Duchamp~ Artmaking is making the invisible, visible.
See: Marcel Duchamps’s Fountain: It’s History and Aesthetics in Context of 1917 by William Camfield
|Click on Image|
The extended understanding for me of Duchamp as an artist was always in context of the cubists revelation as an evolution of Quantum Gravity displayed in a Monte Carlo demonstration as membranes.
Monte Carlo methods are a class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to compute their results. Monte Carlo methods are often used in simulating physical and mathematical systems. Because of their reliance on repeated computation of random or pseudo-random numbers, these methods are most suited to calculation by a computer and tend to be used when it is unfeasible or impossible to compute an exact result with a deterministic algorithm.
David Berenstein of Shores of Dirac Sea wrote a blog entry entitled, “Art From Math ,” help to point out a distinction that helped to stimulate perspective about mathematical art demonstration in regard to Plot development.
Identifying artistic impressionism for me was to say that my view had been limited by one method only. Yet, it presented the opportunity of expressing “a distinction of originality” that in context of science’s regard as to see such expression as an “original” yet producible by example. This plot development and resulting image demonstrated by David Berenstein was repeated by Lubos’s Motl’s example.
This to me was demonstrative of the science behind repeatability by recognition of algorithmic function so while seemingly unique in the sense of being “artistic” it seemed to me to be in essence of value in science. Not just relegated to blog alone. This was in difference to what I felt David was saying.
By revealing the subject of Duchamp’s Fountain this helped to see further understanding of David Berenstein’s expression of artistic mathematical imaging by accident and as a result seen as unique in science by accident. An accident, in mathematical production.