I was immediately impressed seeing the photos under your New Work. Using the steel hexagon tiles to create a Sierpinski triangle is an elegant way to make the piece about several concepts at once – fractals and self-similarity, tilings of the plane, symmetry. I’m encouraged that you’ve been exploring math concepts in your work. I know your work is about much more than math, but I’ve been exploring math influenced art for a couple of years now, and it’s rare that I see any that’s more than what I’d call geek art.
I’ve read your recent essay, “Art and Nature”, and you really get going with ideas about math and art in your paragraph that starts “When we think of nature we might think of beautiful waterfalls. . .” It seems to me that artists, beginning in the 60s and continuing to this day, are reluctant to admit an interest in math. Sol LeWitt said, “Conceptual art doesn’t really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy.” Mel Bochner, writing about a Sol LeWitt structure, said, “There are no mathematics involved in operations such as these. Happily there seems to be little or no connection between art and mathematics (math deals with abstractions, art deals with tangibilities).” Robert Mangold said, “Whatever role geometry plays in my work I see as incidental. I have used circles, squares, ellipses, and all manner of four- and many-sided forms and combine forms. I see no difference between this and the way a writer or poet would use words and made-up words to express an idea: the key is to express an idea. Abstraction is an idea. Geometry is not.”
Nevertheless, sometimes artists will admit that math does have a lot to teach us. My favorite Mel Bochner quote is, “Mathematical thinking is generally considered the antithesis of artistic thinking, but it is not. The two aspects of mathematical thinking that interest me are its clarity and rigor. These are also the characteristics of the best art.”
January 25, 2009 at 1:27 am
Arcy,
I was immediately impressed seeing the photos under your New Work. Using the steel hexagon tiles to create a Sierpinski triangle is an elegant way to make the piece about several concepts at once – fractals and self-similarity, tilings of the plane, symmetry. I’m encouraged that you’ve been exploring math concepts in your work. I know your work is about much more than math, but I’ve been exploring math influenced art for a couple of years now, and it’s rare that I see any that’s more than what I’d call geek art.
I’ve read your recent essay, “Art and Nature”, and you really get going with ideas about math and art in your paragraph that starts “When we think of nature we might think of beautiful waterfalls. . .” It seems to me that artists, beginning in the 60s and continuing to this day, are reluctant to admit an interest in math. Sol LeWitt said, “Conceptual art doesn’t really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy, or nay other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy.” Mel Bochner, writing about a Sol LeWitt structure, said, “There are no mathematics involved in operations such as these. Happily there seems to be little or no connection between art and mathematics (math deals with abstractions, art deals with tangibilities).” Robert Mangold said, “Whatever role geometry plays in my work I see as incidental. I have used circles, squares, ellipses, and all manner of four- and many-sided forms and combine forms. I see no difference between this and the way a writer or poet would use words and made-up words to express an idea: the key is to express an idea. Abstraction is an idea. Geometry is not.”
Nevertheless, sometimes artists will admit that math does have a lot to teach us. My favorite Mel Bochner quote is, “Mathematical thinking is generally considered the antithesis of artistic thinking, but it is not. The two aspects of mathematical thinking that interest me are its clarity and rigor. These are also the characteristics of the best art.”
Anyway, keep up the good work, and keep writing.
Cheers,
Joe Bartholomew