0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, ..
However, as much as Brown focused on the artistic merit of works such as the Mona Lisa, I also appreciate the aesthetics of mathematics and science. Art has always utilized methods in math and science; however, I think there still exists a gap between the palpable emotion and public fascination with art and the mental cohesiveness and conceptual elegance of math. The Fibonacci sequence has the sometimes awkward position of manifesting itself in elements we traditionally consider beautiful: flowers, shells etc.
Possibly the most curious aspect of the Fibonacci sequence lies in its universality. Art currently prides itself on its level of subjectivity, freed from the dictates of a national academy or of royal taste. However, does the Fibonacci sequence hold that perhaps we might not be as free to choose what we deem beautiful/artistic as we would think? For this concept hinges upon the importance of scientific laws (or for the religiously minded, God)--an element that supersedes much of human control.
Of course, much art has been created to consciously oppose traditional standards of aesthetics, social taste etc. And through these efforts, ugliness, poverty, and diversity have become part of the worldview of art. However, by their very opposing stance, do they too, in the end, cede to the fact that something about art is universal.....that there is such a thing as good or bad art?
No comments:
Post a Comment