Le 1/17/2012 6:58 PM, karl ramberg a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant <l...@loup-vaillant.fr <mailto:l...@loup-vaillant.fr>> wrote: David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg <karlramb...@gmail.com <mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com> <mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com <mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com>>__> wrote: I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between practically similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer baffled. From a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock. You can get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly. Karl I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference between a random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock. Regards, Dave If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in. Pollock's paintings are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually). Like a fractal. (Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable source.) Loup. My point here was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but that the domain of art is very different from that of engineer. What makes some music lifeless and some the most awe-inspiring you heard in your whole life ? Karl
Oh, sorry, I do hear you. I singled out this example for 2 reasons : - Showing off (I just couldn't resist). - I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical precision (if we choose to). Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved. It probably won't be before we fully understand the human brain. Loup. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
