Insane Imaginings, Random Reveries & Other Creative Cogitation

A friend recently twittered me, “Has technology progressed to the point that I can live out the remainder of my life without face to face contact?” I told him he still needed to get his car emissions tested in person.    But is does raise the question, are we heading for Isaac Asimov’s dystopia, Solaria?

I dunno, but I recently learned a new slang term, e-lationship.  It’s a cyber relationship, where friends, lovers and other strangers never meet face-to-face, they just carry on virtually, be it via FaceBook, Twitter, IM-ing, chat or what have you.  For years people have known that cyber cutie might be a three-hundred pound guy, an 84-year-old grandma, or a teenie bopper looking for a thrill.  But there is the whole other level I had not considered and that is people who really do not want to meet in person, but who feel fulfilled with a harem of cyber-mates.  e-lation, it’s a great punny in my opinion.

e-lation by Jake Beckman. Two cyber-canaries stare dreamily into each others eyes.

e-lation was a natural follow-on piece for the social media birds.  I have place two canaries staring dreamily into each others’ eyes-that alone should give pause for thought-after all you really can’t see the person on the other end of the wire.  The background is mottled, suggesting an insubstantial venue.  The birds are perched on a swirly, green, heart-shaped contour.  One half of the outline is overlaid with ASCII binary which reads e-lation.

I had a great deal of fun letting the acrylic flow in the background of this painting.  There was quite a bit of splattering, dripping, flowing and all sorts of uncontrolled activity, which contrasted strongly with painting binary on the heart outline (that took me three tries to find a good layout).  I hope you like it.

What do you think of the painting, or cyber relationships, or …?

Jake

Artist, AKAJake.com Come Experience the Art!

The art work in this blog is federally copyrighted. All reproduction and publishing copyrights are retained by the artist. Images are not to be copied, re-distributed, imitated, derived OR otherwise used in any form without the explicit written permission of the artist.

I finished up day 7 of the SmArtist Telesummit and I can tell you, brain full now.

One thing made eminently clear to me as that I have to work on marketing myself.  So 2010 because the Year of Marketing for me.   I have made it my mission to deal with this deep dark hole in my business plan.

Its an scary proposition for an artist.  The accountant in me always has some ready accounting, tax, business, human resources factoid to whip out an a moments notice, but art is not easy to talk about. It is a visual medium.  So I guess I will be showing a lot more art in my blog in coming days.  If I can’t talk about it, at least you can look at it.

Then maybe something will occur to me.

On other fronts, I know I need to chose a style of the moment and develop it into a consistent body of work which makes the schizophrenic artist in me squirm.  “What do you mean I can’t do a landscape if  I want to?” Of course I can still do a landscape if I want, but I will be promoting something different  – probably – I haven’t made up my mind which body of work I am going to focus on yet. I am leaning toward my representational abstracts.  I have heard them described as mysterious. It sounds good anyway.

I also have a lot of work to do on the Social Media front.  Holy cow, I didn’t know there was so much of that out there.  Facebook Fan pages? Who knew?  Tweetmeme? Twollow? Tweetdeck?  RSS feeds?  It is overwhelming. But at least I know if I work it bit by bit, eventually a whole will emerge.

Also somewhere amidst this mental chaos I also have to continue to create.

Whoever said Art is not a real job?!

Got anything to say?  Would love to hear it.

Jake

Artist, AKAJake.com Come Experience the Art!

The art work in this blog is federally copyrighted. All reproduction and publishing copyrights are retained by the artist. Images are not to be copied, re-distributed, imitated, derived OR otherwise used in any form without the explicit written permission of the artist.

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda

Today I have been reminded by someone very close to me about what he perceives to be all my failings to act in the past. I find the entire exercise unproductive. I am also finding it a negative experience as he goes on and on about it, which has been taking up far too much time in my brain housing group. Of course before he started nattering on I didn’t know what today’s blog was going to be about and now I do.

I can learn from the past to be sure, but I refuse to beat myself up about what may have been. The past is gone. Nothing I do today will change it.

I can only do what I do today. Sure I can make plans for tomorrow, but action only occurs in the present.

