Maths and art

nyarlothothep

Do you think a kind of mathematical elegance underlies the best forms of art, in whatever medium, painting, music, literature? For example the musical equivalent of the golden ratio is the 5-1 chord progression. Coincidentally this is the most pleasing progression to the human ear. Similarly there is a scale which is used in The Simpsons which basically sounds mysterious. Does this mean this particular scale is objectively mysterious or that the 5-1 progression is inherently perfect?

For example if axioms underlie the most fundamental aspects of existence and we are derivations from the evolution of the universe, in a respect mathematical objects within a system defined/permeated by mathematics, does this mean we validate, in our judgements as sentient beings defined in our thoughts by mathematics, the value of mathematical functions as they manifest themselves scales, literature or art? If a piece of art is not perfect yet the atmosphere of that art evokes positive reactions is atmosphere quantifiable?

Maths isn't purely formalistic if you take the Godel proposition into account and neither are we, it seems in our thought processes if we make judgements based on insight. If we are iterations in a cosmic sense, and given the improbability of a purely formal system of maths is there some external component beyond maths or resultant from it which justifies insight?

DadaKopf

I think about this a lot in relation to graphic design. Of course it's interesting when you realise that a composition or set of typographic relationships end up roughly following mathematical rules of one kind or other. For example, the golden ratio (in relation to composition) or the Fibbonacci sequence in relation to type, and both can interlock.

That said, there are many beautiful compositions that follow no such rules.

There's a metaphysical problem at work which I think is impossible to solve, though one can have a justified opinion on it: are aesthetic rules 'hard-wired' into the universe and mathematics can 'see' those rules at work objectively, or are they social constructs by which human beings have internalised arbitrary but coherent systems which affect aesthetic judgement?

I tend to think that it's all about 'coherence' than hard-wired, inaccessible metaphysical rules. Deconstructive forms of art have shown how alternative coherences cannot just be created but made beautiful. That said, the character of these creative forms are qualitiatively different from other forms, they look, feel and function differently. But their meaning is not fixed, whereas you're implying that objective rules (e.g. the rule of 5ths in music) are objective rules governing aesthetic judgement.

It's also a bit rich to make such claims in the face of radically different aesthetic cultures in 'non-Western' parts of the world, e.g. Japanese buddhist art. The rules which engender these art forms are different, that is to say, they have different coherences. They are situated within different 'cosmologies'.

Affable

Writing or Art can do, but I think also the best minds in these fields can be completely the antithesis of mathematically able.

Music and songwriting is said to have a correlation with mathematical ability although rhythm and timing almost certainly doesn't have.

dreamlogic

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Do you think a kind of mathematical elegance underlies the best forms of art, in whatever medium, painting, music, literature?

'Best' is a subjective judgement..

Music is interesting because of the physics of the medium(length of strings, intervals between notes etc). Pythagoras was the first to make this connection. He was also the first to think of numbers in terms of shapes(cubes, squares etc.)

I don't see any mathematics underlying literature though... would like to hear what your thinking is on this?

If a piece of art is not perfect yet the atmosphere of that art evokes positive reactions is atmosphere quantifiable?

There are many different types and categories of art. 'Perfect' seems to me to be a mathematical construct.
Interesting question about atmosphere. My own answer to your question about atmosphere would be..yes and no! It is if you want it to be, it depends on who is listening/seeing/feeling the 'atmosphere'.

Maths isn't purely formalistic if you take the Godel proposition into account and neither are we, it seems in our thought processes if we make judgements based on insight. If we are iterations in a cosmic sense, and given the improbability of a purely formal system of maths is there some external component beyond maths or resultant from it which justifies insight?

probably where spirituality comes in..