The picture that best represents the feeling of the magical mathematical solution of creation will be a vision everyone will remember..and worth a fortune. Is this the art piece that will be more famous than Einstein's E=mc'? It certainly would be more meaningful and more accessible to the lay audience. Is this the art that will change the world?

(I'm assuming that a new theory of everything will be the next big thing in the not-too-distant future)

None, simply because any piece of art is purely a personal representation and will mean nothing at all to some, be simply "Meh, I've seen worse" to others and the object of desire to yet more people.
How do you decide that a single piece of art "best represents" when art is subjective?
And "meaningful" to a lay audience?
How so?
Will it actually mean anything to the majority of people other than "Ooh, that's pretty"?
How far did Cubism go in getting its representation of the mathematical inspiration behind it?

Cubism wasn't inspired by math. It was inspired by tribal art.

Cubism wasn't inspired by math. It was inspired by tribal art.

That's not what what I was taught, any links?
Cubism (as related to me) was inspired by maths and was intended as a 2D representation of 3D reality - e.g. seeing the entire 3D object all round at the same time. The rotations necessary in real life being obviated by depicting the otherwise hidden aspects next to the directly seen ones.

However, the cubists explored this concept further than Cézanne; they represented all the surfaces of depicted objects in a single picture plane, as if the objects had had all their faces visible at the same time. This new kind of depiction revolutionized the way in which objects could be visualized in painting and art.
Wiki's take on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism).

Or this:
An object, seen from various points of view, could be reconstructed using particular separate "views" which overlapped and intersected. The result of such a reconstruction was a summation of separate temporal moments on the canvas.
From here (http://tars.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/cubism.html).

That's not what what I was taught, any links?
Cubism (as related to me) was inspired by maths and was intended as a 2D representation of 3D reality - e.g. seeing the entire 3D object all round at the same time. The rotations necessary in real life being obviated by depicting the otherwise hidden aspects next to the directly seen ones.


From the wiki:
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the European cultural elite were discovering African, Micronesian and Native American art for the first time. Artists such as Paul Gauguin, Henri Matisse, and Pablo Picasso were intrigued and inspired by the stark power and simplicity of styles of those foreign cultures. Around 1906, Picasso met Matisse through Gertrude Stein, at a time when both artists had recently acquired an interest in primitivism, Iberian sculpture, African art and African tribal masks. They became friendly rivals and competed with each other throughout their careers, perhaps leading to Picasso entering a new period in his work by 1907, marked by the influence of Greek, Iberian and African art. Picasso's paintings of 1907 have been characterized as Protocubism, as notably seen in Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, the antecedent of Cubism.


Also - all paintings are 2d representations of 3d reality.......er.....sort of hehe. I say "sort of" because I've seen stuff like Kandinsky and Picasso up close, and the paint is so thick, you might as well call it a sculpture.

There's nothing mathematical about rendering something from all angles - especially the way the original cubists were doing it. It was more of a stylization really. Nothing measured or precise about it at all. They drew both sides of the face on one side of the head for the sake of originality.

From the wiki:
Hmm Protocubism :)

There's nothing mathematical about rendering something from all angles - especially the way the original cubists were doing it. It was more of a stylization really. Nothing measured or precise about it at all. They drew both sides of the face on one side of the head for the sake of originality.
Ah no: cubist painting attempts to show ALL of the 3D object at the same time - they're a representation (or an attempt at one) of how we (and our world) would be seen by by a creature that lived in, and was aware, of more than the three (spatial dimensions) we observe.
It grew out of THAT sort of mathematics, one step up from, and a sort of homage to, stuff like Edwin Abbott Abbott's Flatland (http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/eaa/FL.HTM).
We can see the entirety of of a 2D object all at once, Cubism was an attempt at portraying the entirety of a 3D object, without the necessity for rotation etc.

There's nothing about it that involves calculation, but it's based on the mathematical speculations that were emerging - art influenced by science as it were.

Cubism wasn't inspired by math. It was inspired by tribal art.I did't know that, thanks for the info. I was even thinking of cubic animation..