Great statement, Chris. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, August 29, 2012 8:50:54 PM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal No Cheerskep, there really isn't an assumption that I know precisely what the other is talking about. I start with a rough idea and proceed through iteration, fully knowing I might well be wrong. And I do operate usually on the basis that the other may, or may not, be using a similar approach. But if both sides do so in good faith one usually learns a lot more and arrives at a better result more efficiently than if one just sits on the sidelines and complains about a lack of precision. FWIW, it's also how I approach art, my drawings especially are very iterative; I don't start thinking I really know who or what I am looking at and how to express it; I love the sensuous tracing and retracing of the subject as it changes, and by doing so come to understand more of what I am seeing, and hence what better to express. It's actually a very old approach, you'll often find it in the unfinished work, as well as the drawings, of a number of great artists. And I am consistent - when I worked in applied mathematics it was primarily in designing iterative (Bayesian) systems, which often boil down to taking a stab at things, looking at the error and using it to modify the internal representation, and then trying again. Check out, for example, the Kalman filter (which runs everything from the tuning in your FM radio to missile guidance). Funnily enough, the scientific authority on the government side for most of my contracts used to laugh about the link between my drawing and my math. Cheers; Chris On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Way back on August 23, Joseph I wrote: > > Do you have one? [An Aesthetic Ideal] >>> >>> Over time, did it change? >>> >>> If so, in what way? > > I responded: >>> >> Alas, Joseph, this is a quintessential example of how language gulls us. >> You think that when we read the phrase 'aesthetic ideal' there will arise > in >> our minds a notion that roughly replicates the one in yours. But there is >> very little probability of that. >> >> Moreover, we the readers, are as gullible as you the writer: Very, very >> often something of a notion does come to mind and we unquestioningly > assume >> it's what you're "talking about". But there is very little probability of >> that. > > To which Chris replied: > >> "I'm not how sure you get from someone asking a fairly simple set of >> questions to an analysis of whatever arises in Jospeh's brain. >> >> As for the questions, I would say I don't have an aesthetic ideal per >> se; I do have..." >> > What I was no good at persuading Chris of was something I now maintain the > exchanges on the forum have made far clearer than I did: I claim that one > lister after another has shown that they all have been entertaining different > notions of "aesthetic ideal" -- while, for days, apparently convinced they > were "talking about the same thing". At last the postings on this thread are > beginning to try to clarify just what the lister has in mind with the > phrase. I admit I've sounded like a pain in the ass Dickensian schoolmaster as > I've dwelt on this point, but it's been something like painful to watch smart > people talking past each other with earnest and well-meaning passion. Always, > always, try to make sure that you and the other guy are addressing roughly > the same notion with any key phrase. As William has said, words don't > "mean"; if the subject is of any complication at all, it's very seldom that > two > words will serve to convey what the speaker has in mind.
