Talk:Mathematics and art/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 20:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big topic and I think this article doesn't really cover it well. For instance, it is completely missing some significant topics.

The attitude commonly expressed in the philosophy of mathematics that mathematics is itself an art, motivated more by artistic concerns such as aesthetics than by practicality.

Noted, but that lies outside the relationship of math and the visual arts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The strong connections going back to the Pythagoreans between mathematics and music. The article here seems to treat "art" as synonymous with the visual and plastic arts, an oversimplification. It's ok to have this focus but it should be represented as a deliberate choice rather than an omission made from ignorance.

Agreed, but that is the subject of the article on music and mathematics: have explicitly stated that this article focuses on the visual and plastic arts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of physical models of mathematical forms, originally intended as a pedagogical and research device rather than as art, as an inspiration by fine artists including Man Ray and Max Ernst in the Dada movement, and later (as an homage to Man Ray) by Hiroshi Sugimoto.

Except for one sentence in the overview section, there is little discussion of mathematical analysis of artworks.

Art representing the philosophical/religious position of God as geometer, or of the dichotomy between the mathematically perfect spiritual world and the imperfect physical world, represented by artworks such as Blake's Ancient of Days and Newton (Blake) as well as by Dali's Crucifixion.

The influence of art, and in particular perspective geometry, on research mathematics.

Its organization into sections is haphazard and unclear.

The use of mathematics to guide form and composition is broken up into separate "proportion" and "perspective" sections, rather than being grouped together; the "proportion" section mixes the general subject of proportions in art with discussions of specific artists, and there is no discussion of the important connection between proportion in music and proportion in art (e.g. artistic works whose internal ratios were chosen to match significant musical ratios).

Grouped subsections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music and proportion: TBA

Many very short sections concern specific mathematical topics that have caught the attention of artists and been used as an inspiration for art: polyhedra, tesselation, fractals, geometry, topology, textiles, etc. These should be grouped into a single larger section.

Fractals removed (see below); others grouped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are scattered subsections on individual artists who are particularly significant to the topic: da Vinci, Escher, etc. Again, it would make more sense to group these into a single larger section.

Grouped subsections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some subsections have either no artistic content, or very shallow artistic content that relates more to popular culture than to fine art. Examples include the Penrose and fractal sections.

Removed sections, added links to See also list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Ratio and Pacioli subsections are really about the same topic and unbalance the article. They should be merged and condensed.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-cited by references about the specific individual topics that it mentions, but has little reference to or guidance from larger works about the relation between mathematics and art. In particular, works that seem relevant, worth citing, but more importantly worth taking guidance from in their organization of the subject include The Art of Mathematics (Jerry King, Springer, 2013); Mathematics and Art: A Cultural History (Lynn Gamwell, Princeton Univ. Press, 2015); Math and Art: An Introduction to Visual Mathematics (Sasho Kalajdzievski, Taylor & Francis, 2008); The Invention of Infinity: Mathematics and Art in the Renaissance (Judith Field, Oxford Univ. Press, 1997); Mathematics in Twentieth-Century Literature and Art (Robert Tubbs, JHU Press, 2014); Galileo's Muse: Renaissance Mathematics and the Arts (Mark Peterson, Harvard Univ. Press, 2011); Manifold Mirrors: The Crossing Paths of the Arts and Mathematics (Felipe Cucker, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013), etc.

Mmm. Tyson and Gamwell's Mathematics and Art is due for release in October 2015 ... but I take the point that some of these books will be helpful.

In short, I don't think this is ready for GA status yet.

Thank you as always for a wonderfully thoughtful and constructive set of comments. These will greatly improve the article whatever the outcome now. I am out of office for a week and would like to decide then whether to attempt to put the programme into effect then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tidied the article up. I agree that it can be improved, and will work on it 'in slow time', possibly after October when Mathematics and Art comes out! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please ping me when you think it's ready for another review. In the meantime I guess we should consider this nomination to still be on hold? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ David Eppstein: Thanks. I've closed it, but would be happy if you have an idea of the desired structure of the article - some sections are implied by your comments above, others not so clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]