/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4900773]

What is harder to master: a branch of mathematics or drawing/painting?

Which is more rewarding and fulfilling?

[Anonymous No.4900789]

Math is easier to get right answers because it's math.

Painting is harder to get right answers because there are various techniques, mediums, and flavors of aesthetics.

It's like asking which is easier: Cooking or Chemistry?

[Deep Hue !LHpf3dbWYY No.4900791]

when do you qualify as mastering them?

[Anonymous No.4900799]

>>4900789
Not to mention differing tastes.

[Anonymous No.4900807]

>>4900791

in math it would be when you can publish some decent papers in your field

in art when you can produce work that sells independently and companies are willing to hire you to illustrate for them, etc

[Anonymous No.4900810]

Learning a branch of mathematics can probably only take months or weeks, depending on which branch. Painting masterpieces takes years to perfect.

Mathematics is rewarding for getting good jobs, but you can sell painting masterpieces for 5 digit prices.

In my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4900819]

Painting. You have no idea.

[Anonymous No.4900831]

>>4900810

so I can master topology or differential geometry in a few months?

wait...what?

[Anonymous No.4900851]

>>4900819
>>4900810
Takes years to do something like this, huh.

[Tik-Tok !p2QqYMjYxs No.4900862]

>>4900851

>modern art

I think OP means the realistic and wonderous art bfore art became a joke.

[Anonymous No.4900864]

You can get an MFA or a MSc in about the same amount of time.

But if you mean the traditional sense of "master," there don't exist master painters anymore. Painters used to apprentice in workshops under a master, who control the money of the shop and direct the apprentices in the production of work. To become a master, a painter had to be accepted into a guild. One of the requirements is completing a masterpiece, a painting demonstrating the necessary talent.

Actually, scientists and mathematicians follow that model today, but we call them PhDs and grad students.

[Anonymous No.4900871]

Hard to really judge, someone who is capable of producing very gorgeous art may very easily be a person never capable of getting the grasp of higher maths.

[Anonymous No.4900928]

many years

[Anonymous No.4900938]

>>4900831
< then 1 month is enough I think

[Anonymous No.4900967]

This questioned should be up your ass OP. In math there is a way to prove that what is done is true or false, while art has no system to determine what is right or wrong. Art is subjective to all sorts of things while in math 1 + 1 = 2 will be true all over the earth.

[Anonymous No.4901020]

>>4900967

that's kind of irrelevant, and also wrong,
depends what you mean by "true"

please elaborate on your theory of truth.

[Anonymous No.4901045]

>>4900967

when were you diagnosed with autism?

[Anonymous No.4901065]

>>4900773
Both are impossible.
Math, since the amount of knowledge needed to learn is entirely beyond human ability.
Art, since humans will never agree.

[Anonymous No.4901072]

>>4900967
>> In math there is a way to prove that what is done is true or false,
>implying implications.
>implying not incompleteness axioms
>>in math 1 + 1 = 2 will be true all over the earth.
You dont even know.

[Anonymous No.4901079]

>>4900831
Anything is possible in the world of trolling.

[Anonymous No.4901661]

I have a good deal of experience in painting to do something like in the OP in optimal conditions (having a great teacher,being talented, having the money to just try and learn painting)

You could maybe learn to do something similar within say 2 years.The average person however wouldn't be able to achieve that within a life time.

[Anonymous No.4901690]

>>4900789
There is a misconception here. In mathematics, a person's job is to prove theorems. In lower math courses one is taught individual techniques and graded on their ability to apply said technique. In higher math courses one actually creates proofs AND your proofs are also graded on elegance.

Mathematics is considered by mathematicians to be an art. Mathematics is not a science.

All that said, I think that there are some art fields that teach some mathematical concepts better than some math fields (mainly because they've been formalized to death in mathematics and without insights people tend to just rely on rote learning).

Anyone learning geometric compass + straightedge constructions would benefit more from an intro autocad course than they would from a course on axiomatization disguised as a course on geometry.

pic related, in a projective space where no parallels can exist, every line is perspective to a point and every point is perspective to a line.

[Anonymous No.4901739]

Painter here.

Well, as a lot of people pointed out, it's hard to tell what it means to "master" those things. You said here >>4900807 that you are using others as a means to evaluate that. I'd say both are fairly easy then, if you dedicate yourself you'll be able to publish decent papers and sell your artwork. I'd say it's easier to sell your artwork though, seeing most companies don't know shit and so everything looks incredible to them.

