Bob/MT: Are you claiming that these images are incapable of being
described
geometrically?
>> - like the "squarishes" of Rothko, and "rectangular-y's-sort-of" and
circularishes and not just formulaic, if sophisticated random walks aka
geometry, but truly crazy doodles aka Mike Tintner and blobby blots a la
Jackson Pollock. The abstract arts reflect real world shapes much more
accurately than geometry.
Yes, absolutely I'm claiming that. I think what you mean is that irregular
shapes/images are capable of being *analysed* geometrically - which is, of
course, true, but only on a one-off basis and *not* on a systematic,
formulaic basis. (And geometry is only interested in sets of shapes which
can be reduced to regular formulae. It isn't interested in one-off doodles
or "piss-artistry").
When you do analyse, you get something that is meaningless considered as a
picture or "description". Try it - give me a one-off geometric or other
analysis (however rough) of the Rothkos/rectangularishes in:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2006summer/ISP213H/index_Right.html
or in:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/data/13030/12/ft72900812/figures/ft72900812_00157.jpg
You'll have a messy set of pieces - a jumble of numbers/formulae - and
you'll have lost the original wholes/shapes. If you were dealing with
regular shapes, it just possibly might not matter. When they're irregular,
it does. You then have to see the original shape whole for it to be
meaningful - in this case, the original Rothko and O'Keeffe shapes.
Similarly, reduce those faces to pieces of any kind, and they will be
meaningless.
Rational systems are all about analysing bodies - fragmenting them into
parts. Imaginative systems are about showing and dealing with bodies, whole.
Rationalists are "small picture" - details/features - guys. Imaginative
systems are "big picture" people. (Check out the left brain/right brain
attributes). Both are essential for intelligence, especially general
intelligence.
And, just to repeat, no, there is no geometric formula(e) that can encompass
the vast range of irregular rectangle-like shapes a la Rothko that are
possible - let alone every doodle shape that I can draw within a given
space.
All the species of matter and life in the world are clearly designed to
embrace members who are individual, different and crazy as well as loosely
conforming to general, similar and regular (but abstract) patterns. And we
cannot describe them with just the generalisations of the sciences, we
absolutely need the individualisations of the arts and images. You're
trying to collapse art into geometry, the irregular into the regular.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
