5 ms·

Right. Also: > 2. The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty. Describes reading the description of an artwork at a Modern Art gallery pretty well

abbasaamer 8y ago
Does it? Where is the "transformation" happening? In mind of the viewer?
sophistication 8y ago
Modern Art is bullshit.
ACow_Adonis 8y ago
That one clearly describes LISP. Lisp has an abstract beauty in that it is a homoiconic language thought up as an intellectual exercise from a small number of basic rules and simple syntax. The hidden meaning, which surprised even its creator at the time that he wrote "RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE", that a mathematical syntax should also be a fully implementable language to get a working interpreter, transforms the original paper into something even more beautiful and amazing than the original abstract beauty of the idea. "The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty". Edit: indeed, i think that one can apply to many instances of people who find programming languages and math aesthetically beautiful but also practical :P
- lispm 8y ago
  > Lisp has an abstract beauty in that it is a homoiconic language thought up as an intellectual exercise from a small number of basic rules and simple syntax. That's the idealistic view. Also LISP was developed over some years, based on earlier languages for list processing (IPL, ...) and similar. The paper 'RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE' was a presentation to a specific (more scientific) audience, while there were earlier and at the same time already 'real' language manuals published, which were concerned with less 'abstract' topics. See for example: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/LISP_Prog_Man-Mar_1959.pdf http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/LISP_P...
scns 8y ago
IMO it is only Art if you feel something immediately. If you have to read some description to get the meaning, it is only pretentious and not Art for me.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Just curious: Why does art need to make anyone feel anything? Do you feel something if you see a landscape, portrait, or still life? Do you think they are still art? In a similar thread, if you stare at something abstract, if it draws you in to gaze on it because it is a cool design even if it brings forth no feeling, does it make it art or not? Do you understand hidden meanings from 200 years ago that would have been obvious to viewers at the time? Do you still consider it art even if you have to read about the meanings built into the art? (Art is full of pretentious bullshit, and I'm of the opinion that assigning meaning or requiring a meaning of art is, of itself, pretentious.)
  - js8 8y ago
    I think art should make feel at least someone something in order to be considered as art. That is not the same as having a meaning, though. For example, Mandelbrot set makes me feel "it is wonderful", but it doesn't need to have any meaning (technically, it is a solution to some equation, so it has meaning, but you don't have to know the meaning in order to feel that something).
    - Intermernet 8y ago
      The problem with art is that it could be a stated goal of the art form to minimise "feeling" and still be considered valid. In this case, if you feel something, the art form has failed. Art is tricksome. It is what it is justified as being, but it's also just what it is. I've found it easier over the years to just say that I like / dislike something, but my opinion isn't worth anything, and can happily be different to yours.
- kurthr 8y ago
  If you read about it before you see it, will that destroy all art? How will you know? What about our societal social context and the art that came before it, or the artists creative arc? I guess I know it when I see it.
raverbashing 8y ago
Abstract beauty can be beautiful without having a hidden meaning (or at least each one will see "the beauty they can see") Show white noise to an Imagenet CNN and it will give you a score for something.
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  To describe it as a "beauty" means it is beautiful by definition. The point is that it undergoes a transformation in your head upon some deeper meaning being revealed.

abbasaamer 8y ago

Does it? Where is the "transformation" happening? In mind of the viewer?

sophistication 8y ago

Modern Art is bullshit.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago

That one clearly describes LISP. Lisp has an abstract beauty in that it is a homoiconic language thought up as an intellectual exercise from a small number of basic rules and simple syntax. The hidden meaning, which surprised even its creator at the time that he wrote "RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE", that a mathematical syntax should also be a fully implementable language to get a working interpreter, transforms the original paper into something even more beautiful and amazing than the original abstract beauty of the idea. "The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty". Edit: indeed, i think that one can apply to many instances of people who find programming languages and math aesthetically beautiful but also practical :P

lispm 8y ago
> Lisp has an abstract beauty in that it is a homoiconic language thought up as an intellectual exercise from a small number of basic rules and simple syntax. That's the idealistic view. Also LISP was developed over some years, based on earlier languages for list processing (IPL, ...) and similar. The paper 'RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE' was a presentation to a specific (more scientific) audience, while there were earlier and at the same time already 'real' language manuals published, which were concerned with less 'abstract' topics. See for example: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/LISP_Prog_Man-Mar_1959.pdf http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/LISP_P...

scns 8y ago

IMO it is only Art if you feel something immediately. If you have to read some description to get the meaning, it is only pretentious and not Art for me.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Just curious: Why does art need to make anyone feel anything? Do you feel something if you see a landscape, portrait, or still life? Do you think they are still art? In a similar thread, if you stare at something abstract, if it draws you in to gaze on it because it is a cool design even if it brings forth no feeling, does it make it art or not? Do you understand hidden meanings from 200 years ago that would have been obvious to viewers at the time? Do you still consider it art even if you have to read about the meanings built into the art? (Art is full of pretentious bullshit, and I'm of the opinion that assigning meaning or requiring a meaning of art is, of itself, pretentious.)
- js8 8y ago
  I think art should make feel at least someone something in order to be considered as art. That is not the same as having a meaning, though. For example, Mandelbrot set makes me feel "it is wonderful", but it doesn't need to have any meaning (technically, it is a solution to some equation, so it has meaning, but you don't have to know the meaning in order to feel that something).
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    The problem with art is that it could be a stated goal of the art form to minimise "feeling" and still be considered valid. In this case, if you feel something, the art form has failed. Art is tricksome. It is what it is justified as being, but it's also just what it is. I've found it easier over the years to just say that I like / dislike something, but my opinion isn't worth anything, and can happily be different to yours.
kurthr 8y ago
If you read about it before you see it, will that destroy all art? How will you know? What about our societal social context and the art that came before it, or the artists creative arc? I guess I know it when I see it.

raverbashing 8y ago

Abstract beauty can be beautiful without having a hidden meaning (or at least each one will see "the beauty they can see") Show white noise to an Imagenet CNN and it will give you a score for something.

throwaway080383 8y ago
To describe it as a "beauty" means it is beautiful by definition. The point is that it undergoes a transformation in your head upon some deeper meaning being revealed.