pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on thu 9 dec 04
Toms interesting mentions...revisited...
Hi Tom, all...
What fun...
You mention...
> Picasso's cubistic painting, for example, echo the
scientific debate
> concerning the relativism, at that time.
Yes...or, co-incidentally...but I
think it ( and others) did so, from a differing
angle, or, differing perpescuity, or, a differing trajectory
of approach, or from a complimentary insight, or in
inspirations as derived...from a different source...
>If one could
travel at the speed of
> light, the front, back and sides of objects would all be
visible
> simultaneously; isn't this what is depicted in cubistic
art?
Well...this could be...or sometimes likely was...or, certain
fringes of one's elastic
willingness to tolerate Clairvoyance also, could engender
similar results of perception...even if to do so, from a
great
distance...but would have found
representation...differently, I think...than that...
Or, I think what was actually depicted, was an homage or
reference to enjoyments of (the then, still failry recent if
discrete
European and sometimes American celebrations, and
experiences...of ) certain
products
from the progress
of German Organic Chemistry, being, specifically, their late
1890s synthesis of...
3,4,5-Trimethoxybenzeneethanamine...
Or, C11H17NO3, as some
would have it...
Which, in many otherwise quiet circles of Art
and Intellectual and Literary and some other parts of
society at-the-time as left no record, was found to be a
curious, welcome and
interesting thing to do...
My guess...anyway...
Phil
el v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sawyer"
> I thought I might elicit more feedback when I said
"Actually, I believe the
> most important work of art in the 20th Century was
Einstein's E=MC2
> formula". But no one took the bait.
>
> My wife and I often have had discussions concerning the
relationship of high
> end science and art.
>
> Picasso's cubistic painting, for example, echo the
scientific debate
> concerning the relativism, at that time. If one could
travel at the speed of
> light, the front, back and sides of objects would all be
visible
> simultaneously; isn't this what is depicted in cubistic
art?
>
> When one thinks about the formula E=MC2 and realizes that
each of these
> alphanumeric figures is a symbol, the formula itself is
symbolic for what
> occurs in the belly of stars and for forces that formed
the universe. This
> symbolic representation has impacted society more than any
canvas drawing in
> the 20th century. Cosmologist, nuclear physicists and
quantum mechanics live
> in a world of symbols and are in a very real sense create
"mind or thought
> art". Anyway just another view.
>
> For those interested, I would refer you to Shlain Art &
Physics; this is a
> brilliant discussion of these matters.
>
> Tom Sawyer
> tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
Kathy Forer on fri 10 dec 04
Toms interesting mentions...revisited...
On Dec 9, 2004, at 7:24 PM, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
> Or, C11H17NO3, as some
> would have it...
I dunno about them sticky cacti, Phil, I think "La F=E9e Verte", or The=20=
Green Fairy, may have been more responsible for that "heightened=20
clarity of mind and vision, mildly ponderous and sparkling" that mark=20
cubism's subject matter seen through the lens of light and mass. Though=20=
women may have been Picasso's absinthe even more than wormwood. And=20
Braque just doesn't seem as though he'd have tolerated "Clairvoyance."
Kathy
NJ=
| |
|