But it's fairly different, you can't compare them. Most people have stopped looking at art after the impressionists, mostly because of photography, press and the reproduction of images in larger scale. That's why figurative painting just for the sake of it got uninteresting to the artist. There is no need to paint things realistic, there is nothing to master if you are not doing something impressive at all (reproducing an image). It's like saying mastering art is being able to do big calculations in your head, which a calculator can do much better than you anyway. So they started to focus on the light, on the emotion, on the meaning, on the paint itself, on the concept behind it, etc. Just because you don't understand modern art, doesn't mean there is no effort or technique put into it.

>>4900851 this is shit. But my pic related it's not. To the layman, they may look similar, much like I won't be able to tell if a complex mathematical statement is a good one. This is Gerard Richter, you can't believe how much he studied for this. Huge.

[Anonymous No.4901742]

>>4901739 cont
But if you are still talking about oldschool techniques, then it's not as hard as it appears. Those real masters we see (Velázquez, Da Vinci, Goya, Van Gogh...) are just a fragment of art history, there are many others who mastered the techniques as well, but they are not remembered because they didn't make a big impact on the way we see art, they didn't started anything new, nor explored the media to the top like those other guys did. Today, it is even easier because it's cheaper to buy paint, it's easy to get yourself a teacher or references to learn how to paint "decently".

My point is that you are all aiming too low on art. It is much more than painting things realistically, that is not such a big deal. A reminder that Picasso mastered the oldschool techniques by the time he was a teenager and the rest of his work, his whole life, is a great study on mastering multiple media, emotion, perspective, color and images in general. What he did is very hard to master and few people managed to do it.

Still, "to master it" is still objected of great debate and in art you can't tell that in a way everyone can agree with, though it doesn't hurt to listen to those who are into it. I don't know much of mathematics, but I'm definitely listening.

[Anonymous No.4901753]

>>4901739
>t's like saying mastering art is being able to do big calculations in your head, which a calculator can do much better than you anyway.
I meant
>mastering mathematics

[Anonymous No.4901774]

>>4901742

but a lot of modern art is simply mastering various techniques and then being creative about your designs, perspective, colors, etc...

[Anonymous No.4901778]

[Anonymous No.4901781]

>>4901774
Indeed, but what about it?

[Anonymous No.4901786]

>>4901781

that's all OP was referring to...

no need for this sort of complexity:
>>4901739
>>4901742

[Anonymous No.4901804]

>>4901786
Oh, you meant those illustrations?

Those you are posting are not really considered modern art, first because modernism in art is over. Not because it doesn't apply anymore, but because it has been such a great time since modernism started, that we started to chop the entire period in little parts and names. It's also unrelated to what's happening of really new in art and we can say it's modern on those standards either...

There is no name for it though, it's just figurative art, usually illustrative. I do like it though.

I know it was not needed, but I felt like saying it. I know /sci/ doesn't go to the museums all that much and there is a lot of misconception surrounding the subject.

[Anonymous No.4901812]

>>4901804

cool picture, who did that?

What do you think of beksinski, wasn't his work "art" in the high-brow sense of the word? he was modern

[Anonymous No.4901852]

>>4901812
Frank Frazetta.

Well, I consider all to be art, but Beksinski is not what we are talking about when we think of "modern art", though it may be included by some.

Modern art is what you'd see in museums and which appears to be completely incomprehensible for most people... They follow their own logic. Art has split in several little groups of people. Some are fanartists on the internet, others are artisans, others are great comic book and fantasy artists like Frazetta, Fabry, Moebius, etc., others are contemporary artists in the sense of being in the "upfront" of art such as Damien Hirst or Richter (who I posted earlier). These little groups usually don't go along very well, they value different things entirely.

Beksinski is for me a fantasy artist, one of an unique style. Frazetta has a lot of copycats, influenced a lot of people, changed the way people draw. But Beksinski has an incredible technique and he is instantly recognizable, you can't copy him. Thus, he stands out a bit more.

None of this has anything to do with "quality". Just that little groups agree on who is the best on the thing they want to do.

pic is Moebius.

I'm off to bed now, good night.

[Anonymous No.4901861]

Painting is easier and more rewarding because it looks nice.

[Anonymous No.4901862]

You can combine mathematics with painting in order to properly scale the proportions of objects in ratio and relation to the proportions of human beings or other objects.
Da Vinci did it all the time.

[Anonymous No.4901868]

So it's settled then

Art majors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faggot loser talentless math majors

Of course, everyone knows that. It's just a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.4901871]

>>4901862
He was just an aspie and failed inventor. Not a fucking artist.

[Anonymous No.4901885]

>>4901871

>Da Vinci
>Not an artist

Implying you know what art is.

[Anonymous No.4901888]

>>4901885
Leonardo Da Vinci was possibly the most intelligent man who ever lived.

[Anonymous No.4901897]

>>4901868
<span class="math">\frac{-\infty}{10}[/spoiler]

This thread is silly.

[Anonymous No.4901908]

>acquire art skills, disregard science

[Anonymous No.4901927]

>>4901908
>acquire motorial skills used for attempts at physical expressions of temporary and banal feelings of one person, disregard understanding of the reality, acquire food stamps.

[Anonymous No.4901954]

>>4900789
>Painting is harder to get right answers because there are various techniques, mediums, and flavors of aesthetics.

All that makes getting the right answer easier because then there are multiple right answers

[Anonymous No.4901960]

>>4901954
Painting isn't even really about "correctness". Painting is a form of art. You can use math in its practice, yes, but it's not all about being correct.

[Anonymous No.4901966]

This thread proves Math and Science majors are lazy, lucky, faggots who are only "useful", and not "intelligent". Sure, you can play with numbers, or words, but you're not unique, there're millions just like you, who can do the same. Math and Science are only good for earning money, but as for general intelligence of an individual, math AND science are some of the dumbest shit in comparison to ART.

[Anonymous No.4901971]

>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966
>>4901966

[Anonymous No.4901970]

I had Art and Music skills. I forsook them for Science.

Yes, FOR SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.4901973]

>>4901966
Stop trying so hard.
It's getting a bit sad.

[Anonymous No.4901977]

I have had a good laugh the plebeians that are completely unaware of the 7 types of intelligence and think that calculatory/logical is the only "real" intelligence.

Math exists everywhere and can be used to study anything.
Shape up, children.

[Anonymous No.4901980]

>>4901927

illustrators and designers understand many things: composition, perspective, anatomy, mechanical and geometric design, color theory, optical illusions, etc

they also see the world in much more detail than people who don't draw professionally

being an artist doesn't preclude one from learning about the world and "understanding" trivial things like science and math--

Are you autistic? Can't you do more than 1 thing in life?

[Anonymous No.4901983]

>>4901966

> Math and Science are only good for earning money

Ya this is true, but if you do a quick search on indeed.com for "illustrator" jobs, you'll see that there is quite a lot of demand for people who can draw, design, and make computer graphics

Of course an Art is harder and more interesting and rewarding than a science....this is obvious

[Anonymous No.4901986]

I'd rather get paid to draw amazing stuff

> :D

[Anonymous No.4901988]

ITT samefag arty farty special little flower

[Anonymous No.4901989]

>>4901986
Your definition of amazing is of lower standards

[Anonymous No.4901991]

Why do humans not eat one another? At all, under any circumstance, there are no venues that sell that type of food in the Europe I know. Would it be the most addictive meat around, if it was available to purchase, for Sunday Lunches, and fast food restaurants? As we're related and are from the same species, would human-food, if distributed nation-wide, become the most ate food?

"It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have."

[Anonymous No.4901997]

>>4901991
>Why do humans not eat one another?
>implying they don't

> there are no venues that sell that type of food in the Europe I know
because it is illegal. i'm sure there are a select few places.
> Would it be the most addictive meat around
human meat tastes horrible.

[Anonymous No.4902048]

>>4901983
>>4901980
>>4901966
math is an art form, refer to
>>4901690

However, just because you can art, it doesn't necessarily mean you can math. Depicting a projection of an object in n>4 space to 3 space and drawing it in 2 space is not what is meant by math as an art form. Rather, it is constructing an intuitive series of conjectures, lemmas, corollaries, etc.. into a complete theorem that confers unto people not only an understanding but a sense of the concepts involved, a feeling for the reasons to your methods, a sense of empowerment, etc.. This is what math as an art form means.

[Anonymous No.4902846]

finger painting vs. matrices

[Anonymous No.4902851]

all serious mathematicians consider their subject an 'Art'

lol