Mathematicians missed the presence of what they thought was impossible because they only saw the world of math that was set before them. The realm of impossibility is impossible, we need only to look beyond what is expected and explore the world under a new lens and we may find the answer to our questions in a form we never imagined. In taking pictures, we engage with light and the end result of our interaction may be a new revelation of the possibility of what we thought was impossible.
I completely agree with Natasha. Physics owns mathematics because it applies mathematics to the physical world to explain and help solve real problems. Mathematics is all theory. Nevertheless, physics is too theoretical when considering the art of photography. We would like to think that shining a laser (monochromatic light) at the pinhole would cause a single-slit (aperture) interference pattern, but it in fact does not. The theoretical discussion of "what if" is great, but there is nothing better than actually finding out for yourself, which is why the process of pinhole photography is so awesome (there really is no interference pattern).
I think it's really cool that people were able to model complex structures that mathematicians couldn't model using something as simple as crochet. While the mathematicians were spending their time trying to come up with a perfect model, these people created models, albeit imperfect ones, using crochet. This just shows that sometimes the best model isn't necessarily the most perfect one.
This relates to photography because we could spend all of our time trying to take a "perfect" picture. This would be a picture that has the perfect exposure and is perfect according to technical compositional rules. However, this might not be the best picture that we have seen and it might not be very interesting at all.
This idea is a really interesting one to me. It's fascinating how they can take something so complex and turn it into something simple. Though I'm not saying crochet is simple. If you have ever tried to crochet, you know what I'm talking about. It's harder than it looks. But the crocheting is really just meant to make the complex idea into something simpler to understand. That's sort of what we do with photos. We look at a complex scene and focus the image to try and communicate something.
Overall, this link made me about human "knowledge". Like, mathematicians thought this hyperbolic geometry was impossible and was breaking the rules, yet it wasn't and was being observed in nature. We're not as clever as we thing we are, that kind of thing. How many other rules of mathematics are "wrong"?
I actually saw this or a part of this at the Cultural Center a few years ago! I have a friend who's really into crocheting who was really inspired by the project as I was also- more on what I perceived as the conceptual meaning back then: global warming's devastating effects on coral reefs. What I got out of this video revealed much that I didn't know when first encountering the reefs- that the work on the massive coral project was inspired by math's correlation to how coral is created. Now I didn't really understand so much about the types of space she was talking about, but what I did take away from this video was the idea that new ways of looking at things can bring revolutionary results. Previously these mathematicians thought that the third concept of space didn't exist, however when looking at nature, something they may not often do, completely new results can occur. This really promotes the idea to break down all thoughts of what something can and can't do- instead looking at things with clear lenses in order to get the most out of it.
Mathematicians missed the presence of what they thought was impossible because they only saw the world of math that was set before them. The realm of impossibility is impossible, we need only to look beyond what is expected and explore the world under a new lens and we may find the answer to our questions in a form we never imagined. In taking pictures, we engage with light and the end result of our interaction may be a new revelation of the possibility of what we thought was impossible.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Natasha. Physics owns mathematics because it applies mathematics to the physical world to explain and help solve real problems. Mathematics is all theory. Nevertheless, physics is too theoretical when considering the art of photography. We would like to think that shining a laser (monochromatic light) at the pinhole would cause a single-slit (aperture) interference pattern, but it in fact does not. The theoretical discussion of "what if" is great, but there is nothing better than actually finding out for yourself, which is why the process of pinhole photography is so awesome (there really is no interference pattern).
ReplyDeleteI think it's really cool that people were able to model complex structures that mathematicians couldn't model using something as simple as crochet. While the mathematicians were spending their time trying to come up with a perfect model, these people created models, albeit imperfect ones, using crochet. This just shows that sometimes the best model isn't necessarily the most perfect one.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to photography because we could spend all of our time trying to take a "perfect" picture. This would be a picture that has the perfect exposure and is perfect according to technical compositional rules. However, this might not be the best picture that we have seen and it might not be very interesting at all.
This idea is a really interesting one to me. It's fascinating how they can take something so complex and turn it into something simple. Though I'm not saying crochet is simple. If you have ever tried to crochet, you know what I'm talking about. It's harder than it looks. But the crocheting is really just meant to make the complex idea into something simpler to understand. That's sort of what we do with photos. We look at a complex scene and focus the image to try and communicate something.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this link made me about human "knowledge". Like, mathematicians thought this hyperbolic geometry was impossible and was breaking the rules, yet it wasn't and was being observed in nature. We're not as clever as we thing we are, that kind of thing. How many other rules of mathematics are "wrong"?
ReplyDeleteI actually saw this or a part of this at the Cultural Center a few years ago! I have a friend who's really into crocheting who was really inspired by the project as I was also- more on what I perceived as the conceptual meaning back then: global warming's devastating effects on coral reefs. What I got out of this video revealed much that I didn't know when first encountering the reefs- that the work on the massive coral project was inspired by math's correlation to how coral is created. Now I didn't really understand so much about the types of space she was talking about, but what I did take away from this video was the idea that new ways of looking at things can bring revolutionary results. Previously these mathematicians thought that the third concept of space didn't exist, however when looking at nature, something they may not often do, completely new results can occur. This really promotes the idea to break down all thoughts of what something can and can't do- instead looking at things with clear lenses in order to get the most out of it.
ReplyDelete