Talk:Mathematics and art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
GA Class
Mid Importance
 Field: General
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Good article Mathematics and art has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 7, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
August 23, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
October 30, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Poincaré and Cubism[edit]

Moved from User talk:Coldcreation
Hi [Coldcreation], and thank you for your unexpected and major contribution to this article. I have been working intensively on the article,^ having already brought Tessellation to GA, and am planning to nominate Mathematics and art shortly. I am actually waiting for the publication of Tyson's Mathematics and Art: A Cultural History next month, in case it offers any radically new insights.

This brings me to the delicate matter of the length of your contribution. The article contains 150 words on Theo van Doesberg and De Stijl; 200 words on Man Ray and the Dadaists; 170 words on M. C. Escher and his tessellations and polyhedra (a topic which IP editors would cheerfully extend to ten times the length, but I digress); and similar amounts on numerous other topics of similar importance. The article as a whole was already some 6,000 words long (65,000 bytes) before your contribution, which I'm told would take about 40 minutes to read end to end: quite long enough, probably. Extending every section to the level of detail you have given to "Poincaré and Cubism", over 900 words, would make the article unacceptably long, perhaps four or five times its current length.

Further, the subsections in the "A complex relationship" each focus on a relationship between mathematics and art, avoiding as far as possible the history of the artworks, artists and movements involved, just as they avoid most of the mathematics on the other end of the relationship. The new section does not in my view really fit into this scheme, whereas it would fit perfectly as a paragraph in a section on art inspired by mathematics.

I'd therefore suggest that we make a subsidiary article on Poincaré and Cubism, linking to it with a further link, and summarising it in a paragraph of about 200 words here in Mathematics and art. That will do justice to your careful work on the topic, and maintain the balance of the article. It will also enable linking from the articles on both Poincaré and Cubism: the former doesn't even mention Cubism at the moment. I do hope this will be acceptable to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • ^ By the way, thanks for thanking me for the reference formatting. I actually did this without noticing that the ref I was micro-editing while making finishing touches before nominating was a new section! ... which may explain any apparent discontinuity between that and this talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message Chiswick Chap. I will try to summarize (down to about 200 words) the section on Poincaré and Cubism. It will take me a while but should be done some time today. In the mean time, feel free to move the section where you feel it would fit best. I don't think we need an new article on Poincaré and Cubism since much of the material is already present in articles Proto-Cubism and Section d'Or. Coldcreation (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll make a quick summary now, and finish formatting the references; feel free to tweak my summary later today. If I'm feeling strong I will create links to and from the other articles we have both mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, I've just made one tentative summary and will do so again shortly. Coldcreation (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm still waiting for it. But I think trying to squeeze down the existing text is going to be harder than just writing a few sentences of summary from scratch; and it won't need its own section heading.

@ Coldcreation: I've drafted a text of suitable length. I suggest we use that for now, without prejudice to adjustments of the wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not bad Chiswick Chap but there are a few inaccuracies (or over-simplifications) that need to be adjusted. I will use you model to draft another version. Note: the topic of mathematics was so important to the Cubists (and thus to modern art in general) that I think a new section is justified. Coldcreation (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll set things up in the article then for you to reword a little. I really don't agree with having yet another section just for the Cubists; they are comparable to the Dadaists, Escher and De Stijl in importance to the subject of this article (that is no comment on their significance elsewhere), and should have similar coverage, as we agreed yesterday. On simplification, we can only state the bare fact that there was a relationship here; a blow-by-blow account of art history would be out of place (irrelevant and WP:UNDUE) in this article. Remember that these examples (of use of math in art) form just one of seven other relationships discussed in section 2, so the article is not mainly about art movements. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Good points, but let's no forget that Dadaists and De Stijl evolved from Cubism. Coldcreation (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Golden ratio evidence[edit]

Re the sentence "The Golden Ratio, roughly equal to 1.618, has persistently been claimed[29][30][31][32][33] in modern times to have been known to the ancients in Egypt, Greece and elsewhere, without reliable evidence": there is very clear evidence that as a mathematical ratio it was known to the Greeks:it appears in Euclid. The thing that there isn't reliable evidence for is the application of this ratio to the proportions of art and architecture. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks: reworded the sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mathematics and art/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


First review of new nomination[edit]

I reviewed an earlier version of this article (Talk:Mathematics and art/GA2) and found significant issues with GA criterion 3 (broadness of coverage), but the new article has been so heavily revised that there is nothing worth repeating from the previous review. So better to treat this as an entirely new nomination.

