Occasionally my computer produces plots that can be fun to just post in the absence of context. Then they become artistic.
Here is a sample from one that I generated today while trying to understand something related to my current research.
This graph will never be published. At least not in one of my research papers in physics. Hence I publish it in my blog.
Advertisements
Keep at it and you just might discover another Mandelbrot set.
I like this
Is this image easily mathematically reproduced?
Hi Plato:
Define easy….
Hi David,
I guess I could have left off “easy” and the rest could have stood on its own.
I somehow felt that there was a bit of conflict here about creativity as artistry and what is science? It would have been easily understood if you could never have reproduced this but using your mathematics you can?
In a sense artistry would have somehow entailed an original that was not easily reproduced.
I hope that helped.
Best,
Hi Plato:
Difficulty of reproduction is usually associated with ‘master crafts’ as opposed to art. An art piece can be a single squiggle on a piece of paper, or even less (think Duchamp).
Hi David,
You write: “Difficulty of reproduction is usually associated with ‘master crafts’ as opposed to art.”
Yes I would have to understand this distinction between Master Craft and Art better from your perspective.
“An art piece can be a single squiggle on a piece of paper, or even less (think Duchamp).”
Duchamp from a cubist perspective in my eyes was a demonstrative inclination of Monte Carl processes by revealing quantum gravity perspectives and practices….so, Duchamp is quite unique in terms of identifying “the use of the algorithm” is as to demonstrate quantum gravity evolutions. That would be a cross use of identifying art in relation to science, yet its uniqueness would had to be mathematical identified?
This brings me back to the valuation you are placing on art as a originality that is not scientific validated and serves to to indicate why you might not use it and in scientific valuation process and only demonstrate it of value on this blog.
I don’ t know if I am being clear here as I hope to be.
Best,
Hi Plato:
I was thinking more of his bicycle wheel, or his ‘fountain’, not his early cubist period.
For fairly algorithmic constructions I would rather look at Escher as an example.
I think that images that appeal to our internal sense of aesthetics can be validated without science having to back it up. Also, in science one finds unexpectedly ‘pretty’ stuff by accident, which is why it can end up posted in a place like this one.
Hi David
With regard to your accidental artistic plot design from mathematical accident, I just wanted to say you have stimulated more thoughts by expressing more on the subject of Duchamp….thanks.
Can I say mathematical accident?
Duchamp’s Fountain- http://www.eskesthai.com/2012/09/duchamps-fountain.html
Best,
Dear Plato, yes it is easily mathematically reproduced. After 5 minutes, I decided that my image was indistinguishable by naked eyes from David’s.
My Mathematica command is
Plot[Table[
Cos[x]*(i + 3)/20 – Cos[2*x]*i^2/2500 + i*0.5 – 0.01*Abs[x]^1.5, {i,
1, 21}], {x, -11.2*Pi, 11.2*Pi}]
See a screenshot here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/104827567643032444230/TheReferenceFrame4#5782356683085537138
Hi Lubos,
Yes this helps to clarify what I am saying that it is of reproducible kind that the original can be demonstrated in a computational process that recognizes a close approximation to the original. Of course without David revealing the exact formulation, your progress could be identified in relation to his image example and you could have found an equation that is close and similar to his in relation to validation of image and equatable identifiable processes.
So to my perspective this is an image although arising from algorithm creation is a physics recognition of scientific process that could be arrived at by use of plot examples and physics.
So while image used in this blog it’s originality is still to me a science process.
As a layman and remaining close to a lot of you I am trying deeply to remain true to the processes you all demonstrate. I hope this comes across as well. Still so much to learn.
Best,