week 2 math rock and science jack kutilek

I was originally misled by the name of math rock. I have heard of the term before in reference to genres of bands, but I never quite understood it. I thought that the rhythm or something was determined by math algorithms or something like that, but I guess I was wrong. Math rock is only called math rock because it is very precise like math. If that is the only connection, then I have a hard time grasping how math rock is an example of the blend of art and science, it just seems like a very precise art, though this may just be ignorance. I do however think that Leonardo da Vinci provides for a great example of how art and science can be combined. His studies and ideas and works just scream that art and science are very close to each other. A list of examples of da Vinci could go nearly forever. Despite, I still found math rock to be a very interesting musical genre. It is very complex and much different from mainstream musical culture. I like how it uses vocals as another instrument, but I might like it more if there was less screaming. I guess there are different music styles for different moods and times though.
As for the fourth dimension, I found it neat that it went from a spacial conception to a theoretical conception (like time) and how the two split where the artists thought about a spacial fourth dimension and the scientists thought of the fourth dimension as time. It seemed that both worlds were still thinking very similarly when they were deciphering how the fourth dimension should work. It is links like that that show me more of how art and science are similar over links like math rock. Another good link is the fractal. It is more interesting than others because it shows how art can come out of science instead of other examples that show how science is furthered by artists and creativity in general. The fractal feels like a very mathematical thing while still feeling like art. And sorry if this is sort of stream of consciousness I’m not sure if its supposed to be or not but i did find it interesting that artists didn’t know how to paint in perspective without the help of scientific thinking and a sort of mathematical mind to figure out how three dimensions work in two dimensions. Then when the scientific thinkers got the ball rolling, the artists were able to help out and further the abilities to paint in perspective. I guess this leads to M.C. Escher who I find really¬† interesting because I like to think like his drawings. When I draw I am very into being precise and having perspective. In fact a lot of my drawings I did in my drawing class in high school were about perspective only. So Escher is a real inspiration for me, and I find all of his works very interesting and a very good example of how art and science can overlap. I found this interesting site that took Escher’s drawing about the droste effect, the one that has a white circle in the middle for an unknown reason to escher at the time, and made it straight, among other things. the site is http://escherdroste.math.leidenuniv.nl/index.php?menu=intro, and it talks about where the droste effect started (on a dutch cacao box apparently), and what is inside of the white circle that escher couldn’t complete. There is an animation which is very interesting and explains it pretty well. All in all its a very interesting exploration of Eschers most peculiar drawing, as Escher himself put it.

here is the picture and here is the link to the animation/movie.




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: