The photo above is one I recently took at the Vatican. For me, it illustrates some key principles of classic artistic style. This style tends to be a fractal collection of structures at different scales, structures that frame spaces of many different sizes. Each structure doesn’t use up all local space, but instead leaves open holes for other works of art. Most all space is used by art of some sort, but items that help define larger structures are more homogeneous.
Wow. Spoken of in such passive yielding outsider voice. Who are 'they' and why do you so badly need their approval? It seems to me many of the greatest have pursued their own course regardless of the obstacles, and no doubt it is much more difficult to strike your own path without the encouragement and support of others, but it needn't stop anyone. They either pursue it on their own or adapt sufficiently around the edges to allow them to do what they want in their own space. Many delude themselves with the greatness of their ideas, just think of all the cranks and charlatans with ideas no one bothers to listen to, flat earthers, creationism, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, etc. There is much resistance to new ideas and when progress is measured by graves, longer lives don't necessarily bring faster progress, but the reason ideas need tying into one another is that is how they become testable and useful and ideas can only be displaced by better ones. There is another way to introduce them though, and that is through fiction
I think that this describes being a Modernist Intellectual. The major strides in our understanding seem to largely take place during the gaps between dominant patterns which must be accommodated however .
This is great, the description of the basic pattern seems dead right to me.
One problem I'd say this causes is when a single big lavish picture crowds out all alternatives on its particular topic. The picture will be based on a certain set of assumptions, which may or may not be right, but by not having to face much competition its creators & contributors don't need to be very explicit about what they are, & their work can dominate the narrative beyond the degree of credence we actually have in these key underlying assumptions.
Another is when two (or more) dominant extant pictures use different, mutually exclusive assumptions, but avoid competition by narrowly restricting themselves to different domains. As a worldly cultured art appreciator you're expected to wander through & show support & respect for both paintings, despite the fact that one of them is bound to be wrong and the other, if right, is then massively underelaborated.
Scale invariance wise is seems like this type of structure might resonate with us aesthetically because it reflects some of the structure of how internal processes work as well.
If current process is really so suboptimal why isn't the gap eventually filled by people at various levels (producers, vetters, advocates) willing to invest at least some of their time towards a more optimal approach? Is this gap huge in every field/culture/era?
Here's what one of the world's best agents can do for a new artist: https://newyork.cbslocal.co...
Wow. Spoken of in such passive yielding outsider voice. Who are 'they' and why do you so badly need their approval? It seems to me many of the greatest have pursued their own course regardless of the obstacles, and no doubt it is much more difficult to strike your own path without the encouragement and support of others, but it needn't stop anyone. They either pursue it on their own or adapt sufficiently around the edges to allow them to do what they want in their own space. Many delude themselves with the greatness of their ideas, just think of all the cranks and charlatans with ideas no one bothers to listen to, flat earthers, creationism, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, etc. There is much resistance to new ideas and when progress is measured by graves, longer lives don't necessarily bring faster progress, but the reason ideas need tying into one another is that is how they become testable and useful and ideas can only be displaced by better ones. There is another way to introduce them though, and that is through fiction
Continuing the metaphor, it's an attempt to grab for the bigger spaces.
I think that this describes being a Modernist Intellectual. The major strides in our understanding seem to largely take place during the gaps between dominant patterns which must be accommodated however .
Sounds like Pattern Language from https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
I don't see how that would help with this issue.
This is great, the description of the basic pattern seems dead right to me.
One problem I'd say this causes is when a single big lavish picture crowds out all alternatives on its particular topic. The picture will be based on a certain set of assumptions, which may or may not be right, but by not having to face much competition its creators & contributors don't need to be very explicit about what they are, & their work can dominate the narrative beyond the degree of credence we actually have in these key underlying assumptions.
Another is when two (or more) dominant extant pictures use different, mutually exclusive assumptions, but avoid competition by narrowly restricting themselves to different domains. As a worldly cultured art appreciator you're expected to wander through & show support & respect for both paintings, despite the fact that one of them is bound to be wrong and the other, if right, is then massively underelaborated.
So... perhaps academics should hire agents and publicists, much like actors, singers, artists, writers, etc., do? Right? Hmm.
Scale invariance wise is seems like this type of structure might resonate with us aesthetically because it reflects some of the structure of how internal processes work as well.
A "more optimal approach" might help the world, but not the individuals who push it.
If current process is really so suboptimal why isn't the gap eventually filled by people at various levels (producers, vetters, advocates) willing to invest at least some of their time towards a more optimal approach? Is this gap huge in every field/culture/era?