While we were never one to find math pretty, we saw a post over at Boing Boing about Justin Mullins, an artist who produces framed equations with textual material. Mullins is having his first exhibition in London, Feb 1-12, at Lauderdale House.
For us, with all conceptual art, there is a moment where we say, “yes I get it. But is it pretty?” Oddly as we stare at the image above, we have to say, “yeah. It kind of is.”
I looooove this sort of thing
(and this piece in particular too.)
AND this debate reminds me of...
At the first Greater New York show at P.S.1 there was a massive piece with mad detailing of Iran-Contra names and connections charted. I loved that one too, being fond of this kind of information jammed into my art.
My Fine Art friend (who also had a piece in the show, conceptual but abstract) couldn't stand it, and thought It Was Not Art.
Different part of our brains were spoken to . . .
and, yes, we stopped dating shortly thereafter.
I'm an actuary, currently trying to fill my office with pictures (trying to deflect attention from very ugly 80's laminate furniture) and these would be funny..... but on the technical side - that's not a real maths equation. It doesn't mean anything. That would bother me.
I'll tell you what, there is a big market for Black-Scholes from first priciples.
In fact, that actuary person must be very smart (and pretty), if this was real maths...
We scientists type pages of that stuff every day and now some schmo is getting the big props for putting it in a frame?! :)
The equation is in fact real physics: it describes a particle's wavefunction as a superposition of states. It is not all that scientifically interesting in and of itself--it just reminds me of my undergrad quantum mechanics homework.
Anyway, if you really want one of these, buy some ramen noodles for a starving math or physics student at your local university and he/she will probably gladly print you out an equation suitable for framing.
Alec - are you suggesting that in order to be art it has to be pretty, at least in some way?
Hey Jeffrey,
No! I'm saying that in order for me to like a piece of art it has to be "pretty" to me in some way. I admit to using the term loosely...what I think is pretty might not be your idea of pretty. For me “pretty” includes (but is not limited to): composition, color, humor, emotion and history.
I do think these equations are "pretty". While I'm a math moron, my pops was a super smarty-pants and I bet he would have thought these were funny and yes, pretty...so, I do to ;-)
Oh, and Maribeth- the Ramen idea is genius!
Why, why, WHY am I getting a sinking feeling that, if my husband sees this, we'll be stenciling words on walls? Not inspirational sayings, in the Mary Engelbreit manner... but PERL code.
And it'll have puns and jokes in it that only PERL programmers get.
Just watch.
Next step: people buy equations that contain howling errors or other faux pas, the way half the Chinese characters used as art are wrong, fake, or say something inappropriate like "beef chow mein" or "registered escort."
In my Aesthetics class in college, a well-balanced combination of there 3 things were said to be the standards that any aesthetic thing needed to be judged: Unity, Complexity and Intensity.
If something has too much Unity, it's boring. If it's got too much complexity and no unity, it's just a mess. If there's nothing intense about it, it's also kind of boring, I guess.
Whether it's music, dance or visual art, I tend to kind of check off those 3 little short-list items off when I'm taking some in.
But ... I gotta say ... for me, it has to at least be kinda pretty, too. But when you find something that you think is pretty, think about those things, and see if you think they're there.
Like the idea. Not diggin' the frame.
One thing that the dadaists considered to make something art was for it to not be useful, so they put bicycle wheel in the middle of a stool.
So, maybe the fact that this really isn't a real equation is what may help it be art, instead of math.