Skip to content

≠≠≠≠≠≠≠==≠≠≠≠≠||?

Art? Well.. Lets say, as some people do, that we are talking about a relativity question based on perception.

Art linked stuff as a function of imagination embodiment with sharing frequency?

eg
1. a car in X society might be perceived automatically considered Art.
2. a sculpted car is perceived by a person as Art.
3. the process of making cars might be perceived as Art.
4. the sequence practice/s of cars might be perceived as Art.
5. the fact that some institutions have selected a car – or car linked stuff to be Art, might be perceived as Art.
6. The absence of a car from certain environments might be perceived as Art.
……………..
and there are far more perceptions, right?

However, perhaps there’s something that links these seemingly very divergent perceptions? e.g can it be that if in my perception option 2 is art and in your perception its actually option 4 – the elements that come Before the choices are very similar if not the same?
I hesitate to write here “reason” or “cause” because it would infer a fair few presumptions if not prejudices, that are not required, in my view, in this question. Hence, if art decision – ie X is art and Y isn’t – is in question, am only being presumptions about one element – that there is a possibility the decision is in a sequence that has an element or two before that sensation of decision. (well.. ok.. the idea of a sequence and of a possible prior element in the sequence might be considered as 2 presumptions indeed.. However I think for simplicity they can be lamped into one – as the presumption of a prior element contains the sequence.. Also, if the prior element idea – not theory, an Idea because it posits the question rather than build a practice-able theoretical sequences and ranges, etc.. – is not correct, an imposition on stuff, then it still doesn’t take out the possibility that there is a sequence, be it a sequence where the said perceptions do not follow any linkable element.. Though perhaps the perceptions Produce a linkable element?
IDK
The point being is that perhaps there is a level of abstraction which is not too abstract for obstructing X’s artistic being, yet provides a link that is actually shared as the practice of art.(?)

Art calculators??

I = Imagination
E = Embodiment/Embody
A = Art
F = ForLoopForFuckness (how each element is for the sake of its own self, rather for elements outside of it. Hence making a distinction between the art and design processes.. Because in design a person imagines and then embodies. However, the embodiment is then for a function, to operate something Other than itself and the imagination is with the idea of such implementation in mind, hence is not by necessity of value concerned with the question of the embodiment being of imaginational range)

A = (IxE):F
or
A = (1×3):3 *that’s A = 1*

Compare with

A = (7×7):10

Art = 4.9

The other way around:
A = F:(IxE) seems a bit more suited for design because the equasion’s value will be lower based on the F’s value:
eg
A/D = 10:(9×4) is less “design” than an equation of 0.1:(9×4)

———————-

Perhaps another way to have a sort of art calculator is with:

A = (IxE):F ≠ A

Art is I times E divided by F when the calculation IsNot equal to A..
(Though this might be also kind of suited to utopia and/or mysticism(??))

A = (10×7):5 ≠ A

Are these the sort of times when we say that something sequence is larger than the sum of its parts?

If so, then perhaps a clearer way to put this might be:

{A = (IxE):F}:{(x:) x Fr} = A.r

A.r = Art’s Real number
x = yes, its the “times” operator
: is the division operator
Fr = frequency of doing the x and :

For example:

{A = (10×7):5}:{(9)x6} = (A.r)

the 9 is a constant.. unless its the values of X and : denoted by objects. (e.g. the value of X when I = 5 and E = 2 is supposed to be indifferent/objective – however, is it really the case? What happens to the X when I = 1 and E = 1? Compare to the value of X when I = 7.4 and E = 6.3? It might do the same operation of timing the 2 elements, however, in 1str case, I think it Feels in the range of superfluous through to disappointment – eg i began with 1 and ended up with 1 so why did i need to do the operation? I =n the 2nd example the operation had a more urgent to required sense, no?


or we can take further and say that A = New(I,E,F):Fr

—>> i do not see how this makes the New() <<<<—–

However,

Perhaps the Other than sum of Parts (rather than Greater than sum of parts) will be served with Interval calculation?
It seems appropriate because Art does operate in between – in my mind at least..

