Art, math, realism, ascii (Re: PARASITES INSIDE OF VIRUSES?)

In article <FLE...@colossus.cse.psu.edu>
fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:

> This is *rendering*, which is perhaps the least interesting aspect of
> art.  You may be able to develop some maximization function that
> describes how faithful a particular rendering is to a particular
> abstract conception, but so what?
> 
> Consider a straight line.  Since a mathematical line has no thickness,
> a perfect rendering would use no ink, no bits.  This is useless for
> most purposes.
> 
> Let's restate the problem as: find the best rendering of a particular
> thin, rectangular area.  (Note that this choice is arbitrary.  Why not
> a thin, sinusoidal area?)
> 
> If you want to render it in grayscale pixels, then the anti-aliasing
> algorithm is arguably the best method.  (Though this is hardly
> a trivial argument.)
> 
> But in ascii, the choice of an optimization function is far from
> straightforward.  Let's simplify even further: ignore the problem of
> the different shapes and proportions of different fonts.  Limit the
> problem to just one particular font ("courr12" from X11) that's
> represented by 1-bit pixmaps.
> 
> An obvious optimization function is to count the number of "on" bits
> within the thin rectangle and subtract the number of "on" bits outside
> the thin rectangle.
> 
> For one particular thin rectangle, it turns out the "optimal"
> rendering looks like this:
>         ,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> but I would argue that this:
>         ___________
> 
> is a better rendering for most purposes, despite the fact that all of
> its "on" bits are outside the thin rectangle being rendered.
> 
> At every step in this quest for a mathematical definition of maximal
> art rendering, I had to make gross simplifications and "aesthetic
> judgments", and the result is still lacking.
> 
> If you really want to develop a rigorous, mathematical definition of
> perfect art, I wish you luck, but I doubt such a thing is particularly
> useful.
> 
> (On a different point, art != realism.  But this is another long,
> boring argument that I don't want to get into.)
> 
> (Followups narrowed to alt.ascii-art again.)
> --

  More to it than just rendering Felix. I am saying that art is just
dots per cm. The screen is about 30 dots per cm (dpc). The most
advanced dpc is 300 dpc. What is the highest resolution of film
photography? Is it 300 dpc?
  Paintings, masterpieces, movies are visual art. We can define art as
resolution. We can define beauty in art as "intentions conveyed
visually".
  Can the Mona Lisa be made better? Sure. In the future we will so to
speak "atomize" all masterpieces into dots per cm. We will go below the
current dpc of the Mona Lisa and then change some dots. Presto a new
Mona Lisa better than the original Leonardo da Vinci work. Each will be
pixels described by one math equation each. 
   In other words, Felix. Art in the future is merely the technique of
math dots per centimeter. Many math theorems will be proved which say
alot about art. And even art beauty can be defined as "original
intent". If we want a masterpiece of female face then the picture which
resolves the female face to as close as a real female face, drop the
brushes, and drop everything else. It is the atomization, the dots per
cm which will be it. The best artists of the future will be using
computers. You can say that the masterpieces of old is the pinnacle of
"hand drawn dpc". In the future the computer will vastly exceed the dpc
of the old masters such as Michelangelo, da Vinci, et al. But picture
painting will not be as interesting as the union of sight resolution
and sound resolution that is capable in movies.