Art (,the thread about)


A lot of my inspiration comes from Rudy Rucker. He’s a fascinating individual who happens to live in my general vicinity. Hope I get a chance to meet him someday.

His book, The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul, is like an artist’s version of Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science. Highly recommended.


I need to get to know her work better. This is amazing stuff!


Found the source of the tessellation gradients:


I’d honestly love to see this community tackle that discussion


a few of us don’t mind so we’ll see how it goes

I’ll preface my statement by asking a favor: if anybody in this diverse community is muslim, please share your personal thoughts or references available online that might help us understand this teaching.

From my past research on the origin of this doctrine their are parallels to the sacred writings of ancient Israel. The two religions both point to evidence in their holy writings. Each contain direct commands from god to refrain from making or scultpting the likeness of animals or humans. Jewish priests applied this directive specifically to representation of statues and other objects related to worship…In contrast, followers of Islam felt that any depiction of real-world elements in an artists work amounted to improper veneration of the subject.

This served as a restriction for generations of artists but after examining the context of the commands (and using logic in considering the personality of the one who gave it) the stricter interpretation seems unreasonable and inconsistent with the rest of the law code.


That’s really interesting and something I didn’t know (the specific limiting to non-representational art), but Angela and I were discussing recently how much “Art” (in the historical sense) is so heavily skewed by money/power, specifically in the sense of so much of it being “paintings of rich/famous people” (of the day).

Tangential, but this spawned from seeing a bunch of da Vinci’s machines/sketches in a science museum recently, and realizing how much of them were military/weapon-based. I’ve not read it personally, but Angela is a big fan of Operation Manual for Spaceship Earth (which I’ve been meaning to add to the recommended reading thread) and in that book, da Vinci is painted as essentially being an engineer for hire for the “great pirates” of the day.

So much of “Art” and “Culture”, in general, is passed forward that way, by the “winners”, completely non-representational of what was actually happening (or of actual interest). Again, tangentially, but I think this is not so much a byproduct of human’s (mis)management of history and information as it’s passed down over time, but a characteristic of the arrow of time itself. Where the passage of time intrinsically (and necessarily(?)) flattens what has happened, for the consumption of what will happen.


I have odd conflicted feelings about representation in art.

I was reflecting on why I tend towards “realistic” photo processing. Aiming for “accuracy” even while knowing that any result I end up with is an interpretation of a memory, and that the camera can never truly capture something as seen. So, I’m aware that I’m adding my interpretation to that which nature presented to me, and yet I’m striving to make that addition as invisible as possible. I was trying to understand my motivation for doing this, and it boils down to a feeling that it would be arrogant of me to attempt to “improve” on something like a flower.

Almost the opposite of the Islamic approach? An intentional veneration of my subject, with the aim of being as representational as possible. I’ve come to realize that all of this is arbitrary, and I need not be so strict with myself. But loosening up requires me to find a different relationship between artist/subject/audience and I end up feeling a bit unmoored.

Yet, I have none of the quandaries when I stick with non-representational, abstract, algorithmic, or mathematical/geometric art.

Leaving aside the religious interpretation for a moment, might there be a practical or ethical or otherwise rational justification for avoiding “veneration of the subject”?


[quote=“Rodrigo, post:46, topic:2825”]
So much of “Art” and “Culture”, in general, is passed forward that way, by the “winners”, completely non-representational of what was actually happening (or of actual interest).

this is profound and one of the things that makes studying recent/current/modern work so rewarding

we will never truly understand or appreciate any other period as well as our own


Indeed! Thankfully, we are lucky enough to live at the same time as it too!


[quote=“jasonw22, post:47, topic:2825”]
Might there be a practical or ethical or otherwise rational justification for avoiding “veneration of the subject”?

I’ve stated this elsewhere but…“reality” is far weirder than most people give it credit for. The more we allow ourselves to skew and warp freely (especially aural designs and music) the closer we get to the intricate beauty in the natural world.


Hello all!
Angela here (@Rodrigo’s partner).

Here’s some new art:

And the blog post with more pics/info on the process:


i’m a fan of your video work and direction so i’ll check this out

thanks for joining!


It’s all put into a new light for me with quantum physics and the ‘double-slit experiment’ showing how “The observer simultaneously plays a part in creating the reality [he/she] is observing.” The flower I see will never be the same flower anyone else might see, so I feel ‘nature’ or ‘reality’ is only a feeling, an experience isolated from language and expression within my localized being, and once something is presented for others to observe, it can be free to be ‘ARTificial’ because it’s inevitably shaped by presentation or sharing and the intermingling of experiences and perspectives(perhaps that’s as natural/real as any shared experience can get).
I’ve been hiking alot lately, and I notice other hikers are really scared of these cows and bulls I come across, some are also scared of dogs as well. I’ve always heard the idea that animals can smell fear so I tend to treat animals with the same casual respect as any passing human being, I remain calm and pleasant, sometimes even inviting. I notice cows and other animals tend to ignore me or inch closer in curiosity, while they tend to run away from the people who fear them. It seems another way in which reality is shaped by the energy of our consciousness and the emotional energy that charges it. They say ‘calm is infectious’, so am I making these cows, bulls, and dogs calm and curious with my own similar energy, are they the ones making me calm, or are we all just chillaxed no matter what and the people who stop in fear simply scare away the animals because the animals have an instinct to be wary of this more anomalous behavior? (if a person stops or changes their pace in fear, they’re making it obvious that their general behavior is altered to become hyper-aware, as if they’re going to fight or take flight and it even scares me to see this… hmmm… i’m rambling… will my rambling side-wind the focused energy of this discussion, or was it all your energies of postulation that caused my rambling to begin with? :smiley: anyhoooooo…)

I like this discussion, it helped me remember the cyclical way in which perspective shapes the universe while the universe frames different experiences. (…i don’t think i had any particular point i was trying to make here, though :blush: just observing and taking notice of how it made me feel) Thanks All for this!


i really like Oliver Vernon’s artwork.


Moghul miniatures, though. But everything changes when it comes into contact with India.


brenna murphy

tauba auerbach

a good art tumblr


tauba is so dreamy

she’s responsible for one the greatest album covers of our generation and her style is instantly recognizeable


thanks for this one!
lovely work.


Just a few points to bring up as food for thought (without having a specific point in particular):

  1. “the camera can never truly capture (a) something as seen (b)”.
    a) because the tool writes itself on the work. This is inescapable. Now knowing that…what do ‘we’ do? Perhaps nothing needs to be done, other than just recognizing it and moving on to do whatever we’re going to do anyway. But to know it in the 21st century is important, I feel.
    b) your see-ing is not as objective as you take for granted (as any modern [western, rational, visual-centered culture] person takes for granted). An example of this is how perspective drawing was ‘invented’ in the 14th century (?). Notably by an architect, and I suspect this was fostered by the presence of open plazas in Italy at the time. What I’m saying is the way you see things has a lot to do with culture. The “magical realism” of Colombian art is no less “real”…to them.
  1. An intentional veneration of my subject (a), with the aim of being as representational (b) as possible.
    a) subject - the thing separate from you. Out there. In the ‘dead world’ which may be dissected and whose secrets will then be known to man. Comes from proto-scientist monks…or something. I bring this up because animism isn’t something that is considered, in the main, or other philosophies (conceptual frameworks) that very much have a bearing on what/how we see.
    b) representational - if it is unchanging, if your tools are neutral, if your faculties of perception were neutral, if you ignore (or are unable to perceive) it’s changing. I guess it might be useful–if one wanted to know what really mattered to themselves with regard to their own attitudes about representation–to engage in the exercise of ‘capturing’ water or fire. Or, again, maybe it doesn’t matter and we go on to do what we do anyway…just with the knowledge that we only choose to represent objects that aren’t moving too fast :wink:
    Also to consider: representational of what? Yes, usually that means paying attention to visual parameters…and only from one point of view (again, invented in the 1400s where the individual was as an important idea as it is today)

  2. But loosening (a) up requires me to find (b) a different relationship between artist/subject/audience ©
    a) loosening up is great :slight_smile:
    b) the relationship happens as a consequence of the change. “The young package their messages in media that fit their messages. In so doing, they create their own audiences…The point was that they would reach the right people in the right way with the right message” (Edmund Carpenter). << seems super relevant on a forum like this with all you young folk :slight_smile:
    c) disregard audience. To Rod and I nothing is more useless than imagining what an imaginary set of people might think generally.


I love it when folks call me “young”. I hope it still happens when I get to 50. :wink: