why did you delete my question?

What was wrong with that Question? It can’t have been the spam filter. Can you not tell me what that picture is? Do you know what it is?

I must be stupid me, to even think that something so simple can have a name, it must have? Its a natural image, it produces natural images, its ether the first time its ever been seen or you’ve seen it already. If you have seen it, then it has a name! If nobody has seen it before, then it is mine! And therefore belongs to me and I now own the copyright to it!

Qubit

That’s an amazing picture

Claire

I think I have just opened “A can of worms!” as they say, but dont worry too much; because only stupid people can see how amazings these pictures are!

Nah – far too pithy and apposite

Naturally, any artist hopes for recognition of what they are trying to convey. But working merely to anticipate the public’s tastes and preconceptions (even if to oppose them) is not art but artifice, however skillful or ingenious, and more like marketing!

Of course many artists work within parameters, such as the wishes of patrons or customers. If Michaelangelo had chosen to paint the Sistine chapel ceiling with a random collection zig-zag patterns, it would have been considered an abomination and rapidly painted over. All the same, if he had genuinely expressed some coherent internal vision it would qualify as art and had it been visible today tourists would marvel at his abstract art, produced so far ahead of its time!

Also, within parameters, there’s no reason why art should not overlap with science and maths. With these of course the parameters are stricter, including consistency and due credit for the work of others for example.

It could be argued that most art is meant to excite (or calm) emotions. But with poetry or literature for example these can be fairly intellectual. So arguably a science paper or book which reveals new meaning or interpretation is simply the same a bit further along the refinement scale.

In summary, if hidden patterns like fractal dots are in artwork becuse they are needed then fine. But if they’re present as a deliberate gimmick, with the intention of being a talking point once pointed out, then the artist is a joker at best and probably a fraud.

Script writing is prosaody. Versification… but with a more practical rationalization. It’s “how to” component. A script is also a blueprint. Not only, but also.

Mastery of versification in itself doesn’t get you beyond Halmark Mother’s Day cards.

“Structure,” goes way beyond versification… into what what was there before the Big Bang… theory built on residual evidence. Science and art are open ended, but in very different ways. Science is open ended, in that any given postulate is tentative, but tentative to an at least theoretical final conclusion. Art has no claim to any such theoretical goal. It’s all contingency.

Which does NOT mean: ‘it’s all subjective.’ There are always weaker and more robust interpretations and judgments… just that they have no theoretical endpoint.

Art is not amorphous emoting… it’s a form of thinking… how we think ourselves into being.

Art without awareness of science… is kitch. Science without awareness of art ?

You tell me.

I was torn. I came from a family of artists… all of whom venerated science. I never understood the conventional ideas of an assumed war between science and the arts… nor between religion and art… but the latter, only because my primary understanding of “religion’ was basically aesthetic, and had little to do with anyone’s theology.

This last post touched my heart… on the one hand, it’s almost childlike (not childish) naivety… and on the other-you touch on, howsoever crudely, exactly the critical points that are most worth working through.

Look, I’m in awe of you science guys and gals… and of your effort to bring more gals into the fold. But though it’s way more difficult and uncertain a task to point out who’s gonna last–that is to say–be fertile to the next generation of writers and poets–nonetheless–we still have something, however difficult to define, in common.

Your almost touchingly naive post…nonetheless gets to the heart of how we talk about judgement in art and literature, what it’s possible to say, and what it’s not–if there is any hope of finding a common language:
a commitment to a kind of truth… or rather, different angles and viewpoints on that elusive target.

You are a brave man to cross the line and talk about what we may or may not have in common.

But then… that’s what I love about CosmicVariance!

Keep up the good work.. and for Fred’s sake, delete the Trolls without further apology !