The first day to do anything is now. The first day to start that learning a new language, exercise program, diet, marketing plan, cooking class, get spending under control, start that painting, take up underwater-basket-weaving, or whatever evil little shoulda that is hanging out in your brain housing group is today. It is do or not do. TRY is the precursor to failure.

If you don’t do, “why not” can be a valid educational analysis but it should not stop you from acting tomorrow when tomorrow becomes today. “I failed to act yesterday” is not a reason to not act today. Nor is there a chastisement to be applied to the failure to act yesterday; “I failed to act yesterday” does not mean “I am a bad person” or “I am a failure”; it simply is, in the past, unchangeable. “I failed to act yesterday because I watched SciFi reruns all day” may be a call to change behavior, change priorities or whatever, but again it implies no value judgment in and of itself; it is a call to action.

Beware of the shouldas that do not properly belong to you. Some people live vicariously through other people and will implant shouldas in the unwary people they hold influence over. If you are a little pudgy, but not unhealthy, and someone is berating you about being fat maybe that is a shoulda you need to ignore. Maybe the proper shoulda on your list today is to tell your nag where to get off, or maybe it is just to ignore them.

I should blog more often (as a marketing tool) is one of the shouldas in my list, also I need to paint more, and I need improve on my marketing efforts in general. These artistic goal centric efforts are competing with a million other shouldas in my life. Prioritizing shouldas requires you to develop a selfish streak. I am no Objectivist, or Existentialist, but from the creative standpoint Ayn Rand or Søren Kierkegaard did present ideas that may resonate with you. If your true goal is to be an independent creative person, you must understand that those around you think you are nuts, wasting your time with pie-in-the-sky ideas, and need to find something sensible to do with your life. They are more than willing to load up your plate with well-intended should ofs. I believe that after satisfying your basic needs of food and roof-over-your-head, your next priority has to be creative goal-centric, not cleaning your house, fixing the drip in the kitchen faucet, responding to irrelevant email, blogging perhaps, dealing with continuous demands of significant others…

The act of creation is selfish; it is fulfilling a need in you that others may not understand.  These others are more than happy to convey to you their displeasure with your chosen path over and over again.  They will also remind you over and over again how your effort has failed in the past thus proving their thesis that you need to be doing something else; they, of course, will also tell you what that something else woulda, coulda, shoulda been.  If you have not done so already it is time to banish these unproductive ghosts from your mind.

So having completed my blog and marketing effort for the day, and banished my unproductive ghost via this blog, I will move on to other selfish pursuits in the now.

I am curious, having now espoused my philosophy regarding the creative effort, how do you make time for your art?

Yours in Art,

-Jake

Artist, AKAJake.com Come Experience the Art!

PS. I am still looking for Sponsors & Contributing Patrons to help me pay the estimated $8000 it is going to cost me to attend this event.  Every little bit helps.

Numbers, there are many kinds of numbers:

• The Natural Numbers, 1, 2, 3… are counting numbers that a child can figure out with their fingers and toes etc.  Depending on who is doing the definitions the natural numbers may or may not include the number 0,. Natural numbers do NOT include numbers such as that have digits after the decimal place such as 2.25 , nor do the natural numbers include negative numbers.
• Whole Numbers are the Natural Numbers plus Zero plus the Negative Counterparts of the Natural Numbers,  …-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3…; Whole Numbers are also called Integers.  Again Integers/Natural Numbers do NOT include numbers with digits after the decimal point.
• Rational Numbers are numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of two Integers (excepting division by zero), therefore are numbers like 1/1, 2/3, -5/8 etc.  Rational Numbers can include numbers whose decimal equivalent terminates such as -5/8 = -0.625, or numbers whose decimal equivalent does not terminate, but repeats instead such as 2/3=.66666…
• Irrational Numbers are numbers that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two Integers, for example, the square root of two.  Irrational numbers do not include numbers involving the Imaginary Unit.
• Complex Numbers are numbers numbers involving the square root of negative 1, also called the Imaginary Unit, i.  Numbers that are multiples of the imaginary unit are called Imaginary Numbers.
• Both Rational and Irrational numbers can be Algebraic.  An Algebraic Number is any number that can be found as a root of polynomial equation with Integer coefficients, such as the square root of 5, which would have the integer coefficient 2, or negative cube root of 10, which would have the integer coefficient -3.   Numbers like the square root of 2 are irrational numbers, but they are algebraic.  If n is the lowest possible degree of such a polynomial, the roots are algebraic of order n. The square root of two is algebraic in order 2, nevertheless the square root of two is an Irrational Number.
• Transcendental Numbers are NOT Algebraic.  The most famous transcendental numbers are Pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and Euler’s Number, which is the base of the natural logarithms among other things.
• Just to complete the picture, Real Numbers are numbers that are NOT Complex Numbers.  They can included Rational and Irrational Numbers; they may be Algebraic or Transcendental.  Real Numbers cannot include numbers involving the Imaginary Unit, but Complex numbers can have Real Numbers as components.

Although some Transcendental Numbers, such as Pi and Euler’s Number are cool, they are not mystical, nor are they particularly rare; technically almost all Real and Complex Numbers are Transcendental, since the Algebraic Numbers are countable, but the sets of Real and Complex Numbers are uncountable. All Transcendental Numbers are Irrational, since all Rational Numbers are Algebraic, but NOT all Irrational Numbers are Transcendental as some Irrational Numbers are Algebraic (such as the square root of 2).

Now that some of language of numbers has been defined let’s consider the Golden Ratio, Phi. The Golden Ratio can be found in the proportions of the human body, the proportions of many other animals, plants, DNA, the solar system, art and architecture, music, population growth, the stock market.  It can derived mathematically, geometrically, or via the Fibonacci Series.

The Golden Ratio: the ratio of the sum of the quantities to the larger one equals the ratio of the larger one to the smaller one. Consider the whole length of something, lets call this length, C, where C is composed of two smaller unequal sections, A and B, such that C = A + B. Say B is the larger piece and A is the smaller piece. If C/B = B /A then the division of C into parts A and B is proportioned to the Golden Ratio.  This dimensioning considered most pleasing to the human eye, probably because these dimensions are found so frequently in nature. If (A+B)/B = B /A, then both equal Phi, the Golden Ratio.  Phi is approximately 1.6180339887498948482045868343…

Since the Golden Ratio, Phi, is the solution to the equation, x² - x-1 =0, which is Algebraic in order 2, Phi is NOT a Transcendental Number.

The Fibonacci Series is a series of numbers with a recursive relationship; it simply expressed as the sum of the preceding two numbers in the series: starting at 0 and 1, then the next number is 1=1+0, then number after that is 2=1+1, then 3=2+1, then 5=3+2, then 8=5+3, etc.  The first 20 terms of the Fibonacci Series are 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181…

The Fibonacci Series also frequently occurs in nature. We have 2 hands, 5 fingers, each finger has 2 knuckles and 3 segments-all Fibonacci numbers. The number of flat surfaces on a banana – usually 3 or 5 – again a Fibonacci Number. Flower seed heads often have a certain number of spirals to pack seeds in such a manner that the seeds have the same amount of space-the number of spirals is usually a Fibonacci Number. Plants also frequently arrange their leaves according to the Golden Section; If the entire circumference is proportional to 1.618 then the angle of rotation is usually 0.618, which is the lesser of the sections in the Golden Ratio 1.618 = 1/0.618. When the lesser section refers to an angle of rotation it is called the Golden Angle. The tendency of plants to wind themselves using the Golden Angle and otherwise arrange themselves with Fibonacci numbers is called Phyllotaxis; an estimated 90% of plants exhibit the tendency.    But not all plants follow phyllotaxis, sometimes sweet peppers have 4 chambers instead of 3, some flowers have 4 petals, such as a fuchsia,  or 6 petals, such as a crocus. Still it would seem that the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci numbers must have a connection.

