done, Ludi--quite some time ago. There are some hazzardds, you
>
> see, with making such bold statements when you don't know the facts.
>
> -tony
First things first. Colin Douthwaite, our resident artist did a
wonderful illustration to my logical complaints against the reports of
George Smoot and company. Pictures speak a thousand words and the
artistry sort of brought that logic to life. I think that even George
Smoot himself, after reading those logic complaints illustrated with
pictures can "begin to perceive the errors of his ways".
PU, PLuto, blesses the soul of Colin Douthwaite to The Fields of
Elysium. ATOM
I am asking for someone in alt.ascii-art to please do a logarithmic
spiral as best they can. And there is something very mathwise pleasing
in this "work of a logarithmic spiral". In a given area, there is one
maximum-best art work. This might be the first math proof which has a
profound word to say about art. Within a given area of the computer
screen there is one and only one best artwork of the logarithmic
spiral. One maximally-best and the other attempts will be inferior
artwork. I think some friends over in sci.math can help me out in
stating this math theorem precisely. And, if someone posts a logarthmic
spiral, I would please like their permission to use it without
reference for my work on superdeterminism. So please post that the
spiral can be used-without-permission. Thanks in advance.
Back to sci.bio. I need that logarithmic spiral to push the idea of
superdeterminism. And I aim to link chemistry with biology, in order to
show how highly predictive biology is. Once biology uses the correct
science of superdeterminism, and not the fake-baloney of evolution.
Felix Lee
> I am asking for someone in alt.ascii-art to please do a logarithmic
>spiral as best they can. And there is something very mathwise pleasing
>in this "work of a logarithmic spiral". In a given area, there is one
>maximum-best art work. This might be the first math proof which has a
>profound word to say about art. Within a given area of the computer
>screen there is one and only one best artwork of the logarithmic
>spiral. One maximally-best and the other attempts will be inferior
>artwork.
Sorry, no. I can trivially prove this false by considering attempts
at representing a logarithmic spiral in a 2x2 area. They're all
equally bad. :)
ascii art is as much illusion as other art forms are, and as such, it
depends upon accidents of perception, which are partly innate, partly
learned, partly individual. There isn't even such a thing as a "best"
straight line between two points. You have to consider, best for what
purpose?
/ _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
/ _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
/ _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
Each of these conveys a different style, a different mood. And
besides, they look different on different terminals.
(sorry for rambling about ascii art in all these sci groups, but
Ludwig brought it up.. Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art.)
(The best 1x1 logarithmic spiral: @.)
--
Ludwig Plutonium
anth...@scripps.edu writes:
> In fact, by logic, the two points you mention would indicate that the virus is
>
> neither Necessary nor Sufficient. (I don't know why you call it "math logic."
>
> Have you ever studied logic?)
> I think most everyone in the field would agree that lots of infected,
>
> assymtomatic people are out there. I don't know what the longest ongoing
>
> latent period is. I do know that many of the healthy infected eventually
>
> develop the disease. In any event, clearly, being infected is not sufficient
>
> for the symptoms.
>
> AS paul pointed out, AIDS is a "syndrome." There may be other ways to get the
>
> same syndrome. Anything that destroys the immune system may have similar
>
> symptomology. So, HIV is not necessary for the syndrome.
>
> So we agree that the virus is neither necessary nor sufficient. The question
>
> that remains is, is i am important etiological agent. That is, if you could
>
> immunize against or eliminate the virus, would you reduce the occurance of the
>
> syndrome. Smart money is on "yes."
> Is it important to look at other factors: of course. And scientists are doing
>
> it.
>
> -tony
I am glad you brought up the issue of math logic Tony, because when
I was Archimedes in my past life, I pushed math 2000 years ahead of its
time by devising the calculus. The geometrical calculus was invented
not by Leibniz, not by the "falsely credited" Newton (in fact the
Bernoulli's deserve more credit than Newton). It was me, Archimedes,
who first discovered the calculus but I was hampered by notation, also
number system notation. Such is a "minor problem" when you are 2000
years advanced of your time.
I am going to throw biology, even with the loud nauseating squawks
of nitwits in the background such as evolutionists, 2000 years into the
future.
Biology, 2000 years from now will be very much reliant on the
computer to store the data. And it will be chemistry.
The biological law I am working up to is vaguely like this----
chemical compounds have a superdetermined time when they come into
existence. And, chemical compounds have a superdetermined relative
abundance which is as exact as the logarithmic spiral is a perfect
exact spiral.
Ludwig Plutonium
wina...@gemcil.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> I went back to my biochem text last night and read up on prions. I was wrong
> when I said there are plant diseases linked to prions--what I was thinking of
> when I said that was virions, not prions.
>
> Prions are coded for in the DNA of normal cells of many mammals, invertebrates,
> and possibly even yeasts. Infectious prions have an identical amino acid
> sequence to the normal, non-infections ones, but they have different biochemical
> characteristics which suggests that some of the amino acids may be modified
> after synthesis of the protein or that the infectious prions have different
> sugar groups attached.
>
> Why this different modification occurs is the big question. As I said in my
> reply, electrochemical cell membrane activity is fairly widespread, so if
> prions are rendered infectious by the electrical fields generated by such
> activity, the question is why infectious prion disease isn't more widespread
> amongst different types of cells/organelles. I think it's more likely that
> some physiological or biochemical mechanism specific to nerve cells is involved
> in infectious prion activation, since the only known or suspected prion-caused
> diseases are all nervous system disorders.
>
> --PSW
Once we start using true biological science law such as
superdeterminism, not the fakery of evolution. Then we can start making
meaningful biological predictions. Use the science to make the
predictions, and then go out into the field or laboratory and confirm
the predictions.
Superdeterminism predicts that there is a last fundamental unit of
replication. Superdeterminism predicts that it is spontaneous
materialization. Prions are the candidates.
Physics idiots, astronomy idiots when asked how the Milky Way is
formed they will eventually say dust. Physics and astronomy idiots when
asked how the Sun and stars were formed, they will eventually be
cornered into saying dust. Intergalactic dust, interstellar dust, and
the dust in their living rooms. But such are idiots and their cobwebs
of a science mind will not be cleansed.
No, the true answer as to how things come into existence is "atom
growth" via radioactivity of spontaneous neutron materialization. A
10^14 cosmic proton was discovered (I say spontaneously). That is
enough energy to spontaneously materialize a complete bacteria, say
nothing about virus, viroid, or prion. That particle, I conjecture was
a dramatic spontaneous materialization of energy inside of an ATOM
TOTALITY. People reading this for the first time can either line-up
with the dustball thinkers of growth, or line-up with me and QM
radioactivities. Ask the dustball collectors how come the abundance of
the chemical elements is so highly uniform throughout the observed
universe? Is their answer that the Big Bang has a good Electrox or
Hoover Vacuum Cleaner?
