Which Impressionist Will Paint The Masterpiece; Mathematical Theory Of Everything?

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by common_sense_seeker, Jul 17, 2009.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    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)
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. domesticated om Cartoon character Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,239
    Cubism wasn't inspired by math. It was inspired by tribal art.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.

    Wiki's take on it.

    Or this:
    From here.
     
  8. domesticated om Cartoon character Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,239
    From the wiki:
    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.
     
  9. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Hmm Protocubism

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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.
    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.
     
  10. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I did't know that, thanks for the info. I was even thinking of cubic animation..
     

Share This Page