Many thanks for taking this on. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

General assessment of GA criteria[edit]

1a, prose quality
On the whole the prose is good but I found some points where the writing could be improved, detailed below.
1b, MOS compliance
Lead section: unsourced and with four paragraphs as is normal for a lead. The grouping into paragraphs makes sense and all material here is treated in more detail later on.
Layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: no issues found.
2a, references are presented and styled appropriately
Yes. The article uses the common footnote style and separates out notes (additional text giving a tangential remark from the main text) from references to source works; I think this is appropriate and well formatted. References appear to generally be consistently formatted in Citation Style 1 (the one produced by the cite templates). I do have detailed remarks on two of the notes below.
2b, references are reliable
Mostly, but with some apparent exceptions detailed below.
2c, no original research
None that I noticed.
3a, addresses the main aspects of the topic
Yes; this is a big improvement from my previous review.
3b, stays focused without going into unnecessary detail
Mostly, but some parts of the article look like a catalog of detail rather than a focus on the big picture. Maybe that is inevitable for this subject.
4, neutral
Yes, as far as I can see.
5, stable
There have been a lot of edits even since the nomination but I think they've slowed down and are fixing more minor issues now. None of the suggestions below require major change to the article.
6a, images are tagged with copyright status and have valid fair use rationales
Most images are on commons, most are out of copyright, and the remainder appear to have valid free-use copyrights. A few of the images are on Wikipedia rather than commons but most are public domain or freely licensed and are candidates to move to commons.
An exception is File:Objet mathematique by Man Ray.jpg, listed with a fair use rationale. This image is discussed in detail in the article, and its rationale appears valid. Similarly, File:René Magritte The Human Condition.jpg, File:Print Gallery by M. C. Escher.jpg, and File:Max Ernst making Lissajous Figures 1942.jpg also have detailed descriptions in the text and valid-looking fair use rationales
However, File:Escher Circle Limit III.jpg requires a fair use rationale, doesn't have an adequate one, and would seem to be difficult to justify, because it is used only to illustrate the concepts of tessellation and hyperbolic geometry in art and other freely licensed illustrations of the same combination of concepts would seem possible.
Image Circle Limit III removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
For File:Dali Crucifixion hypercube.jpg the description in-text and the rationale are both weak, however I think both can be strengthened (as discussed below).
6b, relevance and captioning of images
For the most part this is good; I'm not a big fan of articles filled with many big image galleries but for this article in particular I think the relevance of each of the images can be justified, and the gallery formatting is necessary to fit them all in.
I have a couple minor issues with captions detailed below.

