Comments on: Art of Science http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 15:54:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: LiL http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-71778 LiL Sun, 15 May 2005 14:09:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/#comment-71778 That's exactly it, Miriam: the images are art because they reflect a consciousness that they've reached beyond the research that produced them, into aesthetics; these images are no longer simply recording what the research is. That’s exactly it, Miriam: the images are art because they reflect a consciousness that they’ve reached beyond the research that produced them, into aesthetics; these images are no longer simply recording what the research is.

]]> By: mjones http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-71616 mjones Fri, 13 May 2005 20:01:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/#comment-71616 Because someone saw something beautiful, and chose to shape an image of it? Just a guess. Because someone saw something beautiful, and chose to shape an image of it?

Just a guess.

]]> By: seth edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-71406 seth edenbaum Wed, 11 May 2005 23:18:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/#comment-71406 What about any of the images could be considered 'art'? What about any of the images could be considered ‘art’?

]]> By: rajH http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-71369 rajH Wed, 11 May 2005 16:43:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/#comment-71369 very interesting! thanks for posting this, Eszter. The "Mooney faces" (row 4 on the first page) and the notion of "perceptual closure" reminded me of the sporadic appearances that the virgin Mary and assorted Hindu deities make on walls, bed linen etc. The description for that entry mentioned how humans are quite adept at perceiving human faces from very scant visual cues. Yet most people seem to be not so good at reading emotions from human faces (or so claimed a <i>Smithsonian</i> article.) My naive attempt at evolutionary psychology predicts the opposite, though - reading emotions from actual human faces should be rather more useful than discovering Lord Ganesha on a piece of bread. Perhaps someone can reconcile this apparent discrepancy? very interesting! thanks for posting this, Eszter. The “Mooney faces” (row 4 on the first page) and the notion of “perceptual closure” reminded me of the sporadic appearances that the virgin Mary and assorted Hindu deities make on walls, bed linen etc.

The description for that entry mentioned how humans are quite adept at perceiving human faces from very scant visual cues. Yet most people seem to be not so good at reading emotions from human faces (or so claimed a Smithsonian article.) My naive attempt at evolutionary psychology predicts the opposite, though – reading emotions from actual human faces should be rather more useful than discovering Lord Ganesha on a piece of bread. Perhaps someone can reconcile this apparent discrepancy?

]]> By: JayAnne http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-71298 JayAnne Tue, 10 May 2005 21:58:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/10/art-of-science/#comment-71298 Oh yes interesting. Thank you. Have you seen Ken Stange's Computer Poems? Not the same, but I was reminded of them http://kenstange.com/gallery/ Oh yes interesting. Thank you. Have you seen Ken Stange’s Computer Poems? Not the same, but I was reminded of them

http://kenstange.com/gallery/

]]>