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

433 notes

  1. invisiblespoon reblogged this from wowgreat
  2. canacol reblogged this from wowgreat
  3. crematorium reblogged this from automaticmotion
  4. thereignsofcashmere reblogged this from dee-lirium
  5. sssamiii reblogged this from dee-lirium
  6. the-plurprincess reblogged this from dee-lirium
  7. high-mynameis reblogged this from dee-lirium
  8. isathemoonchild reblogged this from dee-lirium
  9. cabezal0ca reblogged this from bateria-baja
  10. bateria-baja reblogged this from dee-lirium
  11. laurenchristineee reblogged this from dee-lirium
  12. dee-lirium reblogged this from luccica
  13. variety-show reblogged this from wowgreat
  14. horxdeluxe reblogged this from wowgreat
  15. rustirust reblogged this from wowgreat
  16. scrunditty reblogged this from wowgreat and added:
    (via TumbleOn)
  17. dan-maku reblogged this from wowgreat
  18. menkuis reblogged this from wowgreat
  19. dawndatso reblogged this from petitagite
  20. deayerahoyy reblogged this from wowgreat
  21. autotheistjester reblogged this from wowgreat
  22. flyinmynoodles reblogged this from wowgreat
  23. yamamomomo reblogged this from wowgreat
  24. a-sys reblogged this from wowgreat
  25. quirmer reblogged this from wowgreat
  26. briggadoon reblogged this from wowgreat