You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: WHY FRACTALS DON'T TOUCH YOUR SOUL...
woooow yeah buddy when you MOVE the digital image it DOES becoem more alive and in touch with the human heart. I wouldnt say "fractal" does not touch the soul as fracal geometry exists in plants in nature. the human soul can not fit into the contruct of a machine, so naturally the soul finds it disturbing. what is more beautiful, a sphere or a cube?
...you are absolutely right concerning nature...only as far as I know, nobody put an Romanesco cabbage in the gallery and declaring this "art"...well, may be Koons has it on his list and of course 10 meters high.
I agree. I'm of the opinion that to speak of anything as "outside of nature" is .. nonsense lol. "fractals," mathematics.. they are just as "natural" as a tree. Which I think is web-gnar's point... that if you break down nature, you will see these exact shapes, fractals, etc.!! So I think it's a mistake to separate things out from nature, when, imo, everything and anything actually falls under this rubric!
a sphere is more beautiful than a cube though
So.. there's an objective "beauty?" @web-gnar? I don't think it's that easy... Some of the most "Beautiful" things out there are quite rugged, raw, jagged--like a cube. As opposed to the smooth nice contours of a "sphere..." no? In other words: Beauty truly is in the "eye of the beholder.."
Your philosophy is very Platonic... with the forms and all... Plato would say likely there is an "objective" (true form) of beauty.. Therefore, for example, a "cube" which I may find as "beautiful," truly contains within it a resemblance (I can't remember the technical term) of the form of beauty.. which is the "purest" and most perfect "form": and called Beauty.. . Plato probably would say that a sphere is more beautiful--(like you said with the "disruption of the soul," etc. which is very interesting) .
I just don't think I agree with Plato. It's a bit too "theistic" imo. (which many later philosophers, St. Augustine being the main one, worked very hard to Christianize Plato--which, given its precepts, probably wasn't all too difficult.))
One more thing about your statement, @web-gnar, that really got me thinking: in line with the idea that certain phenomena have a tendency to "disrupt" the soul due to their being--if I'm reading you right--basically "too complex" for that soul to comprehend. This idea leads me to think the next logical step would be, that, perhaps some kind of evolution would permit "souls" (imo, "mind") to grow and therefore to comprehend increasingly complex structures... In that sense, "beauty" is something constantly evolving and changing, and our "souls" change, too, in order to comprehend it--but also to influence it and add our own perceptions into the milieu.
a copy of a copy of a copy loses its beauty eventually. simple is all encompassing. straying too far from the source becomes artificial
you know, the one who can does...the one who cannot teaches.
Thanks for the "lesson," @whornung ;) What is it here that you cannot do??