"Mathematical Art" - Defining a genre
From Math and Art
I think it would be desirable to establish “mathematical art” as an identifiable art genre or movement. A concrete step to this end would be to create a Wikipedia entry for the term. First, though, some sort of consensus should be arrived at as to what the term means. In order to put it in context, I looked at the entries for several related genres:
The first sentence in each of these Wikipedia entries defines the genre. A good definition for “mathematical art” should be concise. In addition, it should not be too inclusive. An overly broad definition will be detrimental to the creation of a clear identity for the genre. Routine uses of mathematics, such as 2-point perspective drawing or the proportioning of a canvas shouldn’t be included. Nor should abstract art that contains simple geometric forms such as circles that are employed just because the artist likes the composition. If mathematics is used in the deployment of these geometric forms (their scaling, placement, etc.), that would be a different matter. With this in mind, I would like to propose the following definition as a starting point.
- Mathematical art is art in which mathematics is consciously employed as a central element in either the creation process or the final composition.
Please comment on this proposed definition. Is there possibly a better term than "mathematical art"? Robert
The problem with this definition is that many artists do not have a mathematical background, and do not consciously use mathematics. A good example would be Max Bill's Mobius strip sculptures: he always claimed that he had discovered the form independently. By this definition such art would be excluded, but I think most people would be happy to include it as mathematical art. Paul
I think there are actually very few people in this category (that I would consider mathematical artists). For that reason, the sentences following the initial single-sentence definition could make it clear that such exceptional cases should be included. These sort of clarifying sentences typically follow the initial sentence in the Wikipedia definitions above. There will obviously be some range of opinion as to what should be considered mathematical art and which artists. For example, is Piet Mondriaan's work mathematical art? It's very geometric, but I don't think he used mathematics in any explicit way, but rather just placed his lines and rectangles where he thought they looked good. Robert
Can you give some examples of people who you see in this category? If it's small enough to be enumerable, maybe it'd be helpful to do that first and see how it shapes the description.
I rather agree that "consciously" is disputable. Bob Engman would be a good example of someone with no mathematical training, who arrived independently at quite a few figures from the Topological Picturebook. I agree there aren't many like him, but he's out there.
I'm also not crazy about "the creation process". There are artists who use complex algorithmic methods to produce work that appears (to me) to be without mathematical interest; and as noted there are purely asymbolic crafters whose stuff seriously pulls the plow. Brent Collins leaps to mind. I'd vote for the mathematical interest or content of the final artwork as the criterion, without reference to the means of production. Bathsheba The real problem with the definition is that it is about the process of production, not the art. Unless the process is documented, or the artist is still alive and ready to answer questions, we have to guess what process was used. We need a definition that depends only on the art. Paul
Re: examples of people who you see in this category ... and see how it shapes the description. MC Escher. Who has Escher been exhibited with? What is the intersection of Escher and the artists listed/enumerated in the 6 other "string" art categories? A visualization would maybe be a distance realtionship chart/graph.... Art 15:34, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