Detailed comments[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • "The construction of models of mathematical objects for research or teaching has led repeatedly to artwork, sometimes by mathematicians such as Magnus Wenninger who creates colourful stellated polyhedra.": I found this segue from general to specific to be unnecessarily awkward. It doesn't help introduce the additional specific examples in the following sentences.
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "algorithimic": sp.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "use of the golden ratio in ancient times": maybe more specifically "use of the golden ratio in ancient art and architecture"?
Good idea, one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the previous sentence is specifically about the golden ratio, maybe the sentence about Pacioli should be more specific: "on the use of the golden ratio in art" rather than "on the use of proportion in art"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a source for the catalog of mathematical references in the image caption?
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In what way are cellular automata examples of recursion or logical paradox? And why is the Mandelbrot set listed as a separate thing from fractals?
Split sentences and reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Polykleitos[edit]
  • "he is better known for his approach towards sculpture": this reads ambiguously. Does it mean that Polykleitos is more famous than Phidias (contradicting the earlier part of the sentence) or that Polykleitos' theoretical work is more famous than Phidias's. Did Phidias even have any surviving theoretical work?
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the paragraphs could be better reordered context-mathematics-influence rather than the current context-influence-mathematics ordering. It is difficult to make sense of what it means for others to follow his prescriptions when we don't yet know what the prescriptions are.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Polykleitos's mathematics is heavily based on the square root of 2, a link to our article on the square root of 2 might make sense somewhere in here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Perspective[edit]
  • I think the very beginning of this section is a little abrupt. It may not be obvious to the reader what sizing by importance implies about the appearance of an image. Can you somewhere in that sentence contrast this approach with the later perspective approach, with a bit of an explanation of how they differ? Also somewhere in here (while we're mentioning non-perspective approaches to object sizing) it might be worth mentioning reverse perspective.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a contradiction between the first paragraph's claim that these ideas were reborn in the Renaissance and the second paragraph's claim that they began with Giotto in the late middle ages?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The material about Piero della Francesca seems unbalanced for the paragraph it is in, and maybe worth splitting off into a separate paragraph entirely about della Francesca.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Golden ratio[edit]
  • "doubtful mathematical grounds": is doubtful really the right word here? It means either filled with doubt or not known with certainty. I think the grounds on which the arguments were made are known, they are just not very solid. Would "dubious" be better?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Could note [c] be moved into the main text? Otherwise it leaves the claim of the golden ratio in Laon to be stated as valid, without any visible refutation.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is more an aside than part of the review, but it's unfortunate for the proponents of the golden ratio in ancient architecture that star forts came into vogue so late. Because when the floor plan is based on a regular pentagon, there are undeniably instances of the golden ratio in it...
Indeed. Though not perhaps intentionally golden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Planar symmetries[edit]
  • This section reads a bit too much like a litany of examples without any theme. The connection to mathematics is at times tenuous.
Added a lead to summarize theme in the 4 artforms; 1 para per artform; refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Polyhedra[edit]
  • I wonder whether the material about Dali's Corpus Hypercubus might fit better here than in the sacred geometry section? Or both? The point is both that the hypercube is a four-dimensional regular polyhedron and that what Dali actually depicts is an unfolded three-dimensional net for it, the higher-dimensional version of the unfoldings that this section describes for three-dimensional polyhedra in connection with Dürer. On the other hand Dali's idea that four dimensions represents the divine perspective might better fit in the other section. And of course Dali is well post-Renaissance.
Yes. I think it may be best where it is, and I've also mentioned it here as you suggest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be worth mentioning that there are two mathematical subjects in Melancolia that have been the subject of detailed later analysis: the shape of the polyhedron and the properties and construction of the magic square. I think all the references you have are about the polyhedron, though.
Done, and used the Ziegler Guardian ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For sourcing about the Dürer solid, I think Ziegler's Guardian article might be worth using as a source, since it sums up a lot of the earlier academic debate on the subject.
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Leonardo image caption seems to cut off the name of the shape: I see it as "rhombicuboctahed". Probably this is because the image is too small so the caption is restricted to a region too narrow to show the whole word.
Guess so, the full name is there. Image enlarged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mathematical tools for art[edit]
  • "artists who choose a strict representation": unclear what this means.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re the camera obscura: is this really a mathematical tool? Is a modern camera a mathematical tool? Does this belong here or in the perspective section, as one of the possible forces driving Renaissance artists to mathematical perspective?
Moved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
From mathematics to art[edit]
  • Was Sugimoto really a follower of Ernst? I thought he was more directly inspired by Man Ray. The link given as source only mentions Man Ray but doesn't state it clearly. I happen to have a copy of the Sigimoto exhibit catalog which on page 5 includes a quote from Sugimoto: "In the spring of 2002, I paid a call to Professor Toshitake Kohno at the University of Tokyo's Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences to see the university's collection of plaster mathematical models, all made in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century and imported to Japan as teaching aids. The beauty of these pure mathematical forms was a wonder to behold, far outshining abstract sculpture. I experrienced a déjà vu. Where had I seen them before? Then I remembered: Man Ray's nineteen-thirties series of photographs of mathematical models cast in plaster from similar molds, which I had come across in a vintage photo gallery in Paris. Whereupon I realized the mathematical forms as I perceived them differed from how Man Ray had pictured them. It was a dare – and I accepted the challenge."
Said Man Ray. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "He used his photograph of the artwork as one of the figures in his 1934 painting Antony and Cleopatra, one of a series he did on Shakespeare's plays.": In fact all of this series of paintings are based on these earlier photographs of mathematical models.
Thanks, reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What is a "geometrical objects that cannot exist"? What Escher's impossible objects actually depict is not "an object that cannot exist", whatever that might be, but a contradiction between perspective projection and three dimensions: they show things that look like they should be projective drawings, but for which there is no three-dimensional geometry that produces that perspective. As an aside, it is actually computationally infeasible (NP-hard) to tell whether a line drawing is possible or impossible in this sense; if you're interested I can dig up references.
Reworded; and yes please on the ref(s). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In what sense is Stewart Coffin a mathematician? And I think (but am not sure) that George Hart was an artist before he became an academic. I'd also mention Carlo H. Séquin but he's more a computer scientist than a mathematician...
Said "inspired a variety of mathematical artworks", rather than insisting they were all by mathematicians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, wikilinked and reffed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Much of the last paragraph of this section seems borrowed from or duplicative of Mathematics and fiber arts. Shouldn't there at least be a link to that article in the paragraph?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The reference at the start of note [e] (in the caption of the Jouffret image) is a little awkward. Why not put the reference before the note, in the caption?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Stimuli to mathematical research[edit]
  • Do you have more than one example to include here? Otherwise it hardly seems worth a whole section.
I hear this, but the theory of perspective was such a massive contribution, and so interesting an exception to the general flow of ideas from math to art, that a section seems well-deserved. But there is another example: origami. I've moved it into this section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
References[edit]
  • To some extent this is a style issue, in which case it is not really a GA concern, but: some of these journals have their own Wikipedia articles, such as The Journal of Hellenic Studies. When they do, could we link them? I think this can be useful for readers in helping them to assess the quality of sources.
Linked all that seem to have articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to have ISBNs for recent books such as [6] Emmer (2005).
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [11], Hart, George W. "Polyhedra in Art", is missing a link to the article on Hart. This is important because as a self-published source its reliability depends on knowing that Hart has some expertise on this subject. Same for [22].
Added 2 authorlinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [17] "Zuffi,," has a doubled comma.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [24] Calter, Paul: use "Dartmouth College" (the name of the publisher) not "Dartmouth.edu" (the name of the publisher's web server).
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [25] "Brizio, Anna Maria (1980). The Painter. Leonardo: The Artist.": When I view the facsimile of the cover of this book on Google books, its title appears to be "Leonardo the Artist" without those other words or punctuation.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [28] ""Vitruvian Man". Davincilife.com". Who is Davincilife.com and what makes them a reliable source?
Replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [29] Criminisi, A.; Kempz, M.; Kang, S. B. (2004). The missing doi and page numbers for this journal paper can be found by searching for the title on Google scholar and following the link.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That doesn't work as easily for [38] Markowsky, but details can be found in at least one of the 6 versions found by GS.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [30], [31], both Cucker, Felix (2013): We don't need to repeat the full publication information for these two references which differ only in their page numbers. Maybe use a shorter reference the second time, e.g. "Cucker (2013), pp. ..."? Same for later references to Cucker.
Well, what I'd do is to have a Sources list for reused books and papers, and cite them using a short form ref or harv; but you disapprove of having such a reuse list; and having short refs with no list is fragile, going wrong if the first ref is moved or lost. It's therefore probably safest to leave it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [33] Seghers, M.J. (1964) does not appear to be formatted in Citation Style 1 consistently with the other journal references.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Same for [43] Usvat

I can only find this as the cited website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

and [56] Belcastro. (Also, doesn't belcastro prefer lowercase?)

Done. And yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [37] Who is Herkommer, Mark and why should be be treated as an expert whose self-published sources are reliable?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [49] Anderson, Matt; Frazier, Jeffrey; Popendorf. Are you sure this is a reliable source? It looks like it might be a student essay.
Removed, used a Guardian ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [64] Castera and Peuriot has a visible "first2=" parameter name.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [88], Wright, Richard (1988). Can we avoid the nested parens?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [90], "Computer Does Drawings: Thousands of lines in each": did you succeed in actually reading this, or is this reference copied from elsewhere? If the latter it should say so and from where. Same for [91] Unpublished thesis from 2005.
Done: both are from Beddard which is cited immediately before them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [94] Is this a reliable source? It looks self-published.
It's the artist's own site. Added new refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [109] Man Ray Human Equations: There's a published book about the exhibit (I have a copy) that may make a better citation.
Yes please. But the ref is I think serviceable already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [122] Mathacademy: I think the shortened date format YYYY-MM-DD would be ok for the retrieved date but for the publication date; in any case, both dates are not formatted consistently with other refs.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [128] as with Dartmouth, it looks like the server name Bradshawfoundation.com could be replaced with the name of the actual foundation.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [130] the Eightfold way: this is the online copy of an actual published book (or actually I guess of Thurston's introduction to the book). It should be formatted as a book chapter.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [146] "Mathghans with a difference", again, not formatted in Citation Style 1.
Replaced cite web with cite journal, guess that's what's implied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [153] and [156], Hofstadter, again, we only need one copy of the full bibliographic data.
See above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

I think this is close to ready but with some issues that could use cleanup before passing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded to all of the comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Second pass[edit]

Almost everything seems to have been done now. I found only one more very minor issue:

  • "The influence of the Canon of Polykleitos is immense both in [three things]": both is the wrong word.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Most changes were relatively minor. One that was less minor, the Symmetry section reorganization, has made that section much better.

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Re the references on difficulty of distinguishing valid line drawings from impossible figures: the original source is

Kirousis, Lefteris M.; Papadimitriou, Christos H. (1985), "The complexity of recognizing polyhedral scenes", 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1985), pp. 175–185, doi:10.1109/sfcs.1985.59 

There's also a more recent survey of the same topic in

Cooper, Martin (2008), "Tractability of Drawing Interpretation", Line Drawing Interpretation, Springer-Verlag, pp. 217–230, doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-229-6_9, ISBN 978-1-84800-229-6 

David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Added. Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Third pass (pass)[edit]

Ok, I think this can be passed now without any more revisions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant new reference[edit]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/dec/02/why-the-history-of-maths-is-also-the-history-of-artDavid Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David! I'm enjoying Lynn Gamwell's book, but am disappointed that she doesn't cover Islamic geometric patterns or indeed Moghul architecture which one might have thought highly relevant to the subject. The inclusion (in book and ref) of an Islamic-inspired American work is remarkable more for what it doesn't say than what it does. And sure enough, The Grauniad has misspelt her name! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)