Humanities people see math and science as abstract because algebraic equations don't seem all that relevant to them personally, and they enjoy philosophy and art because it addresses questions that seem most important to them, like the nature of human life and how to approach it...

this is so true.

i personally admire you.

I'm going to look for that, would be lovely to read something like:

 

Padme: But R2, this is forbidden, Anakin loves me..

R2: ~

Padme: NO, STOP! Don't leave :(

R2: ~..

Padme: Just kiss me R2 <3

*wishes he could sketch*

I would disagree.

 

Why?

 

Both, in my mind, are a search for truth expressed through a medium... the medium of art is paintings/musical notes/words/what have you, the medium of mathematics is the concept of numbers and operations you do to them. Art is a search for truth on a personal level, math is a search for truth on a "realistic" level. But they are fundamentally similar in my mind, just usually people divide them into different categories based on what kind of minds explore the two, be it logical/categorical or irrational/expressive.

 

I've never heard of anyone having a similar view though. :P

yeah...not to go intellectual on you again, but I think the main difference betwen math/science people and linguistics/humanities people is that math/science people generally like said subjects because they enjoy the certainty and stability of building on concrete, factual information, while stuff like literature and philosophy seem abstract because they have so many unresolvable variables.

 

Totally agree. But to me, a person like you who can see humanities and philosophy like that, and be able to understand it is an intellectual while science people are just normal to me, but amazing at the same time. I don't really know how to explain it in the right way.

Also, I have trouble understanding emotional crap, thing that can be related to literature.

Not that I don't enjoy reading a good book unrelated to science..

 

*wishes he could sketch*

 

Blah, I'll do it.

 

 

 

Too lazy to handle photoshop.

 

 

I enjoy both science/maths and humanities. They are linked and can't be separated from life.

Why?

 

Both, in my mind, are a search for truth expressed through a medium... the medium of art is paintings/musical notes/words/what have you, the medium of mathematics is the concept of numbers and operations you do to them. Art is a search for truth on a personal level, math is a search for truth on a "realistic" level. But they are fundamentally similar in my mind, just usually people divide them into different categories based on what kind of minds explore the two, be it logical/categorical or irrational/expressive.

 

I've never heard of anyone having a similar view though. :P

Arts, like music, usually include two sides. You need to understand the rules of composition, how to play the piano etc., but then you need personal expression and creativity. The way i see it, math is purely logical...it's either right or wrong, there's can't be any variation. The reason I was never fond of math is because, yes, its extremely important and useful, but there's nothing particularly human about it. The answers exist independent of whether or not I figure it out, humans merely discover the answers, but as far as i see, there's no room for individual expression or creativity in a black and white, purely logical subject.

 

Of course, logic is the soul of reason, you can't dismiss math or you'd end up an idiot. I just direct it towards things that interest me more, like philosophical reasoning. Kant for example, reduced everything to complicated math, but i care more about the result than I did in chemistry. Both subjects are vital.

 

 

Too lazy to handle photoshop.

 

 

win

You can't diss modern art by saying

"hey I could draw that". If so, why only a few ones have tried it? Some people think that 2 stripes aren't art becuase there's n't technical merit in them. But art is expression, and perhaps the artist thinks and therefore expreSses differently. In addition, if anyone could draw two stripes, why hasn't everyone else done it? Because they couldn't give it a meaning or understand different peceptions of beauty and/or ornamentation.

You can't diss modern art by saying

"hey I could draw that". If so, why only a few ones have tried it? Some people think that 2 stripes aren't art becuase there's n't technical merit in them. But art is expression, and perhaps the artist thinks and therefore expreSses differently. In addition, if anyone could draw two stripes, why hasn't everyone else done it? Because they couldn't give it a meaning or understand different peceptions of beauty and/or ornamentation.

 

:beatnik:

*I'm totally spamming this thread like I'm some kind of authority on random shit*

 

 

Totally agree. But to me, a person like you who can see humanities and philosophy like that, and be able to understand it is an intellectual while science people are just normal to me, but amazing at the same time. I don't really know how to explain it in the right way.

Also, I have trouble understanding emotional crap, thing that can be related to literature.

Not that I don't enjoy reading a good book unrelated to science..

I'm convinced its practically a genetic trait. maybe it boils down to left brain/right brain or whatever, but whether someone grows up loving science or writing or music seems largely based on what your parents are inclined towards. I guess a lot of it may have to do with the way you're raised too.

 

on a vaguely-related note, I hated this arrogant prick. (the interview from 4:00 onward)

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTolIgmVn04]YouTube- Final Round & Close of 2007 National Spelling Bee[/ame]

I dont smoke. Do you?

This thread is interesting. I do agree w/ what you guys are saying in that a lot of relates to personal opinion. In terms of that really minimal artwork w/ the lines I think it is art because though it may not seem apparent the artist probably did take the time to decide what colors go best. You can't just pick any color and make it look good.

 

Even someone like Jackson Pollock is an artist too although all he did was just "throw paint" to make it look all splattered. He took the time to toss paint a certain direction and essentially later on layer the colors together.

I dont smoke. Do you?

 

:smoking: :beatnik: :pimp2:

 

 

no, I don't.

and that's not a pipe in my avi, in case you're wondering.

 

 

:smoking: :beatnik: :pimp2:

 

 

no, I don't.

and that's not a pipe in my avi, in case you're wondering.

 

 

in my design history class that work came up... it is not a pipe

What is it?

What is it?

that's debatable, but it's most certainly not a pipe, just try putting tobacco in it...

edit: epic post is epic. Sorry. :laugh3:

 

the distinction between this and minimalist art though, comes down to authorial intent...

I meant in the sense that both are more or less universally loathed for various reasons, right or wrong, but yet in spite of public opinion are still examples of art and literature.

 

I hear ya, even I get annoyed at seeing stuff like that selling for thousands, but then again, it usually is more about the fame and influence of the artist than the composition itself.

Well, fame and especially influence are exactly the criteria that determines whether something is a landmark and canonical or not, rather than just popular or critically praised.

 

What gets people upset in cases like "voice of fire" is perceived artificial inflation in stature. Picasso's Guernica for example might be worth millions, but culturally it is really, trully priceless because it is so irreplaceable. Nothing will have the same stature, meaning, relevance, influence and so on. If voice of fire had been presented as a cool minimalist painting from the 60's, it may have had a few people going hey cool, because it's such a good representation of that era's aesthetic. Instead, it was presented in the 80's out of context as a landmark worth millions, and everyone went wait a minute we say if it's a landmark or not and it isn't, yet you're using our money to buy it. That's where the hate started.

 

He totally is, he has boatloads of unreciprocated love for R2 :P

Actually they say he was really abusive on set. They hate each other's guts now.

 

yeah...not to go intellectual on you again, but I think the main difference betwen math/science people and linguistics/humanities people ...

Yeah, as a former english lit major who's currently studying electronic engineering, I've seen plenty of both sides and that seems to be the case.

 

Math is about a single, concrete right answer and an infinite number of wrong ones. The arts are about hundreds of potential right answers with degrees of rightness and millions of wrong ones. People seem to gravitate one way or the other depending on how much grey area their brains can process.

 

HAHAHAHA

 

There's probably a fanfiction for that somewhere.

Rule 34.

 

Mathematics can be an art form, I think.

 

I would disagree. At least, not in the way one understands arts like literature, film, music and poetry.

Math really can be though. My dad is a mathematician, so there are all sorts of weird math books around the house, and the way some of them can turn something so rigid into something so beautiful... there are moments when great math can stir the soul in the same sort of way that great poetry can, especially when it's applied to the world.

 

The way I see it, it's like binary .jpgs. Digital code is made of ones and zeros. A bit is either on or off, one or zero, high or low. There is no 1.5. There are no other options. But when you start stringing those ones and zeroes together, patterns emerge. Put enough together, and you may end up with an image of one of the great works of art.

 

The same can happen with other forms of math. You may see a list of numbers and equations on a page, but it's a language, and if you knew how to read it you could see the poetry of what it's describing- the stars and planets, seashells, the rhythms of life, how everything comes together. Math can be crude or elegant, just like anything else. But to see the poetry, you need to speak the language.

 

I enjoy both science/maths and humanities. They are linked and can't be separated from life.

:thumbsup: Me too. Two systems describing one world.

 

Arts, like music, usually include two sides. You need to understand the rules of composition, how to play the piano etc., but then you need personal expression and creativity. The way i see it, math is purely logical...it's either right or wrong, there's can't be any variation. The reason I was never fond of math is because, yes, its extremely important and useful, but there's nothing particularly human about it. The answers exist independent of whether or not I figure it out, humans merely discover the answers, but as far as i see, there's no room for individual expression or creativity in a black and white, purely logical subject.

Actually, most of the great mathematicians (and their math) were profoundly creative. The creativity was just channeled in a different way. Philosophy or math- they are both systems that point to elements of the world. It's like the difference between a Mac mouse and a PC mouse- one has one button, one has several, but in the end it's all about how you learn to use it to perform the same tasks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

Of course it's not a real pipe, it's a painting OF a pipe.

*I'm totally spamming this thread like I'm some kind of authority on random shit*

 

 

 

I'm convinced its practically a genetic trait. maybe it boils down to left brain/right brain or whatever, but whether someone grows up loving science or writing or music seems largely based on what your parents are inclined towards. I guess a lot of it may have to do with the way you're raised too.

Yes, there does seem to be a very big genetic element to it. At the same time though, the brain is like a muscle- the more you exercise one part of it, the stronger that part gets. Studies have proved that self-belief plays a huge role in eventual ability, especially with math. The more you believe you can do it the harder you'll try and the better you'll get.

I meant in the sense that both are more or less universally loathed for various reasons, right or wrong, but yet in spite of public opinion are still examples of art and literature.

 

Well, fame and especially influence are exactly the criteria that determines whether something is a landmark and canonical or not, rather than just popular or critically praised.

 

What gets people upset in cases like "voice of fire" is perceived artificial inflation in stature. Picasso's Guernica for example might be worth millions, but culturally it is really, trully priceless because it is so irreplaceable. Nothing will have the same stature, meaning, relevance, influence and so on. If voice of fire had been presented as a cool minimalist painting from the 60's, it may have had a few people going hey cool, because it's such a good representation of that era's aesthetic. Instead, it was presented in the 80's out of context as a landmark worth millions, and everyone went wait a minute we say if it's a landmark or not and it isn't, yet you're using our money to buy it. That's where the hate started.

Interesting points, I think if, for example, a museum purchases a work from another museum, the price is not so much meant to be a reflection of a paintings absolute worth, so much as a business decision, measuring how their expenditure will correlate with the added revenue the museum gets from people wanting to see it. But if the museum is funded by taxpayer money, and that money is used to buy a piece nobody really likes...yeah, that blows.

 

 

Rule 34.

I <3 xkcd (although I don't get half the math jokes, and you probably do)

 

 

Math really can be though. My dad is a mathematician, so there are all sorts of weird math books around the house, and the way some of them can turn something so rigid into something so beautiful... there are moments when great math can stir the soul in the same sort of way that great poetry can, especially when it's applied to the world.

 

The way I see it, it's like binary .jpgs. Digital code is made of ones and zeros. A bit is either on or off, one or zero, high or low. There is no 1.5. There are no other options. But when you start stringing those ones and zeroes together, patterns emerge. Put enough together, and you may end up with an image of one of the great works of art.

 

The same can happen with other forms of math. You may see a list of numbers and equations on a page, but it's a language, and if you knew how to read it you could see the poetry of what it's describing- the stars and planets, seashells, the rhythms of life, how everything comes together. Math can be crude or elegant, just like anything else. But to see the poetry, you need to speak the language.

I's illiterate in maths :cry:, maybe the guy from karma police can help me...

In all seriousness I have heard similarly poetic defenses of math, and all I really can do is shrug and resign myself to my foreignness to it. I'm familiar with the linguistic use of binary, and in a way i can imagine how there's a certain symmetrical beauty in understanding the patterns that govern everyday life, but it seems like such seems like such a distant, esoteric state of awareness that I know i could never have the acute interest or patience necessary to reach the point where that would parallel my current appreciation of visual aesthetics.

 

 

Actually, most of the great mathematicians (and their math) were profoundly creative. The creativity was just channeled in a different way.

yeah, i don't think i gave adequate credit to the obvious importance of invention, discovery and innovation in math, and obviously that encompasses creativity, I guess i was trying to emphasize the expressionistic side of it more than anything. Please don't think I'm trying to discredit or depreciate mathematicians as obsolete or anything.

I <3 xkcd (although I don't get half the math jokes, and you probably do)

I do get many of them, but not all. (I like the ideas of math, but I'm terrible with actual numbers- it's an ADD thing...) The guy worked for NASA, so there's probably a few you have to be a math major to even have a chance at.

 

This ones my favorite. My Dad actually told me that one almost word for word once. My reaction was similar. :laugh3:

yeah, i don't think i gave adequate credit to the obvious importance of invention, discovery and innovation in math, and obviously that encompasses creativity, I guess i was trying to emphasize the expressionistic side of it more than anything. Please don't think I'm trying to discredit or depreciate mathematicians as obsolete or anything.

Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. Actually I'm slightly right brain dominant, so both words and numbers are left-brain ways for me to try to apply a system to all the shapes and colours in my head. Yet coming from a very left-brain dominant family (thanks Dad) I sort of work in the middle between the two and have a bit of trouble with purely emotional things.

No, you are all wrong. That's for sure old fashioned nike logo.

No, you are all wrong. That's for sure old fashioned nike logo.

or is it just a drawing of the old fashioned nike logo? :rolleyes: