Quantcast
A lot of people think of “geometric” art as being math-y, in the same sense that the band Maps & Atlases is math-y.
But I don’t think lines, circles, squares, tessellations, grids, and polygons are more mathematical than globs, leaves, aleatorics, colours, nets, or scribbles. In fact, I can link to a math post about each: lines, circles, hypersquares, polytopes, aleatorics, tessellations, blobs, grids, leaves, nets, scribbles, colours.
The mathematical thought that occurs to me when looking at this painting is how, in composition, every spot on the canvas influences every other spot. Holger Lippmann couldn’t have swapped a few of these circles because it would have ruined the effect.
Similarly in painting like this, if you added a splotch of yellow in the bottom right, that would affect the look of several other parts of the canvas.
Algebraically, the pieces of the composition are like a highly connected graph (in “how good it looks” space).

If you regressed compositional outcome against the content of each point in the painting (or just against the style of each circle), the relevant explanatory variables would be highly interactive terms. All the monomial, binomial, trinomial, … terms would be irrelevant.
 
The image is: 29417FlowerCircles_13_grid3 by holger lippmann, via wowgreat

A lot of people think of “geometric” art as being math-y, in the same sense that the band Maps & Atlases is math-y.

But I don’t think lines, circles, squares, tessellations, grids, and polygons are more mathematical than globsleaves, aleatorics, coloursnets, or scribbles. In fact, I can link to a math post about each: lines, circles, hypersquarespolytopes, aleatoricstessellations, blobs, gridsleaves, nets, scribbles, colours.

The mathematical thought that occurs to me when looking at this painting is how, in composition, every spot on the canvas influences every other spot. Holger Lippmann couldn’t have swapped a few of these circles because it would have ruined the effect.

Similarly in painting like this, if you added a splotch of yellow in the bottom right, that would affect the look of several other parts of the canvas.

Algebraically, the pieces of the composition are like a highly connected graph (in “how good it looks” space).

image

If you regressed compositional outcome against the content of each point in the painting (or just against the style of each circle), the relevant explanatory variables would be highly interactive terms. All the monomial, binomial, trinomial, … terms would be irrelevant.

 

The image is: 29417FlowerCircles_13_grid3 by holger lippmann, via wowgreat


hi-res

416 notes

  1. variety-show reblogged this from wowgreat
  2. horxdeluxe reblogged this from wowgreat
  3. rustirust reblogged this from wowgreat
  4. scrunditty reblogged this from wowgreat and added:
    (via TumbleOn)
  5. dan-maku reblogged this from wowgreat
  6. menkuis reblogged this from wowgreat
  7. dawndatso reblogged this from petitagite
  8. deayerahoyy reblogged this from wowgreat
  9. autotheistjester reblogged this from wowgreat
  10. flyinmynoodles reblogged this from wowgreat
  11. yamamomomo reblogged this from wowgreat
  12. a-sys reblogged this from wowgreat
  13. quirmer reblogged this from wowgreat
  14. briggadoon reblogged this from wowgreat
  15. thesirbishop reblogged this from luccica
  16. letrangegrace reblogged this from wowgreat
  17. shalalavolarrr reblogged this from wowgreat
  18. auburntugboatcomplex reblogged this from wowgreat
  19. failtosucceed reblogged this from wowgreat
  20. yotflow reblogged this from wowgreat
  21. dariuswrecker reblogged this from wowgreat
  22. ohboudiou reblogged this from wowgreat
  23. uxkaleidoscope reblogged this from wowgreat