Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower

> The seemingly random, yet beautiful grain, in wood. Or the way tree leaves rustle in the wind.. etc etc, you can see an immense beauty and goodness, not possible without a divine, all-giving power. That is quite the statement on the nature of reality, yet it’s entirely based on personal opinion. You don’t know from observation if the “beauty and goodness” of the world is impossible without a divine power, you choose to believe so. I also pay close attention to the natural world and my relationships, yet don’t feel the slightest inclination to believe in a higher power. If anything, I share Richard Feynman’s view that being analytical about the world makes its beauty shine more, not less: ▶ this video

This is really not the article for me. It's written by someone who, I infer, agrees that Newton "Destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism." [1]. And that is so alien to my experience of understanding things and defining things that I fail to relate to the text. I'm very much on the "it only adds" side of things [2][3]. That being said, consider a meeting that happens "on the second Tuesday of each month". The number of days between each meeting is so haphazard and ridiculous... if you rebooted human society, that definition would not survive unchanged. There's a clear example of the spandrels in our time keeping system reaching out and affecting the actions we take. 1: link (search for text "prism") 2: link 3: ▶ this video

I'm reminded of Feynman's discussion about The Beauty of the Flower ▶ this video Replace the word beauty with magic, and you get a similar point with regards to the "loss" of magic. It's not a loss at all, it's really just familiarity; "knowing" how it works doesn't make it any less magical (or beautiful). My suggestion to recapture that magic, is to delve further into the things you don't understand or know, and to ask further questions to unravel deeper layers, rather than continually having to use the knowledge you already have. It's worth recognizing that you can still appreciate that "magic", despite having looked behind the curtain to see how it works.

Scott's TEDx presentation says otherwise[1] - he was pretty much against Chuck's allegations to the point where he did a tongue-in-cheek presentation. > It's still obviously a Chuck Close filter that acts in a way that completely erases/ignores the materiality, labour, and individual creativity that Close put into his paintings. I disagree. In no way does that ignore Chuck's materiality, labour and individual creativity. In fact, it sheds more light on the process (which is very procedural and art critics would argue it is very "mechanical"). There is a tremendous amount of creativity in figuring out, as the OP has done, the underlying algorithmic beauty of replicating Chuck's works. Your definition of creative endeavor (materiality, labour) is profoundly limiting and very "physical". I feel the opposite - OP's algorithm is way more interesting than Chuck's "materiality" and "labour". I will resort to Feynman's clip on 'Beauty of Flowers'[2], which does a better job of explaining my point. [1] link [2] ▶ this video