/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2382175
Focus, direction, purpose of expression.

At least "postmodern" art anyway. (Such bullshit)

You're not going to beat the great artists easily. I went to see a gallery of Impressionist era paintings recently. Some of them are simply amazing.

Why yes, yes they do.

This pic gives me a H,FY! hardon.

Fuck romanticism
Fuck dadaism

They are the reason why modern art sucks.

>>2382198

Would this look like this if you flew by it in a spaceship? I heard that sometime the pictures you see of clouds in space were mapped from a different part of the spectrum, is that the case here?

>>2382220
We could make that statue better today using modern technology. Not to be anti-theistic, but with a lot better underlying themes too.

>>2382218
Dadaism was supposed to suck.

Trolling is a art.

My personal opinion is that the greatest art exists in the intersection of the two.

Da Vinci, Escher, fuck yeah.

>>2382227
Pretty sure it'd be a dull brown/grey/smoky color and mostly invisible against the background.

>>2382232
We couldn't. We could reproduce an existing scene, or let an artist create a similar sculpture in a lot less time, but we could not do better (with technology).

>>2382232

Yeah, I'unno, man.

I'm the kind of guy who looks at 'art these days' and thinks it's all hooey, but I appreciate the old-master kind of shit, back when hard work and accuracy meant something.

Well, sir, there are many things wrong with that statement. You see, art, as we usually conceive it, is a form of interpretation of the world, a copy, an image of the real or abstract universe filtered by the mind of a man. Mimesis. With that in mind, graphs and captured information (such as scientific photos) don't copy our world, they are not reproductions, but the actual thing, so they are not exactly art.

Also, when you say better, you need to set your values first. Does it feel "preety" to your eyes? Well, no wonder, you are looking at nature and not to a reproduction of nature and you are making your own reading of it, therefore it's easy for you to relate to it. There is no challenge like when a painting presents to you the vision of the artist about the world around him and that could probably take a different route than your own mind. Post-modern, impressionist, surreal, abstractions and verbalizations, accurate representations, all of them, some more than others, were filtered by one's mind, metaphoricly pointing at a particular point in space like a telescope, so that you are not blind by the lights surrounding it. When you say no to modern art it's like you are saying no to the Hubble telescope because you can't see those images when you look at the sky at night.

You fail as a scientist and as an art appreciator.

>>2382227
Yeah, it's in a different band of light than the our visible range. If you want my educated guess it's in the infrared spectrum. If only our eyes could see more than the tiny sliver of light that we can visible.

>>2382249
Da Vinci and Escher were great indeed. The artist usually take a poetic look of the world and forget what they are actually looking for. Those two are the opposite of that, they studied the world, to better understand it and from that precise point they create, they destroy and rebuild.

It's one way to do it.

Abstract artists on the other hand, go to the other extreme, exploring the possibilities of creating while avoiding the "real" world as much as possible

>>2382299
forgot the pic i was going to post

Art isn't just what you see on paper, Kid.

>>2382303

Da Vinci?

>>2382270
A lot more hard work went into that statue carving machine that can get accuracy down to the atom. People don't seem to appreciate that. Your toaster represents more than any one stature made several hundred years ago.

why yes, op

>>2382316

If someone invents the statue-carving machine, I will respect it as a work of art [and technology].

I will continue to respect the prototype statue.

>>2382304
>calls people a kid
>posts fan drawn anime
>mfw
And for your God's sake, start using a trip Christian Scientist.

>>2382307
Yes.

>>2382330
>God
You keep using that word...

except neither science nor math can explain art

>>2382354

asfd;lkjsdflkjsadf;lkjsdaf;lkjasdffjffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffjjffff)%(%%%%%$flflflf^~``<<
<<<<<<|

Science can't explain that either.

>>2382355
>God
You keep implying it with your name.

I am still waiting on that trip of yours.

>>2382354
What exactly is there to explain?

>>2382354

Lol. Can't explain what about it?

>>2382379
Why would I stake a claim to a trip that welcomes all?

>>2382379
Fine, are you happy?

>>2382420
I've never been happy.

>>2382420
But can you play the role?

Everytime God kills a thread a tripfag gains its wings.

>>2382433
>God
You keep using that word.

>>2382448

>implying I'm who you think I am.

Can I play?

>>2382433
>God
You keep using that word.

Which one do I shoot?!

>>2382354
Actually it can. That doesn't mean anything really. It's like saying "science cannot explain my love for you", this is 'romanticising' art, putting it on a pedestal. And you know why this happends? Because art is mostly about doing stuff than understanding stuff and artists don't want scientists in their ateliers, so they have this "2deep4u u wouldn't understand" kind of attitude. You wouldn't like to see a personal passion interfering with an experiment right? Same fucking thing, except the opposite.

Also, just because science can explain art, doesn't mean it's easy and yes, most people don't understand art, specially modern or post-modern. Those people sound like astrology freaks talking shit about quantum physics or mixing Nostradamus or some mysitic crap with string theory. They are just clueless.

>>2382461

Why'd you repost this?

Still >implying I'm who you think I am

>>2382483
Who do I think you are?

>>2382492

I don't know, I just walked in and made a potshot at you, and you accused me of doing something for the second time on my first post.

>>2382175

wat logistic map?

>>2382510
I did no such thing.

I would love to stick around and play the name game with you, Children, honestly I would, but I'm in the process of designing a wikipedia to express the notion behind Christian Science - so I'm busy, enjoy yourselves!

indeed

>>2382518
Fuck yeah. Nonlinear dynamics makes some crazy images.

>>2382530

">God
You keep using that word."

With regards to >>2382433

Why is it that religious tripfags resort to this kind of third-grade bullshit rhetoric?

Back in the old days art and science were the same