On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Loup Vaillant <[email protected]> wrote:

> Le 1/17/2012 6:58 PM, karl ramberg a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>    David Barbour wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>        On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg
>>        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>        <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>**>__>
>>
>>        wrote:
>>
>>            I don't think you can do this project without a understanding
>> of
>>            art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between
>>        practically
>>            similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer
>>        baffled. From
>>            a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a
>>            random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
>>        You can
>>            get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly.
>>
>>            Karl
>>
>>
>>        I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history
>>        classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference
>>        between a
>>        random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
>>
>>        Regards,
>>
>>        Dave
>>
>>
>>    If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in.  Pollock's paintings
>>    are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy
>>    no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually).  Like a
>>    fractal.
>>
>>    (Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable
>>    source.)
>>
>>    Loup.
>>
>>
>> My point here  was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but
>> that the domain of art is very
>> different from that of engineer. What makes some music lifeless and some
>> the most awe-inspiring
>> you heard in your whole life ?
>>
>> Karl
>>
>
> Oh, sorry, I do hear you.  I singled out this example for 2 reasons :
>
>  - Showing off (I just couldn't resist).
>

:-)


>  - I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we
>   can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical
>   precision (if we choose to).
>

I think we one day can get the essence out of what make art so entangling
and
full of life.
But I also fear that moment a little because one source of arts greatness
lies in
it a sense of uniqueness and that uniqueness will perhaps collapse under a
inflation of
readymade art produced at the snap of your fingers.



> Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved.  It probably
> won't be before we fully understand the human brain.


A brain simulator running a brain instance that is panic ridden in fear of
a power out.

Karl


>
> Loup.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc<http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Reply via email to