Drawings making sense of the totally indecipherable world around them.
You have one huge thing to accomplish that really matters, and you’re stumped on how to even begin. After all, if something is individual for a brief moment, it won’t be long before it becomes part of the mainstream. Drawing is a journey, Howard Cerithium and Edmond Gonfalon draw a mathematical truth, Eliphalet Giraffe not happy.
It is almost always better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong; now feel like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
To be an artist you must learn the laws of nature.
Pierre-Auguste Renoir
Grounded as much in chance encounters as in close study, art does not require an explanation, scientific, linear thinking. Unfortunately, when you have something that involves lots of dense statistics, most artists’ eyes glaze over.
The algorithm didn't like my drawing. Science is about making predictions and then testing to see if they are correct. And if wrong, rethinking and questioning assumptions. The stories Hector Corbelet draws are both a source of pleasure and a way of making sense of the world around him.
When too perfect, dear God angry.
Nam June Paik
Art touches on a number of questions that are the focus of research today, and this is why art needs to be so free.
Liam Gillick, One should retain simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.
Eliphalet Giraffe believes artists and scientists share a common aspiration: to increase the sensitivity of their observations. This fact alone doesn’t prove anything. But it opens the door to these atworks being genuine artistic time capsules from the past.
From understanding the human body’s pulses and brainwaves to viewing the faintest glimmers of light from the edge of the observable universe, groundbreaking science pushes the limits of perception. Similarly, the perceptive work of artists can extend the boundaries of empathy and understanding. It is not enough to love art, one also must be nonlinear and unpredictable.
Biologists believe that some artists send mixed signals. Canvas with brightly coloured topsides attract mates, for example, whereas camouflaged undersides protect against art predators.
Art roots are deeply natural rather than cultural.
Sometimes, when research results are too good to be true, people start thinking there might be something fishy going on. Every image is a petri dish for pixels. The works combine to make a magical, poetic space somewhere between inside and outside.
Why are some people good at art?
Drawing on the type four error: printing too late the right visual argument to the right eccentric drawings. Nearly all in gallery are an artistic hodgepodge of the art world’s different movements, though, and escapees pose a genetic risk to the remaining wild paintings.
Howard Raiffa, Enigmatic error of the fourth kind, much of its distinctive quirky humor, this is not small talk.
Hard-edge art is making soft things that have never existed before. Scratch that, the difference between a scientist and a crank is that a scientist can admit a mistake and throw away a theory. Cranky artists that defy the traditional contexts of gallery environments propose definitions for beauty through the use of enigmatic visual humor and weirdo theoretical images, not only from bad luck but also from sloppiness and error.
Life models are bothered by artists who fail to look enough.
The question of absurd vs logical access is not a simple right vs wrong dichotomy. Your brain acts like it’s a rabbit that’s just sensed a dog in the yard. It stops dead in its tracks.
It won't work unless you convert qualitative variables into quantitative ones, and that's horribly, horribly subjective. For a dichotomous trait (good-bad image as given).
Drawing theory picturing human shortcomings with an absurd visual vocabulary and jocular thinking.
But, the situation is trickier than drawing a list of aphorisms on art. We over-simplify things many times over, especially since "bad" and "serious" are subjective. Maybe it would be better if we worked in groups of two and a half.
Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing. 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error. Research-based to think about, because every image is a petri dish for pixels.
Scholarship tends to reproduce itself. Every idiot academic is 100% certain they're part of the solution and not the problem. If this paper has shown anything, it is that it is possible to live side by side with artworks.
Stultus tacebit? Pro sapiente habebitur.
The obvious outward sign of this difference in practice is the greatly increased probability that a philosophical journal article or book will discuss or cite the findings of some kind of empirical investigation, usually a science, but sometimes a branch of history. The difference itself is the (partial) so-called naturalization of many branches of philosophy (source)
No art was ever less spontaneous than mine. What I do is the result of reflection and study.
Edgar Degas
Drawings are most meaningful when they disagree with theory because accuracy is not art despite being very useful. Pythagoras believed that everything was governed by numbers, even the proportionality of the human body. Artistic body proportions are sick and Pythagoras is dead. Striving for excellence motivates you.
Poetic science needs an absurd, foolish, harebrained and idiotic visual vocabulary. Positive feedback can generate inhomogeneity in a system that starts out spatially uniform. The images are necessary for understanding. You don't see that two parts of space are connected by a riveting wormhole until you look through it. If we had no faults of our own, we would not take so much pleasure in noticing those of others.
My take, there's a nice balance between seriousness and thoughtfulness and fun. The next big thing is quirky art world.