So much of the world is overlooked, and its artistic and mathematic value ignored, until someone comes along and acknowledges it. Through photos we are able to suspend a moment in time, observe it, and take it and make something new that may have long been in existence, but never explored in the way in which we set forth to explore it. Math and art are not at odds in presenting reality, but are members on the same journey of discovery, relying on one another to gain the full picture and achieve a common goal.
To actually comment on the link itself, I'd just like to say that creating those objects are much harder than you'd think. I have worked with Mathematica in the past - for both Calculus III and for my mathematics/physics publication. In order to model the noodles/pasta correctly, one must find a rough geometric center of the noodle, and then using spherical coordinates, modify the radius of the spherical coordinates in order to entirely map out the shape for each combination of the azimuth and zenith angles. Furthermore, some shapes may require more complex parameterizations, including combinations of spherical coordinates and cylindrical coordinates.
Just wanted you guys to appreciate the guy's art more than you already were.
This series of articles seem to demonstrate an idea: the use of natural forms and objects to explain higher theoretical forms. These forms cannot be easily derived (as seen for hyperbolic functions and crochet), as they present matters that are too complex. Instead, these forms must be observed and felt. As mentioned in class, this passive and welcoming mentality is essentially the artist's plight: not to necessarily create out of emptiness, but rather to observe and possibly regurgitate in a new form or use. But this regurgitation does not necessarily erase new creative fountains. As seen with the mathematical equations modeled after pasta, physical observation allows for new perception of complex functions. These new functions can then be molded into new physical forms (as with the pasta), allowing for an enhancement and broadening of meaning available to both the physical and metaphysical worlds. This essentially creates the artistic process, a series of observations and regurgitation that seeks to foster novel meanings.
These mathematical models of pasta show another way to visualize something complex through the use of something simple. Mathematics are hard; very few people can visualize complex functions without the use of some external aide. Similarly, it is difficult to visualize the concept of light because we only ever think about it in simple terms: it bounces off of stuff and then into our eyes so that we can see. There is much more to light than this though and we can use photography to explore it in the same way that pasta was used to explore mathematics.
I completely agree with Zach. The whole point of this class is to try to retrain ourselves to look at the world in order to see reality, unbiased or unchanged than it is with our current lens. These different approaches relating art and mathematics, seen here with the pasta and previously with the crocheting of the coral reefs, all really get across the idea that in order to really understand something and therefore see its true reality, we must look at it with a new lens, perhaps one that is radical or unheard of.
I love this. This cracks me up. I love that a mathematician looked at pasta and decided to try to explain it using numbers and equations. He's rather ingenious that way. He looked at something simple and tried to make it more complex. This is kind of the opposite idea from the last link. I think we can learn how to be more observant and try to see the unusual in the usual from this.
I was also amused by this. I think it's also a testament to how you can bridge the gap between two quite different fields. Mathematics and pasta are definitely not two things I would easily be able to link together.
So much of the world is overlooked, and its artistic and mathematic value ignored, until someone comes along and acknowledges it. Through photos we are able to suspend a moment in time, observe it, and take it and make something new that may have long been in existence, but never explored in the way in which we set forth to explore it. Math and art are not at odds in presenting reality, but are members on the same journey of discovery, relying on one another to gain the full picture and achieve a common goal.
ReplyDeleteTo actually comment on the link itself, I'd just like to say that creating those objects are much harder than you'd think. I have worked with Mathematica in the past - for both Calculus III and for my mathematics/physics publication. In order to model the noodles/pasta correctly, one must find a rough geometric center of the noodle, and then using spherical coordinates, modify the radius of the spherical coordinates in order to entirely map out the shape for each combination of the azimuth and zenith angles. Furthermore, some shapes may require more complex parameterizations, including combinations of spherical coordinates and cylindrical coordinates.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted you guys to appreciate the guy's art more than you already were.
maybe you should learn to crochet
DeleteThis series of articles seem to demonstrate an idea: the use of natural forms and objects to explain higher theoretical forms. These forms cannot be easily derived (as seen for hyperbolic functions and crochet), as they present matters that are too complex. Instead, these forms must be observed and felt. As mentioned in class, this passive and welcoming mentality is essentially the artist's plight: not to necessarily create out of emptiness, but rather to observe and possibly regurgitate in a new form or use. But this regurgitation does not necessarily erase new creative fountains. As seen with the mathematical equations modeled after pasta, physical observation allows for new perception of complex functions. These new functions can then be molded into new physical forms (as with the pasta), allowing for an enhancement and broadening of meaning available to both the physical and metaphysical worlds. This essentially creates the artistic process, a series of observations and regurgitation that seeks to foster novel meanings.
ReplyDeleteThese mathematical models of pasta show another way to visualize something complex through the use of something simple. Mathematics are hard; very few people can visualize complex functions without the use of some external aide. Similarly, it is difficult to visualize the concept of light because we only ever think about it in simple terms: it bounces off of stuff and then into our eyes so that we can see. There is much more to light than this though and we can use photography to explore it in the same way that pasta was used to explore mathematics.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Zach. The whole point of this class is to try to retrain ourselves to look at the world in order to see reality, unbiased or unchanged than it is with our current lens. These different approaches relating art and mathematics, seen here with the pasta and previously with the crocheting of the coral reefs, all really get across the idea that in order to really understand something and therefore see its true reality, we must look at it with a new lens, perhaps one that is radical or unheard of.
DeleteI love this. This cracks me up. I love that a mathematician looked at pasta and decided to try to explain it using numbers and equations. He's rather ingenious that way. He looked at something simple and tried to make it more complex. This is kind of the opposite idea from the last link. I think we can learn how to be more observant and try to see the unusual in the usual from this.
ReplyDeleteI was also amused by this. I think it's also a testament to how you can bridge the gap between two quite different fields. Mathematics and pasta are definitely not two things I would easily be able to link together.
ReplyDelete