In that case, Maybe we should have:

AaaH = art at a holding-number
A = art
I = imagination
E = embodiment
Fr = frequency* (btw – we need to do frequency.. I think the value of frequency is the linking with over time.. i.e. an art practice might be linked with 400sq times over 3 days, or 400sq time over 365 days, the value of the 365 calculation will be 438.356164384 – 400sq divided by 365 – and the 3 days will be 53333.333333333. This, in my view bodes well with the idea that the more frequent something is, the smaller its associated number, as the cycles are quicker..)

AaaH = (I x E) : Fr —>> A =AaaH to Fr

Now lets check this with some figures:

AaaH = (3 x 7) : 0.03030303 —>> A = 693 To 0.03030303

{{ this will be when imagination is 3, embodiment is 7 and, say the link frequency is 1 a day over 33 days.)

Now, lets try to check how this alters when, for example, the link frequency is 11 a day over 3 days.. Lets keep the numbers of I and E are the same, hence we get the range of:

AaaH = (3 x 7) : 0.272727273 —>> A = 5.727272727 To 3.666666667

Now.. lets put these numbers into a live situation:

Lets say that we have an art practice that was linked to once a day over 33 days, and another that was linked to 11 times a day over 3 days. Lets assume, for the example’s sake, that both practices were forgotten, dissipated, gone, disintegrated after 33 and 3 days respectively – which might have had the larger **NumericaL-RangE** value? (..also, to be honest, i think its fair to claim that people tend to associate more value culturally to stuff that lingers longer.. Hence range is larger.. Am talking here about cultural rather than personal value. We might have an X practice to share, but that has been only one day with other people, and a life-time with the sharing individual – would they be concious about the different time range for the culture at large if it came to price?)

The Frequency here is of a more common sense value than the Fr of : and x earlier.. Am wondering though whether the self ref – being art – should not be a part of this..
I was looking at self ref calculations:
(Tupper’s self ref formula)
But that isn’t, at the moment interesting for me because the self ref for the intervals is what seems to be the point. (intervals as art operators..)

The other option is that the operators own lives could come in a different place with this abstractive practice..

I DON’T LIKE THIS PRACTICE AT ALL!!!

It seems though that perhaps it can be linked with some abstracts – rather than abstractions.. So am very fascinated by that..

Anyhow.. too much about me..!!

——————————–

Another way to view this, perhaps is the centrality of frequency in art. The frequency of, for example, sharing the practice of X rather than Y in a given society, is – as stuff operates nowadays – a question of power and politics. The nearer X is to power, the more political clout it has – the greater its frequency number will be… Perhaps the frequency number is an indication from which debates can arise? The Imagination and Embodiment values are really individual’s own arbitrary numbers, hence am not sure debating from them isn’t going to be mostly circular. The frequency though, is stuff we do as a society, a shared element.. Though its true we can do a personal as well as a social frequency number.. So is the case with I and E via sort of averaging the numbers given.. However, in the frequency, even in an individual’s case, the numbers are of linking with X over time, numbers that can be checked..

———————————

Yet another way to imagine this calculator could be via challenging the arithmetic operators.

Why not:

A = If X collide/link Y collide/link F ?? (where X and Y are anything..)

Am not sure these are appropriate in this context though.. Nor am i sure regarding the the format itself..

NO!
This is just a rehash of the if ab search sequence..
eg:

if and (its?) time?

thoughts regarding if a + b and probably not much logic?

Just saying arbitrarily that art is an if search sequence.. Comm’on!!

But this gives me a different idea. What if we combine the 2 ways of calculating into a single sort of calculation?

In that case we can have:

A = art
AA = Arithmetically-arrived-at-art
IssaaA = IfSearchSequence arrived at art
() = some sort of getting together/colliding/linking/etc

This will give something like:

A = AA () IssaaA

Lets see:

A = 5.727272727 To 3.666666667 () IfSweetnessBacteria

This makes Art having a Value Range of 5.727272727 To 3.666666667 that has a friction with IfSweetnessBacteria.

Now, how do we get to have a clue regarding the friction?
We have words and numbers – these can link, hence not nescessary collision – though could be in parts.
We have:
Numbers and abstraction – eg the sweetness.
Numbers and a human observed category of bacteria.
An arithmetic operation of the To
An Equation.
A search from value and a search from being of disintegrating life. (the search sequence will fold and disintegrate

≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.