Becoming an 'artist'

[qleak]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while

I'd be happy to chat with anyone who wants to listen to my thoughts on the matter. I decided I didn't want to post the vast mathematical treatise that was my original response.

 

[The_Traveler]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

 

[The_Traveler]

from Do you consider yourself an artist Photography Forum a thread started by Runnah

 

[bribrius]

Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.

Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.

This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while

I'd be happy to chat with anyone who wants to listen to my thoughts on the matter. I decided I didn't want to post the vast mathematical treatise that was my original response.

I would be a bad student. Last thing i studied other than photography was the Canaanite God head and sub gods "council of gods" and the development of Yahweh and ashera from potential Egyptian origins..

 

[W.Y.Photo]

from Do you consider yourself an artist Photography Forum a thread started by Runnah

View attachment 97314

I like how @sm4him described artists in her first response to that thread. That's the way I see it.


Also, bacon.

 

[bribrius]

from Do you consider yourself an artist Photography Forum a thread started by Runnah

View attachment 97314

I like how @sm4him described artists in his first response to that thread. That's the way I see it.


Also, bacon.

screw the artist meme. All this talk now i am thinking of going to another theology or religious history lecture. Or a lecture on early Chinese pre history could be interesting. Anything prehistorical i find fascinating because if it prehistorical how do they know anything about it? Clearly conjecture but it makes your mind wonder. "we believe" opens ones mind to all kinds of possibilities. Then you contemplate discovered artifacts and it is like trying to assemble a puzzle.

 

[waday]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

I'll second this.

As an engineer, I spend a fair amount of time with calculations/equations/mathematics, as well as reviewing other's work. You can tell when someone fully understands what they're doing--their calculations are easy to follow, succinct, and make sense. The calculations are composed well.

However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.

 

[pgriz]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

 

[photoguy99]

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Apology-Canto-Classics/dp/110760463X/

Or check your local library. This is most cogent discussion of Mathematics, What It Is And Why We Do It ever written. And it's pretty OK.

 

[qleak]

However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.

Spoken like a true engineer (Just joking with you )

I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science

The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra) and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions.

The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here

 

[qleak]

A Mathematician s Apology Canto Classics G. H. Hardy C. P. Snow 9780521598934 Amazon.com Books

Or check your local library. This is most cogent discussion of Mathematics, What It Is And Why We Do It ever written. And it's pretty OK.

Holy crap that's by Hardy! Looks good, thanks for the pointer

 

[waday]

However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.

Spoken like a true engineer (Just joking with you )

I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science

The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra) and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions.

The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here

No offense taken. I find myself saying "about" and "approximately", providing answers with safety factors, and giving SWAGs and WAGs way too often.

Why is the answer multiplied by 4? Safety. That's why.

Oh, I completely understand. (Although, I can't say I was particularly happy with my calc 1 and diff. eq. classes--bad professor. I liked calc 2.) Going from a class where you are given the equation and told how to use it varies considerably from a class where you have to develop/derive the equation.

 

[bribrius]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics). But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it. I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.

Spoken like a true engineer (Just joking with you )

I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science

The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra) and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions.

The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here

Certainly. That parallel is eerily familiar to me having recently graduated from photography school. I found myself utterly underwhelmed for my entire freshman year, learning next to nothing that I didn't already know, halfway through sophomore year I got hit over the head with "meaning" "concept" and "narrative". At the time it tripped me up quite a bit. I thought "why is this necessary?" "This doesn't pertain to my work..."and plenty of other negative things about it until I finally gave in and really attempted to understand it. Now its all I think about. I can't even see a photo without thinking about the concept, the ideas, and the narrative of an image. Technical precision is just a nice doorway to a much larger mansion of possibility.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.

Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development. It's actually quite a bit like music. There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results. Good, elegant code is actually fun to read. Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over. When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation. Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well. I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions. The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics). But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it. I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.

I think your overarching idea in this post is a good one.. but I have to interject on one thought. While the physics of making a clay pot are not art in and of themselves (unless you believe in a god which created them).. the movements of the persons hands in order to shape the pot by using physics are.

Code may be about the end result, but so is a poem or a novel. The lines are just as artistic as the whole story. I think what they are saying is the same goes for code. And sure there are technical aspects to coding that must be learned but there is also room for an individuals own creative input.