3 ms·

Do you mind elaborating?

• yoz-y 5y ago
  Sure. I think that (especially modern) art, can have as much meaning as the observer wants it to have. The artist may have some initial thought about what idea they want to express, but once their work is out there, they lose the control over the meaning of it. Ryoji Ikeda arguably uses "information" in his art pieces, but it's not like it is presented in a useful manner.
  • koolhaas 5y ago
    Ok, I now see where you were going with your original question. The point you're making is interpreting art is subjective and information density is more of a practical concern about utility, and the two are at odds. The point I was making was something can be dense but minimal, because to me, minimal is "systems" question. I chose an artist as an example, but perhaps that complicates the point because the artist's primary concern is not utility. >Ikeda arguably uses "information" in his art pieces, but it's not like it is presented in a useful manner Here's where interpreting Ikeda gets kinda fun. By the way, he very intentionally does not care about meaning. He wants us to decide. Most of his work is driven by real data sets, like human genome, CERN super collider data, digits of mathematical constants, every part from a Honda Civic, position of stars in the universe. For non-experts, I think he uncovers the vastness of many systems that are difficult to visualize, allowing people to "experience" the efforts behind, e.g. encoding the human genome. Of course, it's not useful in the sense of a tool or utility, but you might walk away with a new perspective on science, engineering, mathematics, that before was totally opaque to most people.