[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Rosen and art



Ayten's invocation of art as a form of relational modeling is significant in many ways. Robert Rosen was a fine artist, both in drawing and in oil painting. (Since I got a digital camera for Xmas, I can finally put some photos of my father's artistic work up on the rosen-enterprises.com website...) He was also very well versed in art history and music history as well as the theoretical bases for both (color theory, music theory, etc). On top of that, he could play both piano and organ-- Bach fugues were among his favorites to play. Art was one of the first things I discovered I had in common with my father, along with writing, and I pursued art in college (preferring to develop my writing on my own). I also loved art history, and only discovered the depth of my father's knowledge on the subject when telling him about my own discoveries, likes and dislikes, and intuitions (in my mid-twenties).
 
It didn't really surprise us, by then, to discover that we had formed a lot of the same likes and dislikes, independently of one another-- that was a phenomenon we had gotten used to. We both disliked art like Jackson Pollack's "bird-droppings" paintings-- abstract expressionism where there was no thought or talent involved. Throwing paint at a canvas isn't much of a relational model of anything-- I think that's what bothered both of us about such "art". Abstract art is capable of being so much more! It has the capacity to be a relational model for aspects of the mind. Thoughts, concepts, ideas.... all can be represented visually through art. That's what interested the two of us. So-called art where the artist wanted to "just be a witness to what happens organically"... that's not art.
 
The Rochester Zoo has an elephant named Jenny C, who has been taught to paint and her paintings are auctioned off every year as part of a big fund-raiser for the zoo. Her paintings are better than a lot of abstract expressionist stuff in galleries. I don't know how much she's allowed to express herself, though. I have often thought that art might be a good way to assess the minds of various other species, just as it is a way currently used in early childhood development assessment to try and get some idea of what's going inside a child's mind.
 
Judith

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn
To: ***
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosen and others

Ayten,

Art certainly has a unique quality as a formal system that distinguishes it
from mathematics; namely, that the symbols and relations in the art
themselves are open to interpretation, whereas in mathematics they generally
have a predefined fixed interpretation. This could allow for multiple
encodings from the natural system to that a single piece of art, even though
the encodings/interpretations might be incommensurable with each other. I am
not sure about the art and decodings back to the natural system.

But topological models, in the mathematical (rather than art) sense, would
lose that flexibility of interpretation, and so incommensurable models would
require distinct formal models, each with their own distinct
encodings/decodings to the natural system.

That's the opinion of someone who's appreciation of art is finite and
bounded. :)

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Ayten
> Aydin
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:41 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Rosen and others
>
>
> Dear Tim,
> Thank you for your reflections on my queries. I am still wondering whether
> it is feasible to enter from another door to the application process of
> Rosennean Theory. That is why I suggested ART and thus meaning more of
> geometry rather than algebra. I still think that Poincare`'s
> principles are
> not fully exhausted, as shadowed by Einstein and others.
-snip-