“We have the ability to do both” (Vesna). I had good teachers in both art and science classes. I never considered that was the reason why I enjoy both art and science.
In this unit, it was interesting to look at a brief history of math and art. For example, I learned that Brunelleschi was credited with the first correct formulation of linear perspective in about 1413 in the West (Vesna). In previous art history classes, I learned how artists began using the vanishing point to create depth in their paintings, but I did not know that Brunelleschi actually calculated a mathematical formula for linear perspective. Next, I learned how Leonardo da Vinci took linear perspective to the next level and started painting with natural perspective, which was more realistic. This definitely shows how he had to take the science of optics into consideration to create realistic art.
Perugino, The Delivery of Keys to St. Peter
The movie clip of Pi (Dir. Darren Aronofsky) gave me a new perspective on how math is everywhere. The clip did explicitly give examples of math in nature: the Fibonacci sequence and Torah numerics. The cinematography really reaffirmed my new perspective of how math is everywhere. After the two characters converse, the camera focuses on cream dispersing through coffee and smoke dispersing through air. The cinematography forced me to think about the math and physics about how the coffee creamer and smoke dispersed.
Scene from Pi
The short novel Flatland also had some quotes that changed my perspective of how I view the world. For instance, “Place a penny on the middle of one of your tables in Space; and leaning over… It will appear a circle… But now… when you have placed your eye exactly on the edge of the table… will have become… a straight line” (Abbott 1). Even if you always see an object as 3D, it will still consist of 2D lines, which is explained by math.
In comparison to these artists using math in their work, I thought it would be interesting to talk about a time when it seemed artists tried to separate itself from math, perspective, and line of previous art eras. The painting below is called Place de la Concorde by Edgar Degas. Degas made it seem like perspective did not exist and the plane in the background is rising up. The brush technique also makes it so there are no actual lines. Despite this, math and science is still involved, intentionally or not. Even though Degas tries to create something that distinguishes painting from other fields of study, it does not negate that the science of optics is still needed to view the painting. This reveals the juxtaposition of art and math/science. Even when you they seem distinct and separate, they will always be related.
Edgar Degas, Place de la Concorde
Works Cited
Abbot, Edwin A. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. 1884. PDF file.
Degas, Edgar. Place de la Concorde. 1875. Collection of Margarete Scharf. http://www.arthermitage.org/Edgar-Degas/Place-de-la-Concorde.html. Accessed 12 April 2017.
Perugino. The Delivery of the Keys to St. Peter. 1481-3. Sistine Chapel. http://www.radford.edu/rbarris/art216upd2012/15th%20century%20Italian%20arts%20S11.html. Accessed 12 April 2017.
Pi, Dir. Darren Aronofsky. Artisan Entertainment, 1998. Film.
Vesna, Victoria. “Mathematics.” DESMA 9. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. Lecture.
Hi Christine,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really interesting how you talked about potentially breaking down the connection between these three fields. We often think about how we can bring them together, connect them in some way to bridge the different ways of thinking. But they're actually more integral to each other than at first glance. I thought your discussion of the different techniques-- the brush strokes, and the cinematography really enhanced your analysis of the connection between math and science. I enjoyed your post!
Hey! The painting by Edgar Degas is a really interesting piece. When I first looked at the photo, I did not realize that the plane was raised in the back until it was pointed out to me. Your analysis of this painting is unique in the fact that you still managed to find how math influenced the painter even though he tried to diverge from the intersection of the two. It was definitely a unique perspective and incredibly interesting. Great post!
ReplyDelete