I intend to push biology 2000 years into the future. It will be
predictive and a few of its predictions are that we will be able to
predict whether there are lifeforms on other planets just from theory.
We will be able to predict the major forms of prions, viroids, and
viruses, all from theory, just as we are able to predict in physics
what particles may or may not exist, e.g. positron, neutrinos.
Paul S. Winalski
If I interpret what you have said correctly, you are saying that prions are
the fundamental replicative biological unit, and that a spontaneously
materialized prion was the first life form. Is that correct?
--PSW
Ludwig Plutonium
fl...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:
> Sorry, no. I can trivially prove this false by considering attempts
> at representing a logarithmic spiral in a 2x2 area. They're all
> equally bad. :)
>
> ascii art is as much illusion as other art forms are, and as such, it
> depends upon accidents of perception, which are partly innate, partly
> learned, partly individual. There isn't even such a thing as a "best"
> straight line between two points. You have to consider, best for what
> purpose?
>
> / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
> / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
> / _/ ./ ,/ /' .' ,'
>
> Each of these conveys a different style, a different mood. And
> besides, they look different on different terminals.
>
> (sorry for rambling about ascii art in all these sci groups, but
> Ludwig brought it up.. Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art.)
>
> (The best 1x1 logarithmic spiral: @.)
Your last statement about 1x1 is correct. Your other statements are
wrong. When you have a perfect artpiece as the logarithmic spiral or
sine curve then there are no artists who can draw either one to the
perfection of math, even using instruments. Some will draw a better Ln
spiral than others and each can be compared as to one another and one
or a class of them can be claimed the best, but none will be as perfect
as the math objects. This is perhaps the first doors of comparing
artwork. Art, and masterpiece paintings will not stay so to speak
"immune from math analysis".
And this door will also be of economic value. Already masterpiece
paintings are translated into bits on computer. Photographic pictures
are many bits per area.
I say there is a math theorem which begins to speak of art. I
conjecture such will be proved along the lines of--- given a specific
number of bits. Then each work of art can be compared math artistically
against one another.
Some math theorem which states that given a math object, given a
finite number of bits, then there is a maximal art rendering of that
object and all others are inferior.
Such a theorem and further theorems along the lines of art will come
into economic importance in the future because the computer art will
merge with photography and movie frames. In the long term future, there
will no longer be any need for actors or stage props to make movies.
Movies will be made from bits on the computer. We have some now, known
as cartoons. The more sophisticated ones are special effects in science
fiction movies. But, as the future rolls on, the computer manipulation
will make people which are so difficult to tell apart from real live
actors. The clue will be that the real live acting movies have
blemishes, awkwardness, and have a roughness. In future movies, the
people and background all originate from a computer. And the highest
art work will be to maximize each frame so that it looks so lifelike.
Call them computerized movies. In the future, the movie artists will be
able to make a movie on Archimedes so authenthic looking that it will
appear you were transported back in time and seeing the action as an
eyewitness newsreporter.
Felix Lee
> Some math theorem which states that given a math object, given a
>finite number of bits, then there is a maximal art rendering of that
>object and all others are inferior.
This is *rendering*, which is perhaps the least interesting aspect of
art. You may be able to develop some maximization function that
describes how faithful a particular rendering is to a particular
abstract conception, but so what?
Consider a straight line. Since a mathematical line has no thickness,
a perfect rendering would use no ink, no bits. This is useless for
most purposes.
Let's restate the problem as: find the best rendering of a particular
thin, rectangular area. (Note that this choice is arbitrary. Why not
a thin, sinusoidal area?)
If you want to render it in grayscale pixels, then the anti-aliasing
algorithm is arguably the best method. (Though this is hardly
a trivial argument.)
But in ascii, the choice of an optimization function is far from
straightforward. Let's simplify even further: ignore the problem of
the different shapes and proportions of different fonts. Limit the
problem to just one particular font ("courr12" from X11) that's
represented by 1-bit pixmaps.
An obvious optimization function is to count the number of "on" bits
within the thin rectangle and subtract the number of "on" bits outside
the thin rectangle.
For one particular thin rectangle, it turns out the "optimal"
rendering looks like this:
,,,,,,,,,,,
but I would argue that this:
___________
is a better rendering for most purposes, despite the fact that all of
its "on" bits are outside the thin rectangle being rendered.
At every step in this quest for a mathematical definition of maximal
art rendering, I had to make gross simplifications and "aesthetic
judgments", and the result is still lacking.
If you really want to develop a rigorous, mathematical definition of
perfect art, I wish you luck, but I doubt such a thing is particularly
useful.
(On a different point, art != realism. But this is another long,
boring argument that I don't want to get into.)
(Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art again.)
--
Ludwig Plutonium
fl...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:
More to it than just rendering Felix. I am saying that art is just
dots per cm. The screen is about 30 dots per cm (dpc). The most
advanced dpc is 300 dpc. What is the highest resolution of film
photography? Is it 300 dpc?
Paintings, masterpieces, movies are visual art. We can define art as
resolution. We can define beauty in art as "intentions conveyed
visually".
Can the Mona Lisa be made better? Sure. In the future we will so to
speak "atomize" all masterpieces into dots per cm. We will go below the
current dpc of the Mona Lisa and then change some dots. Presto a new
Mona Lisa better than the original Leonardo da Vinci work. Each will be
pixels described by one math equation each.
In other words, Felix. Art in the future is merely the technique of
math dots per centimeter. Many math theorems will be proved which say
alot about art. And even art beauty can be defined as "original
intent". If we want a masterpiece of female face then the picture which
resolves the female face to as close as a real female face, drop the
brushes, and drop everything else. It is the atomization, the dots per
cm which will be it. The best artists of the future will be using
computers. You can say that the masterpieces of old is the pinnacle of
"hand drawn dpc". In the future the computer will vastly exceed the dpc
of the old masters such as Michelangelo, da Vinci, et al. But picture
painting will not be as interesting as the union of sight resolution
and sound resolution that is capable in movies.
Felix Lee
> Paintings, masterpieces, movies are visual art. We can define art as
>resolution. We can define beauty in art as "intentions conveyed
>visually".
I think you're confused on several levels about the meaning and
purpose of art.
Today's silly example: "I wish to convey the essence of the dilemma
that a Christian faces in attempting to reconcile a respect for the
scientific worldview against a sincere religious conviction. I've
narrowed it down to two possibilities:
<
and
>
Which is more optimal?"
Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise
intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when
he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And
if you start trying to figure out the precise pattern of paint
splatters that optimally represents Pollack's intention, then you've
missed the point entirely.
--
Ludwig Plutonium
>
> Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise
> intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when
> he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And
> if you start trying to figure out the precise pattern of paint
> splatters that optimally represents Pollack's intention, then you've
> missed the point entirely.
Precisely, his canvas "intended" to fleece the public out of money.
All art has an intent. And that intent may be vague for even the artist
himself/herself. Our Maker 231PU superdetermines it.
And, that "intent" can switch as time goes by. When da Vinci did the
Mona Lisa, that female face was the highest dot per square cm
resolution of any painting on Earth. But now we can do better than
that. The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face
excels the Mona Lisa. But the intent of the Mona Lisa has now switched
from resolution of female face to big time money for auctioneers. Put
the best resolution photograph of a female human next to the Mona Lisa
into a museum of advanced aliens from another planet and the Mona Lisa
is second rate in comparison.
Increasingly, math will take over art.
Felix Lee
> Precisely, his canvas "intended" to fleece the public out of money.
>All art has an intent. And that intent may be vague for even the artist
>himself/herself. Our Maker 231PU superdetermines it.
> And, that "intent" can switch as time goes by. When da Vinci did the
>Mona Lisa, that female face was the highest dot per square cm
>resolution of any painting on Earth. But now we can do better than
>that. The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face
>excels the Mona Lisa. But the intent of the Mona Lisa has now switched
>from resolution of female face to big time money for auctioneers. Put
>the best resolution photograph of a female human next to the Mona Lisa
>into a museum of advanced aliens from another planet and the Mona Lisa
>is second rate in comparison.
Hmm. I think we're having semantic difficulties. You're using the
word "intent" in a way I'm not familiar with.
This "intent" that can change over time, is it a universal or is it
something that varies subjectively?
--
Colin Douthwaite
> The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face
> excels the Mona Lisa.
Not true.
The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with
high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty
of a female face.
Failure, or a lack of ability, to recognise the intangible aspects
of The Mona Lisa can only lead to invalid assumptions in the
development of any proposition " that mathematics will increasingly
overtake art ".
Even in the following very primitive ascii rendition of Mona Lisa,
the intangible quality is present. There is a hint of it in inverse
video mode, but it becomes evident when printed in Bold Pica Font on
a dot matrix printer. The print needs to be viewed from a distance
of 1 metre or more.
::';t)/!||||(//L+)'(-\\/ddjWWW#######WmKK(\!(/-|J=/\\t/!-/\!_L\)!
:|-!/(!-)\L\)/!\5(!.!LWW###################WK/|!\\\\/!;\/\T\/((\-
:|!'//\//(-!t\Y/\L!m#####M####################WLt\\!)\/J-//)/;t\,
:--/-.\.\/\.!)///m######K#######################WK!/!-( )-!,|/\T
://,\--`--!-/\(q#######DD##########################L\\\\-!!//!\\,
:-.-!\'!!\-\/:W########N############################W,).'-.-/\-';
:!.\!-!-!`!-!W#######P|+~**@@@#######################W/,/'\-/,\7-
:--`,-- -/.:W###*P!' \`Z8#####################;,\\`,\,\
:`.'.'\`-.-d##5'- -- '-:V@##########W#########_\-!-\\-
:`, -,.'/,G##K- ' - )7KM###################\-----/
:- '- --:##@; -!ZZ###################W! \'!-'
: '-.`- G###|. `,D8K###################|/-.-/,
:-' ,-//###@) -)ZWMW##################\` _\
:- ' .:Yd###! `-!(K5K##################|(/L|,
: - :\G###Z- ` ! -;55ZZ#################)(4)'
: . -!W####!\ ` ' !-tVG################XNVZ-
: tt####@-. ` ')(W################D)8@|
: )8#####\ .-`-/KW#################KD#|
: ||Z####W!- .::,\.. -,;\bZKK######8#K#########(#8|
: KN8#####( ,:!/GG_ d4KW8ZKW#WWK#W#88#######W##########WK#-
: )/8K###K#W#WP~~~T4( dW##7'___L#M####MM8W###W############bM8|
:\!48#K####8##W*###WY; WRob+~~######*ff/\NM8###############WW#|
:.\\KW###W#,~t' !*~!', -M@) `~`,),' '.`K#################@KW|
:.'8M###### -'..j/Z'' @//- ,,\\+\' :|W######M###########8|
::\#8#K###D \!` !:Z8###8@#####8W#W###8M|
:q8W5###### `!- `-)8##################M8;
:8WZ8#M####- / . .\tK############@######ZJ!
:#W#@K###W#| // \\tW@###@K##W##W###K###Wm;
:##8#M#8###P- -=/, /;D8W##############@###W##|
:#8###M@####\- , _)jJ; -((WKK#####W####W##K######K|
:###W@K##K##); `\..KW##WK )X)KW#M##W###MW##@#W######8#|
:#K#W####@#@@/;- ~M####M\ ,.\\=)D8W##W###W##########8W##@|
:####MW######(`\\' PPK((.:|/!-\-/)8XN@WMK#######W##MK#@#####|
:##8##MK#W#@#b!--\)L_. .(ZLWbW#\'- ,-N|/KM#######W###@########W#|
:##KW###K#W###/- !``~~Yff*N5f -' -.\))KK#######MK##W###M8W#W###|
:#W###K@K######J-- .._dd/;)/- !//)NK#8W##########8########M#K|
:##8W#K###W#####W!. `YY\)\\)\7(-)4dW#8#@###K#W#######8########|
:M####8##K#KW###W#/, '-\\//)88W#M#@#K##M###@##M#8##@#W#8#M|
:ZW#W#M#K##########m -)!/LtWW#W##@#W#####KW#######W###K###|
:K##W#####W#M#8#####KL .-//dD##8W#K######8##########MK###W##M#|
:tN#W##W#W#M##########bb4dKW#@##W##K####MK####8###########W#####|
:)NM#8W##@###@##############@##@##8##K#W####M##K##K#@###8##M####|
:(tMM###W##M8####@####@###@#########@####8W##8W################M|
:tNZ##K###W####@#####8###/4N##8#W##W##M#8#MK#M8#K######W########|
:M/K@8###M@###M##########|!t*Z#N####8##M8Z@ZZ#M###@#W#####K###W#|
:WVd4M######@############D,\`(+KKZD#8WK#5@84VZ#WM############W##|
:K5WM8#8W#W########8######,,-!/))ZK5@K4)@+(/XV/Z###@###W###M####|
:+8WN@##@K##W###W#########b.-.\!||\X(5)Z/7\\\t5/K########W######|
:8M8###@###@##8#########KDbt! !.-!t`(-\\!.\/.\!ZdG###W#MW###G###|
:~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~` '' ' ` ` ' ' ` ``~`~`~`~~~~'~~~~'
rob...@vlsi.cs.caltech.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bye,
Rudrik Greyshadow
> The golden ratio (tau) is (1 + sqrt(5))/2, which is approximately
> 1.618. This number has the property that
> tau / 1 = (tau + 1) / tau
> And it's the only real number with that property.
Note this relationship can also be expressed as:
tau-1 = 1/tau and 1/(tau-1)=tau and tau^2 = tau+1
[snip snip]
>
> A golden rectangle is a rectangle where the ratio between the lengths
> of the two sides is tau. Like so:
> ___________________________________________
> | tau : 1 |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | tau : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> | : |
> |________________________:________________|
>
> The top has a length of (tau + 1), and the side has a length of tau,
> giving a ratio of (tau + 1) / tau = tau.
[deleted] as you can see by looking at the ratio of its sides. The
smaller
> rectangle has the same shape as the whole rectangle.
You can't fool me: all rectangles have the same "shape" ;-)
The important thing is the ratio of the sides (Ie. Length/Width = tau)
remains constant for each new rect. created when you "remove" perfect :)
squares from the figure.
___________________________________________
| 1 : (tau - 1) | L/W = tau/1 = tau
| : |
| : | Next iterations:
| : |
| : (tau - 1) | L/W = 1/(tau-1) = tau
| : |
| 1 : | L/W = (tau-1)/(2-tau)=tau
| : |
| :................| L/W = (2-tau)/(2tau-3)=tau
| : |
| : (2 - tau) | etc....
| : |
|________________________:________________|
> Classical art and ancient Greek architecture uses the golden ratio
> pretty often. The golden rectangle is supposed to be the most
> aesthetically pleasing rectangle.......
OK put in the Disney Classic "Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land" and
voila...
I new I had heard this stuff before. :)
-- Greyshadow
Ludwig Plutonium
Colin_Do...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
> The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with
> high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty
> of a female face.
I was hoping that Colin or someone would do a logarithmic spiral of
the same rectangular dimension of the ascii Mona Lisa.
The math proof of art would say something like this of the ascii Mona
Lisa. There is a maximum best ascii of the Mona Lisa. Because of the
limitations of number of bits (pixels) and the limitations of what
character goes into the bits. When it comes down to the appraisal of
two ascii Mona Lisa's, for instance, one of those will have say a ; in
a bit whereas the other picture will have say a : in that same bit, and
all other bits the same exact character. Then comparing those two ascii
pictures of the Mona Lisa, the one with the ; instead of the : is of a
higher resolution "compared with the actual Mona Lisa".
Math will increasingly encroach upon art, and in the future, have the
heavy hand over it. The two essential aspects of art are "intention"
and "resolution". The intention part is the "purpose of art". In the
past history of art, since there was no photographic camera, later the
movie camera. Art was the highest resolution hand work since no cameras
existed. The intent in the old art for the majority of cases was to
preserve a picture-- just like we use a picture camera for that purpose
today.
Christopher Beattie
>Subject: Re: Art, math, realism, ascii (Re: PARASITES INSIDE OF
>Date: 02 Aug 1994 17:30:50 GMT
>> And, that "intent" can switch as time goes by. When da Vinci did the
>>Mona Lisa, that female face was the highest dot per square cm
>>resolution of any painting on Earth. But now we can do better than
>>that. The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face
>>excels the Mona Lisa. But the intent of the Mona Lisa has now switched
>>from resolution of female face to big time money for auctioneers. Put
>>the best resolution photograph of a female human next to the Mona Lisa
>>into a museum of advanced aliens from another planet and the Mona Lisa
>>is second rate in comparison.
The Mona Lisa is not great because it was a precision drawing,
(although the Mona Lisa does have to give a little of its modern
day populatity to its creator's name, but only a little) but
because of the expression on her face, the way the light reacts,
and so forth.
After all, protrait painters were a dime a dozen.
As are photographers today.
| --- --/ /-\ /-\ | Christopher Beattie | Disclamer: |
| | / | | | / | Tantalus @ Key West | My opinions are mine. |
| | /-- \-/ | \ | chr...@central.keywest.mpgn.com |
Ludwig Plutonium
chr...@central.keywest.mpgn.com (Christopher Beattie) writes:
> The Mona Lisa is not great because it was a precision drawing,
> (although the Mona Lisa does have to give a little of its modern
> day populatity to its creator's name, but only a little) but
> because of the expression on her face, the way the light reacts,
> and so forth.
>
> After all, protrait painters were a dime a dozen.
>
> As are photographers today.
I am glad you brought that up. In the future, the flaws of the Mona
Lisa will be analyzed as precisely through math, just as all the
combinations of the game tic tac toe have been analyzed through math
game theory.
The original Mona Lisa will be analyzed and it will be found that in
several of its pixels or bits of information, that it was impossible
for the "lighting to be such". In other words, when we look at a great
sci fi movie and a real motion picture film, we soon spot the "fiction"
part of the sci fi and know that it is not real. Likewise with the Mona
Lisa compared to a top quality photograph. If we had never seen or
heard about either one, we can recognize soon that the Mona Lisa is a
type of "science fiction art" compared to the photograph art.
In the future, a Scotland Yard type of art detector can spot the fake
art from the true art, perhaps from the lighting, or something else
which is inconsistent with the other pixels and bits. We can see some
of this nowadays. Scientific American had a superposed picture of
Marilyn Monroe with someone else. The math and physics art detectives
will be able to distinguish them, no matter how cleverly arranged.
If the Mona Lisa did not have that huge money price tag associated
with it, then that hype about beautiful art would disappear. Show a
starving person the Mona Lisa or the Grand Canyon, which mean little
compared to a good dinner. To put it in perspective, 10,000 years ago
some humans revered an animal and drew it in their cave-art. In 10,000
years into the future, the Mona Lisa will be to those future people
what the cave-art was 10,000 years ago.
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <Colin_Dout...@equinox.gen.nz>
: Colin_Do...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
: > The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with
: > high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty
: > of a female face.
> I was hoping that Colin or someone would do a logarithmic spiral
> of the same rectangular dimension of the ascii Mona Lisa.