Indeed, the Golden Ratio, Phi, and the Fibonacci Series are intimately connected.  As the numbers in the Fibonacci Series increase, the ratio of successive terms tends toward a certain number and that number is the Golden Ratio; in mathematical terms the limit of the ratio of successive terms in a Fibonacci Series as the terms go to infinity is the Golden Ratio. Lets see this in action: Keeping 3 digits accuracy behind the decimal, the ratios of successive terms in the Fibonacci Series are  Undefined = 1/0 (division by zero is not permitted), 1.000 = 1/1, 2.000 = 2/1, 1.500 = 3/2, 1.667 = 5/3,  1.600 = 8/5,  1.625 = 13/8, 1.615 =21/13, 1.619 = 34/21, 1.618… 55/34, 1.618 = 89/55, 1.618 = 144/89 etc.  As you can see by the 9th iteration the ratios of successive terms of the Fibonacci series have converged to the Golden Ratio to 3 digits of accuracy behind the decimal.

From an artist standpoint using 1.618 as an approximation to the Golden Ratio should develop pleasing ratio in the scales most of us work in.  Therefore if you wish to section 36-inch-long canvas into the golden ratio then 36/1.618 = 22.25 inches will be the larger dimension and 36-22.25 =13.75 inches will be the smaller dimension. Also  22.25/13.75 = 1.618 as it should.

Yours in art – Jake

Artist, AKAJake.com Come Experience the Art!

So I admit it. I am a geek.  The beauty of the numbers has long fascinated me.   It is one of the reasons I wound up getting an advanced degree in physics.  I considered engineering,  mathematics, and even art as my college major, but physics won out on the fun factor.  Engineering was too pedestrian, Art too risky, and the mathematicians I saw really didn’t look like they were having a good time.  I wound up getting a masters degree in nuclear physics. but I am not doing anything with it these days.  If I can say one thing about getting a masters degree (which probably applies to any masters degree, not just physics) is that graduate school taught me to think, to use the tools my undergraduate degree gave me.  Physics taught me to look at the big picture as many solutions to Physics problems apply to a great many very different types of problems.

But I digress, I really still am a beauty of the numbers gal.

So one problem, which is kind of like the problem of all problems, is the P verses NP problem.  What is P verses NP? In a nutshell, the big question is whether P = NP or P ≠NP;  if P = NP then every problem has a efficient solution and we can find it efficiently. One might postulate all problems are solvable in an infinite amount of time, but what good is that?  Only God, perhaps, has an infinite amount of time to solve problems; in the real world problems need to be solved in a finite and reasonable amount of time. The amount of time is the crux of P verses NP. Are problems really as complex as they appear? Is the only solution brute force over an infinite amount of time?

By way of example, consider we have a large number of wedding guests we need to seat at tables at the reception.  We might want to pair them up into groups of two people who like each other, so that no one is lonely.  In 1965 a guy named Jack Edmonds developed an efficient algorithm to solve this particular problem, and having an efficient algorithm means, among other things, you can feed it to a computer and solve the problem in a reasonable amount of time. Jack Edmonds pioneered the lingo for P verses NP.  Problems with efficient solutions are the “P”, in P verses NP.  This particular problem is called the “matching problem.”

But there are many other ways to seat our large number of wedding guests that are by far more difficult to solve.  Suppose we want to make groups of three wedding guests who like each other, OR large groups of wedding guests who like each other, OR we want to seat guests around a round table such that guests, who can’t stand each other, are not seated next to each other, OR group  three couples at the wedding with other couples in a mutually agreeable triads, OR the evil converse social science experiment where only guests who can’t stand each other are grouped together in one way or another (hey, maybe the wedding planner has a thing for the groom).  All the problems that have efficient, verifiable solutions are “NP”.

So if P = NP then every problem has an efficiently verifiable solution AND we can find it efficiently.  On the technical side, even if this statement is true, we still may not have the algorithm to efficiently solve a given problem. The P verses NP problem is an abstraction, therefore just because we may do something doesn’t necessary mean that we can…

Naturally this question has ramifications well beyond computing algorithms, such as mathematical proofs, encryption, DNA sequencing etc.

Why think about it at all?  The P verses NP problem is one of the seven Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize problems; solving it is worth $1,000,000.  Not a bad chunk of change, but also realize proving P = NP  might solve other Millennium Prize problems as well, each worth $1,000,000.  However you should know that many theorists believe P ≠NP. Don’t get your hopes up.