Beauty is "fit" in the design sense. It seems mystical because it solves many simultaneous difficult problems within a system.
-
-
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
It changes over time because the systems change (not least in response to new solutions of beauty).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
The cognitive parts of the system change least: beauty directed mostly at cognitive systems is appreciable even after major cultural change.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
Pretty sure this is a reasonable reading of Rota on mathematical beauty http://www.liceogiuliocesare.it/public/documenti/Rota_Phenomenology_Mathematical_Beauty.pdf … Not sure it solves Mozart v. ICP
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
Does anyone remember who said space aliens would be more likely to understand Beethoven than John Cage's 4:33'?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing 4:33 isn't art, it's commentary. Barely.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
@GrumplessGrinch yeah that was his point - highly culturally specific despite low apparent complexity - beethoven high complexity but etc.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@GrumplessGrinch I can't find it argh - maybe dan dennett? sigh I read too much
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.