Keep hoping :-)
> Math will increasingly encroach upon art, and in the future, have
> the heavy hand over it.
A reasonable prediction given the continuing advance of technology
in the formation and presentation of artwork. This does not mean
however that mathematics or science will replace art.
> The two essential aspects of art are "intention" and "resolution".
These are essential elements of art, but there are others. They
include the intangible elements present in all art forms which maths
and science ( at least in their present form ) are unable to measure
or quantify.
Art has a lot to do with perception, and perception is highly
variable and most difficult to measure. Science and mathematics seem
very deficient in handling or addressing intangibles - and so we
need Art to assist us.
...and here is another ascii version of Mona Lisa which does perhaps
vaguely convey the intangible element but only if you have already
seen a reproduction or photo of the Mona Lisa:
iIYVVVVXVVVVVVVVVYVYVYYVYYYYIIIIYYYIYVVVYYYYYYYYYVVYVVVVXVVVVVYI+.
tYVXXXXXXVXXXXVVVYVVVVVVVVVVVVYVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVXXXXXVXXXXXXXVVYi.
iYXRXRRRXXXXXXXXXXXVVXVXVVVVVVVVXXXVXVVXXXXXXXXXXXXXXRRRRRRRRRXVi.
tVRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRXRXXXXXXXXXXXXXXRRXXXXRRRRXXXXXXXRRRRRRRRRRRRXV+.
tVRRBBBRMBRRRRRRRRRXXRRRRRXt=+;;;;;==iVXRRRRXXXXRRRRRRRRMMBRRRRXi,
tVRRBMBBMMBBBBBMBBRBBBRBX++=++;;;;;;:;;;IRRRRXXRRRBBBBBBMMBBBRRXi,
iVRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBRBBMMV==iIVYIi=;;;;:::;;XRRRRRRBBMMMMMMMMBBRRXi.
iVRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMY;IBWWWWMMXYi=;:::::;RBBBMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBBXi,
+VRMMRBMMMMMMMMMMMMMMY+;VMMMMMMMRXIi=;:::::=VVXXXRRRMMMMMMMMBBMXi;
=tYYVVVXRRRXXRBMMMMMV+;=RBBMMMXVXXVYt;::::::ttYYVYVVRMMMMMMBXXVI+=
;=tIYYVYYYYYYVVVMMMBt=;;+i=IBi+t==;;i;::::::+iitIIttYRMMMMMRXVVI=;
;=IIIIYYYIIIIttIYItIt;;=VVYXBIVRXVVXI;::::::;+iitttttVMMBRRRVVVI+,
;+++tttIttttiiii+i++==;;RMMMBXXMMMXI+;::::::;+ittttitYVXVYYIYVIi;;
;===iiittiiIitiii++;;;;:IVRVi=iBXVIi;::::::::;==+++++iiittii+++=;;
;;==+iiiiiiiiii+++=;;;;;;VYVIiiiVVt+;::::::::;++++++++++iti++++=;;
;;=++iiii+i+++++iii==;;;::tXYIIYIi+=;:::::,::;+++++++++++++++++=;;
;;;+==+ii+++++iiiiit=;;:::::=====;;;::::::::::+++i+++++++++i+++;;;
;;;==+=+iiiiitttIIII+;;;:,::,;;;;:;=;;;::,::::=++++++++==++++++;;;
:;====+tittiiittttti+;;::::,:=Ytiiiiti=;:::::,:;;==ii+ittItii+==;;
;;+iiittIti+ii;;===;;:;::::;+IVXVVVVVVt;;;;;::::;;===;+IIiiti=;;;;
;=++++iIti+ii+=;;;=;:::;;+VXBMMBBBBBBXY=;=;;:::::;=iYVIIttii++;;;;
;;++iiiItttIi+++=;;:::;=iBMMMMMMMMMMMXI==;;,::;;:;;=+itIttIIti+;;;
;=+++++i+tYIIiii;:,::;itXMMMMMMMMMMMBXti==;:;++=;:::::;=+iittti+;;
;;+ii+ii+iitiIi;::::;iXBMMMMMWWWWWMMBXti+ii=;::::,,,,:::=;==+tI+;;
;;iiiitItttti;:::;::=+itYXXMWWWWWWMBYt+;;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,:==;==;;;;
:;=iIIIttIt+:;:::;;;==;+=+iiittttti+;;:,:,,,,::,,,,,,,,:::;=;==::;
;::=+ittiii=;:::::;;;:;:;=++==;;==;:,,,,,,:;::::,,,,,,,,::;==;;::;
:::;+iiiii=;::::,:;:::::;;:;;::;:::,,,,,,,:::;=;;;:,,,,,:::;;::::;
:;;iIIIIII=;:::,:::::::,::::,:::,,,,,,,,,,,:;;=;:,,,,,,::::;=;:::;
:;==++ii+;;;:::::::::::,,,,,,::,,,,,,,,,,,::::,,,,,,,,,,:,:::::::;
::;;=+=;;;:::;;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::;
::;=;;;:;:::;;;;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::,,::::;
:;;:;::::::,::,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::;
:::::::::::;;;:,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,...,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,:;
::::::::;=;;;;;::,,,,,,,,,,,.......,...,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,;
:::::,,:;=;;;;;;;iVXXXVt+:,,....,,,,....,.,,,,,,,.,.....,,,,,,,,:;
:,,::,,:::;;;;;;=IVVVXXXXVXVt:,,,,,..,..,,,,.,,,,,..,.,,,,,,,,,,,;
::,::,,,:,:::::,::;=iIYVXVVVVIYIi;,,.,.,,,::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::;+itIIIIIIi:;;i++=;;;;;;;;;::,,,...,,..,,,,,,,.
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=iitVYi++iitt==it;;:;;;;::;;::::,,,......,,,,,,,::.
::,,,,,,,,,,,,,++iiIVIi=;;=;+i;:;+:::,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....,,,,,,,,::,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;=+it=:::,,,,,,,,,,.,......,,.,..........,,,,,,,,::
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:=:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......................,.,,.,.,,:
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,..,........................,..,...,,:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....................................,.......,,
,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,...............................................,,
itittiiiii+=++=;;=iiiiiiittiiiiii+iii===;++iiitiiiiiii+=====+ii=+i
There certainly is something quite exceptional about The Mona Lisa.
Maybe we have to include the "Intangible Element" in the chemical
Table of Elements ? :-)
Bye,
Steve Uurtamo
>> intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when
>> he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And
>> if you start trying to figure out the precise pattern of paint
>> splatters that optimally represents Pollack's intention, then you've
>> missed the point entirely.
