Hmm, really it was more like a geometric progression. David Gelernter has commented on the lack of familiarity art/architectural historians have with terminolog

Hmm, really it was more like a geometric progression. David Gelernter has commented on the lack of familiarity art/architectural historians have with terminology like "recursive" or "self-similar" (I prefer the latter because it leaves room for the judgements and conspicuous non-exact applications of recursion in architecture): https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10574 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10574 Also this, and the article it was saved from, bringing music and the proportions of the human body into the equation: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/358317714073877302/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/358317714073877302/ Finally this: "Every society has seen architecture as something that transcends its functional role, as a diagram of the cosmos," https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/may/15/charles-correa-india-greatest-architect-exhibition https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design... Edit: I'm an architecture historian so I didn't mean it if I came across as pompous -- but that Gelernter link conveys a weird sense of CS being superior to the art historians, and at the same time makes more of recursive patterns in physical architecture than is justified. I have mixed feeling about this projection of the ideas of one field on to another: something like the Sierpinski gasket is not good architecture, and it takes a real expert in building to understand the difference, not a mathematician/computer scientist who can spot recursion. So my possibly contentious point was that a schematic reading of architecture as recursive (or even cosmic) is valid but also kind of the most superficial non-aesthetic form of thinking about architecture...