X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ffde,299d0bc3500e024c X-Google-Attributes: gid10ffde,public X-Google-Thread: 109d8a,535e80416e502a8c X-Google-Attributes: gid109d8a,public X-Google-Thread: f8362,bf0f3c59421a14d,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf8362,public X-Google-Thread: f996b,535e80416e502a8c X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-08-07 11:30:18 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!ukma!hsdndev!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!Ludwig.Plutonium From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.ascii-art,sci.math,comp.theory Subject: Re: Art, math, realism, ascii (Re: PARASITES INSIDE OF Date: 7 Aug 1994 18:24:14 GMT Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 38 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3238se$3e8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: <318qce$fna@jac.zko.dec.com> <31bdjr$ppn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: at-sn-119.dartmouth.edu X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0@dartmouth.edu Xref: bga.com alt.ascii-art:10978 sci.math:17679 comp.theory:1498 In article chrisb@central.keywest.mpgn.com (Christopher Beattie) writes: > The Mona Lisa is not great because it was a precision drawing, > (although the Mona Lisa does have to give a little of its modern > day populatity to its creator's name, but only a little) but > because of the expression on her face, the way the light reacts, > and so forth. > > After all, protrait painters were a dime a dozen. > > As are photographers today. I am glad you brought that up. In the future, the flaws of the Mona Lisa will be analyzed as precisely through math, just as all the combinations of the game tic tac toe have been analyzed through math game theory. The original Mona Lisa will be analyzed and it will be found that in several of its pixels or bits of information, that it was impossible for the "lighting to be such". In other words, when we look at a great sci fi movie and a real motion picture film, we soon spot the "fiction" part of the sci fi and know that it is not real. Likewise with the Mona Lisa compared to a top quality photograph. If we had never seen or heard about either one, we can recognize soon that the Mona Lisa is a type of "science fiction art" compared to the photograph art. In the future, a Scotland Yard type of art detector can spot the fake art from the true art, perhaps from the lighting, or something else which is inconsistent with the other pixels and bits. We can see some of this nowadays. Scientific American had a superposed picture of Marilyn Monroe with someone else. The math and physics art detectives will be able to distinguish them, no matter how cleverly arranged. If the Mona Lisa did not have that huge money price tag associated with it, then that hype about beautiful art would disappear. Show a starving person the Mona Lisa or the Grand Canyon, which mean little compared to a good dinner. To put it in perspective, 10,000 years ago some humans revered an animal and drew it in their cave-art. In 10,000 years into the future, the Mona Lisa will be to those future people what the cave-art was 10,000 years ago.