Okay, I realize that I am responding to flame bait. So be it.
Jackson Pollock never "by tossing it through a turbine", he did it by hand,
meticulously, with great effort, and great intent. To say that he intended
to "fleece the public out of money" is an affront to the sensibilities of
even the most boorish of swine.
Even the slightest education with regard to art will clear up the nauseating
distastefulness of your putrid excrescence.
I bid you good day, and banish you to a month of art history classes.
Steve Uurtamo
>If this Jackson Pollock fellow didn't toss it through a turbine and did
>indeed paint this work by hand, then he's more of a parasite than I thought,
>attempting to validate his claim to art through "great effort, and great
>intent". And as long as we're talking about math, realism, ascii, and
>parasites, if you do not believe that he intended to "fleece the public
>out of money" then you must at least believe that he hoped to get something
>for his "great efforts".
No, I do not. And if you had learned anything at all about the life of
any of the artists that you're talking about, you'd find that your informedness
would lead to more useful conversation. Making generalizations about artists
that you don't UNDERSTAND doesn't prove that you're intelligent, or witty,
or sarcastic. It just proves that you (as can most people) can blather on
about things that you know nothing about.
Take 5 or so fine art classes, if you don't want to pay too much,
take them at your local community college. Learn a teeny tiny bit
about what the fuck you're talking about.
Jackson Pollock was able to sell his art. He got lucky. Very lucky. Van
Gogh couldn't sell 2 god damn paintings his whole life. Van Gogh was an
incredible artist. He was ahead of his time and died poor and insane because
of it. Don't scoff at what you cannot yet understand.
>No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people
>can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and
>call it art.
What emotions do you expect to feel when you look at art? The beauty of
photographic reproduction? Go look in a photographic art museum. You
won't even find what you're looking for there.
Art is much more complicated than you have given it credit. It is about
emotional response, whether beauty, ugliness, etc. It is about creation,
it is about emphasis.
Exercise for the day:
Pick up a box of crayons. Try drawing something that you can see. Feel
frustrated? There's a lot more to what you see than what you know.
Engineering degrees should be handed out in vocational schools,
not universities. It's a shame that engineers can get degrees from
the same institutions that sponsor fine art.
steve
Lennert Stock
>>[snik]
>No, I do not. And if you had learned anything at all about the life of
>any of the artists that you're talking about, you'd find that your informedness
>would lead to more useful conversation. Making generalizations about artists
>that you don't UNDERSTAND doesn't prove that you're intelligent, or witty,
>or sarcastic. It just proves that you (as can most people) can blather on
>about things that you know nothing about.
>Take 5 or so fine art classes, if you don't want to pay too much,
>take them at your local community college. Learn a teeny tiny bit
>about what the fuck you're talking about.
>Jackson Pollock was able to sell his art. He got lucky. Very lucky. Van
>Gogh couldn't sell 2 god damn paintings his whole life. Van Gogh was an
>incredible artist. He was ahead of his time and died poor and insane because
>of it. Don't scoff at what you cannot yet understand.
>>No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people
>>can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and
>>call it art.
>[snik]
>steve
Two questions:
1. Did Van Gogh take art classes ?
2. Why is this group called alt.ascii-art when it should be
alt.ascii-skill or something like that ? Face it, 99.9% of stuff
posted here is either basic, unpretending, or just a skillful
representation of an image in ascii. Ah well, guess that's personal ;)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@8888888888888%%%%%%%%%%%%%::%:::::::::::.:..:.. . . .
@%: L e n n e r t S t o c k ::%%%%%%:%%::::::::::::.:..:.. . .
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@8888888888888%%%%%%%%%%%%%:::: s t o c k @ f w i . u v a . n l
@@@@@@@@@@@@8888888888888%%%%%%%%%%%:%:%::::::::::::.:.:..:.. . . .
Toney Cassel
>>> Besides that, I don't believe the purpose of art is to convey precise
>>> intentions. Jackson Pollack certainly wasn't being very precise when
>>> he splattered paint on a canvas by tossing it through a turbine. And
>
Or possibly creating flame bait?
>Jackson Pollock never "by tossing it through a turbine", he did it by hand,
>meticulously, with great effort, and great intent. To say that he intended
>to "fleece the public out of money" is an affront to the sensibilities of
>even the most boorish of swine.
Pardon this most boorish of swine, but I have a few oinks I'd like to share.
If this Jackson Pollock fellow didn't toss it through a turbine and did
indeed paint this work by hand, then he's more of a parasite than I thought,
attempting to validate his claim to art through "great effort, and great
intent". And as long as we're talking about math, realism, ascii, and
parasites, if you do not believe that he intended to "fleece the public
out of money" then you must at least believe that he hoped to get something
for his "great efforts".
>Even the slightest education with regard to art will clear up the nauseating
>distastefulness of your putrid excrescence.
No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people
can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and
call it art.
>I bid you good day, and banish you to a month of art history classes.
Thanks, are you paying?
Toney A. Cassel - ton...@acad.stedwards.edu
(Note that mail sent to the IBM address probably won't make it. My opinions
should not under any circumstance be confused with those of my employer. Ug.)
Felix Lee
> Math will increasingly encroach upon art, and in the future, have the
>heavy hand over it. The two essential aspects of art are "intention"
>and "resolution". The intention part is the "purpose of art". In the
>past history of art, since there was no photographic camera, later the
>movie camera. Art was the highest resolution hand work since no cameras
>existed. The intent in the old art for the majority of cases was to
>preserve a picture-- just like we use a picture camera for that purpose
>today.
I still don't understand what you mean by "intent". The person who
commissions a painting probably has a couple different purposes in
mind, the painter has several more, and every viewer adds a few of
their own.
So far, I've come up with two plausible interpretations of your use of
"intent", though neither of them seems particularly reasonable.
1. What Ludwig Plutonium thinks is the meaning of a piece of art.
Now, while it may be possible to create a mathematical model that
evaluates art according to a Pu-maximization function, who cares?
2. What some omniscient-viewpoint God thinks is the meaning of a piece
of art. Again, who cares? Art is a human thing.
--
Stephen Mastrogiovanni
>
>Engineering degrees should be handed out in vocational schools,
>not universities. It's a shame that engineers can get degrees from
>the same institutions that sponsor fine art.
Woah, Woah, hold up skip. Engineering is a LOT more complicated than
you think, and many engineers dont share this boobs interpretation of
art. Talk to any architectural engineer. Vocational schools dont teach
the advanced concepts needed for today's engineering degrees, and engineers
dont walk around bragging about the art that is discussed at their school.
Anyway, I have a feeling you werent trying to flame engineers as much
as people who dont know V. VanGough from Dick Van Dike. There are MANY
engineers and scientists (as Im sure you know) that appreciate art (and
even took basic art history courses as electives).
sm
Toney Cassel
In article <328cv9$b...@ame2.math.arizona.edu> uur...@math.arizona.edu (Steve Uurtamo) writes:
>>Pardon this most boorish of swine, but I have a few oinks I'd like to share.
>
>No, I do not. And if you had learned anything at all about the life of
>any of the artists that you're talking about, you'd find that your informedness
>would lead to more useful conversation. Making generalizations about artists
>that you don't UNDERSTAND doesn't prove that you're intelligent, or witty,
>or sarcastic. It just proves that you (as can most people) can blather on
>about things that you know nothing about.
Yep, and I shall blather on...
>Take 5 or so fine art classes, if you don't want to pay too much,
>take them at your local community college. Learn a teeny tiny bit
>about what the fuck you're talking about.
I have taken several, and there's no need to resort to verbal abuse.
This thread has meandered along here for a week or two and I THOUGHT
I might get a little intelligent discussion out of it. I learn something
new every day...
>Jackson Pollock was able to sell his art. He got lucky. Very lucky. Van
>Gogh couldn't sell 2 god damn paintings his whole life. Van Gogh was an
>incredible artist. He was ahead of his time and died poor and insane because
>of it. Don't scoff at what you cannot yet understand.
Van Gogh was an incredible artist. I don't particularly like his
style, but our society has labeled it as incredible and I can't argue
with the values of the society that I am a part of. Are you putting
this fellow Pollack in the same class as Van Gogh?
>>No, the slightest education with regard to art has shown me that people
>>can come up with the most nauseating, distastful, putrid excrescence and
>>call it art.
>
>What emotions do you expect to feel when you look at art? The beauty of
>photographic reproduction? Go look in a photographic art museum. You
>won't even find what you're looking for there.
Um, photographic reproduction of what? I missed your reference, there.
>Art is much more complicated than you have given it credit. It is about
>emotional response, whether beauty, ugliness, etc. It is about creation,
>it is about emphasis.
You are correct. Much more complicated. Unfortunately, there seems to be
a fine line between creation merely for money and creation for expression.
It is that complexity that I abhor.
>Exercise for the day:
>
>Pick up a box of crayons. Try drawing something that you can see. Feel
>frustrated? There's a lot more to what you see than what you know.
Hey, now, I can't paint for a worn shilling, but I'm ok with a pencil and
downright good with a crayon! :)
>Engineering degrees should be handed out in vocational schools,
>not universities. It's a shame that engineers can get degrees from
>the same institutions that sponsor fine art.
This I must disagree with. I believe that a well-rounded individual should
have a good grounding in the liberal arts as well as technical vocations.
This is especially true for engineers. There should be as much art as
functionality in the things that engineers create.
>steve
Toney A. Cassel - ton...@acad.stedwards.edu
Art is "I"; science is "we". - Claude Bernard
Steve Uurtamo
>1. Did Van Gogh take art classes ?
>2. Why is this group called alt.ascii-art when it should be
> alt.ascii-skill or something like that ? Face it, 99.9% of stuff
> posted here is either basic, unpretending, or just a skillful
> representation of an image in ascii. Ah well, guess that's personal ;)
Alright, smart guy. Van Gogh was not formally educated, but he made
it his goal to study under those people whom he considered the masters
at the time. This includes Gaugin, whom he spent some time with before
entering the asylum. It is quite obvious both from his writings to his
brother, and his (and Gaugin's) art that both of the artists were very
much influenced by the other.
Education is education however it comes about. Some people take the
burden of educating themselves, and are successful. Some people are
unsuccessful and may need professional help. The quality of the education
is pretty evident in their self-expression. When it becomes obvious that
someone's education is hampering their ability to interact meaningfully
with others, the general public may be offended to such a degree that they
take it upon _themselves_ to educate others.
It is sad that these things have to happen, but the value that many people
place on classical education is next to zero. This is fine if they don't
vote or talk in open forums about subjects which with they have no experience.
Felix Lee
>Jackson Pollock never "by tossing it through a turbine", he did it by hand,
>meticulously, with great effort, and great intent. To say that he intended
>to "fleece the public out of money" is an affront to the sensibilities of
>even the most boorish of swine.
Urk. Since I wrote the original paragraph about Jackson Pollock, let
me apologize. I was probably conflating him with someone else. I
will cheerfully admit that I know very little art history (though I
seem to remember more about the French impressionist school than
anything; probably due to some high school French class.)
"fleece the public" wasn't my statement; it was Ludwig Plutonium's. I
was disagreeing with Ludwig's simplistic assessment of the purpose of
art. I don't have a strong notion myself of what art is or is
supposed to be. ("Art is some fat guy working at the corner cafe.")
Isn't exploring the meaning of art part of the reason behind the
various modern and post-modern movements?
--
Ian Broverman
>
>
>> The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face
>> excels the Mona Lisa.
>
>Not true.
That's pretty subjective. Ludwig can like whatever he wants to like :-)
>
>The Mona Lisa has an indefinable quality which has little to do with
>high resolution photography, mathematical definition, or the beauty
>of a female face.
>
>Failure, or a lack of ability, to recognise the intangible aspects
>of The Mona Lisa can only lead to invalid assumptions in the
>development of any proposition " that mathematics will increasingly
>overtake art ".
Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been competing with
nature since day one.
I agree that mathematics will not overtake art. It, like every other medium
that a creative person can get their hands on, is becoming art.
As for intangible qualities, everything has intangible qualities. The Mona
Lisa has the advantage of being popular enough to influence people to invest
years of study in the work. Not that it isn't a great work; I thinnk that it's
become a little overrated since it's become the identifying icon of art.
-Ian
ObAscii:
o
8"8
dP Yb
.8 8.
.8' `8.
.8' `8.
ooooooooooo 88 oooooooooooooooooooo
""8oo. dP io .oo8""
""8oo "' `8 oo8""
""88o. . Y.`"
o "8oo. .ooo' 8
dP " oo8"" Yb
o8 .oo8"" ooo. 8o
.8.oo8"" ""8oo.8.
o8P"" ""Y8o
" " Namarie
--
i...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu | | UCD Mech & Aero, #02404; Davis, CA 95616
---------------------------' `------------------------------------------
=========================== + ==========================================
---------------------------. .------------------------------------------
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <Colin_Dout...@equinox.gen.nz> Colin_Do...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
: >Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: >
: >
: >> The highest resolution photograph of a beautiful female face
: >> excels the Mona Lisa.
: >
: >Not true.
: ^^^^^^^^^
: That's pretty subjective. Ludwig can like whatever he wants to like :-)
> Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been
> competing with nature since day one.
> I agree that mathematics will not overtake art. It, like every
> other medium that a creative person can get their hands on, is
> becoming art.
Perhaps definitions of art and mathematics could be useful ?
_______
/ /,
/ //
/______//
(______(/
Jussi Roine
_____ _____
,/ `+' \.
// ~~ ~ + ~ ~ \\
// ~~~~ + ~~~~ \\
//________,+.________\\
'---------`-'----------
The Westminster Dictionary:
ART n. employment of means and methods to do a thing well ; applied
especially to industries depending on taste.
ARTFUL a. made with art ; exhibiting art or skill ; cunning
MATHEMATICS n. the science that treats of quantity.
MATHEMATICAL a. pertaining to mathematics ; rigorously precise.
Ludwig Plutonium > Show Smoot trying to measure the parameters of
> a virus using a meter stick.
__
||
||
//////// ||
|:---[.] ||
|( _J || _ _
| ^ ( _| || ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \ /
/ \_____) || / ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( \( = =)
/ _____ \ || < ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( / ( ^ )
| / \ | || \ (__(__(__(__(__(__(__(__) ~
| | | | || ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
\ /\ /\__ | ||
| | \/---
\ \ )
| >_____/_____)
\__________/ ||
/ \ ||
| | ~~
\ \\
\ |\
\ | \
\ | |
| | |
| | |
| / |
|________/____|
(_________)____) -mh-
==============================
Now it would be difficult to class the above activity as either
mathematical ( rigorously precise ) or artful ( exhibiting art or
sklll ). Here I think Ludwig was pointing out how certain things
cannot be successfully measured with the tools of mathematics -and
that is contrary to his MathArt Theories.
I suggest that the above definitions would indicate that mathematics
cannot be closely allied to art which has little to do with rigorous
precision or quantity. However, I guess you could say that
Mathematics is " employment of means and methods to do a thing well ",
but Art could hardly be described as " the science that treats of
quantity ".
Hmmm...
Bye,
Ian Broverman
......................it is merely a clarification..................
>Ian Broverman (i...@venus.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>
>> Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been
>> competing with nature since day one.
>
>> I agree that mathematics will not overtake art. It, like every
>> other medium that a creative person can get their hands on, is
>> becoming art.
>
Colin responds:
>Perhaps definitions of art and mathematics could be useful ?
[definitions deleted]
>I suggest that the above definitions would indicate that mathematics
>cannot be closely allied to art which has little to do with rigorous
>precision or quantity. However, I guess you could say that
>Mathematics is " employment of means and methods to do a thing well ",
>but Art could hardly be described as " the science that treats of
>quantity ".
>
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to equate math and art.
Mathematics and a chunk of marble are both things that (arguably) exist in
nature. But in the hands of a creative artist, the chunk of marble becomes
a statue, and the mathematics is transformed into a kewl screensaver. :)
ObAscii:
(O)
<M
o <M
/| ...... /:M\------------------------------------------------,,,,,,
(O)[]XXXXXX[]I:K+}=====<{H}>================================------------>
\| ^^^^^^ \:W/------------------------------------------------''''''
o <W
<W
(O) -Ian
Adrian Graham DENT - Rodent
>Mathematics is a part of nature. I think that art has been competing with
>nature since day one.
au contraire, mathematics is an expression of a part of nature, as is art....
the only difference being, mathematics is more...well...mathemetical.....
Adrian
Sinan Karasu
Stephen Mastrogiovanni <mast...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> wrote:
> Anyway, I have a feeling you werent trying to flame engineers as much
>as people who dont know V. VanGough from Dick Van Dike. There are MANY
Hey, I don't know who this van Gouge guy is but you misspelled "The Great Van
Dyke"'s name wrong!!!!!
>engineers and scientists (as Im sure you know) that appreciate art (and
>even took basic art history courses as electives).
>
>sm
An engineer
Colin Douthwaite
: In article <32ao8...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>,
: An engineer
Well I think this is definitely Gough's Van...
________________________________________________________
/ / | ________________________________ \
/ / | | | |
/ / | | V. GOUGH | |
/ / | | | |
(------------------- -------------------------------- |
|| == | |
|| | -oOo- Painter & Decorator -oOo- |
|| ____ | ____ |
( | o / ____ \ / ____ \ |)
|| / / . . \ \ / / . . \ \ |
[ |_____| | . . | |____________________________| | . . | |__]
| . . | | . . |
\_____/ \_____/
But whether any of the following are Dick Van Dyke, or even Dick van Dike is
another matter. Perhaps someone will know.
.... ..
.;:-%/%%%%::
%:'%%%%'~%%%/:.
:/ `%~ :\%::. .......
:' - _ - - :%%::. .:::::::::::::.
| . ::%=:' .::' ''''' '::.
)-=~>` `<~=- :::=|' ___((|))___ ::: :::
; | :: ::')' / \ ::: :::
: ' ' :: ::v:' ((( --- --- ))) ::: :::
`. (_.=:.` /:':: \\ -o-/ \-o- // ::' '::
`./ :: \ :' :' ~\ (. .) /~ : : /~~~' '~~~\ : :
| ____ | :: ( / | \ ) :(: <o> | <o> :):
( '~ ~` .'| _____/\ -=- /\_____ '.: / \ :.'
\ '~~ .-'.::. /\|||\\#\_____/#//|||/\ ': (. .) :'
x---:' .::-'| /##||||\\##/o\##//||||##\ '. .:::::. .'
_./ `-._.:'~ :. ###|||||\\//$\\//|||||### : <-----> :
_.-'~ \ .' `. ###||||||\/$$$\/||||||### '. ~:::~ .'
~ LS `-._____.-' ` ##/|||||||$$$$$|||||||\## '. ' .'
'''''
What is certain is that this is certainly not Mary Tyler Moore...
______
_/ \_
/ __ \ \
/ / \_ \
/ / \ \
| | _/--- \ |
| | / __ | |
\ \ / ___/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ \
| \__ | | |
|_ ___ /) \ |
\'\ /'''' //| ||
()> (()> / | |\
/ | _/| / |
| | / | |
| ( . / | | /
| / | | |
\ /v\ / / \ |
\\_/ / / \|
\ / | ||
---/\ | \ -Liz Keogh-
/ || / \
/ /| / \
/ / / |
_____/ \
Bye,