This is some of the comments to one of Geof Huth’s blog post reviewing Bob Grumman’s new book, really a chapbook, entitled A Preliminary Taxonomy of Poetry
Geof said, “Mathematical poems add mathematical features that visualize the poetry, so I consider them visual poems, and to have a category for flowchart poetry assumes that process symbols are textual and thus not visual. I'd argue, again, that they are not orthodox text, so these poems are also visual poems.
Also, Bob's definition remains indefensible: "poetry that uses mathematical symbols that actually carry out mathematical operations." These mathematical operations are not actual; they are apparent. That is a big different. Duck cannot be divided by yellow in any mathematical way, though it could in a metaphoric way that has nothing to do with math directly.”
Kaz said:
Gee Geof,
I am going to have to take exception to both of you on a couple of things. First I will start with you and the top paragraph. Unfortunately I have never seen a definition of Visual Poetry that everyone agrees upon. Yet I will have to say that I like what I understand to be Karl Kempton and Karl Young’s definition of: “Visual Poetry is a Poetry that has to be seen” This is such a simple yet powerful definition that seems to me to be true in every case of vizpo that I have seen. With that being said, There are what I would consider pure mathematical poems whereby they can be understood by reading them alone. An example would be, “Love is equal to the limit of 1 over ‘x’ as ‘x’ approaches zero”. This mathematical poem can be understood perfectly without seeing it therefore it would not be visual poetry.
In the next paragraph above Bob states that, " These mathematical operations are not actual; they are apparent. That is a big different.”
I will argue that these operations are actual and they work the same as any equation in applied mathematics. The ‘variable’ or we can say ‘concept’ or ‘word’ in any mathematical poem can be substituted with a number that represents the value of the variable/concept/word/term. The ‘word’ can be substituted with a multitude of numbers just like in the equation ‘x’ equals ‘y’ squared whereby x can equal anything and y will equal whatever x is squared. The thing to focus on is that the words have value or magnitude and they have mathematical relationship to each other. This means the words in a mathematical poem can be substituted with a number and the words or concepts along with their mathematical syntax within the equation provides the units or “unit meaning”. To make this clear let’s look at the equation from physics d=vt or distance is equal to the velocity multiplied by time. If you look at velocity you get units of miles per hour. If you look at time you get the units hours and when you divide the unit ‘miles per hour’ by ‘hour’ you simple get the unit ‘miles’. And ‘miles’ is the unit for distance. Notice we did not talk a bit about numbers, yet, those variables can all be replaced with numbers and it is important to note, the units will remain. Mathematical poetry is the same however the units are created within the poem itself. Unfortunately all the mathematical poets I know are not addressing this issue and thus are missing the boat by thinking that mathematical poems don’t do math.
In your next example where Duck is divided by yellow you say that you cannot divide it in any mathematical way. This is not true you can divide it, however, it is pretty much meaningless gibberish at worse and a wild metaphor at best. The bottom line is that Duck divided by yellow is not anymore incoherent than much of Gertrude Stein’s work.
Endwar (Andrew Russ) wrote:
On mathematical poetry and mathematics: I’m not sure I agree completely with anyone here. It seems to me that in a mathematical poem one sees a mathematical operation with words (usually) operating in a metaphorical way (thus the poetry enters). That said, the mathematical operations involved are usually well-defined for numbers, but not for various words and concepts. “3+1=2” is something everyone (is taught to) agrees on in a literal way, and it follows from the definitions of each number and the signs “+” and “=”. The statement "candy cane + child = happiness" is also probably pretty generally understood, but not with the same level of definiteness (or definition, as per the previous sentence) as the numerical example earlier. You could write "candy cane + child = obesity", which would probably also be understood, but because of the metaphorical nature of the math, you can’t conclude (via the law of substitution) that “happiness = obesity” (though some may point out the phrase “fat, dumb, and happy”, which could then lead us to conclude “happiness = obesity = stupidity” . . . You can see, then where the multiple meanings of words (bifurcations of meaning, to throw in another mathematical metaphor popular in some at one time trendy lit-crit circles)) can lead.)
I would argue that a mathematical poem is a statement that represents a mathematical operation on the words involved, but which isn’t necessarily one that can be checked the way mathematical statements with numbers can be. I will even go one step further and assert that one can create a mathematical poem that is mathematically wrong but which still makes a metaphorical point. I have done this using matrix multiplication – a 2x2 matrix times a 2x1 vector is set equal to a 3x1 vector. That’s not something you can do with real number (or even imaginary number) math, but I think it works as a poem.
Written mathematics is inherently visual, not verbal: I can grant Bob’s point that “3-1=2” is visually not interesting, and furthermore it hardly matters what font is used. It does matter a bit what numbers are used – roman numerals will say “III-I=II”, and binary says “11-1=10”, and ternary says “10-1=2”, which are all the same numerically. But it becomes evident for large numbers that roman numerals are unwieldy for calculating, and we are used to the decimal number system, so the non-decimal numbers need cumbersome subscripts or context to be read as intended. I would argue, though, that the real test of whether we have something verbal versus something visual is whether the statement can be read aloud. Again “Three minus one equals two,” is pretty straightforward, but that is merely because of the simplicity of the expression. Try reading, say, a passage out of the middle of J.D. Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics or any other graduate physics or mathematics text, and it will be immediately obvious why these equations aren’t written out in words and why mathematicians and scientists do nearly all their professional discussions with slides or in the presence of a blackboard. And even if one does manage to put the text purely into words read aloud, you will find nobody in the audience who will understand what has been said who hasn’t at least written down some equations or a drawing as a guide. One of the most tedious reading experiences I had was a few pages out of an algebra text written by Leonhard Euler, who felt it was necessary to write down an equation and then repeat the equation in words, such as:
“E=mv ²/2
The kinetic energy is equal to half the product of the mass and the square of the velocity.” This continues for page after page.
If you’re still not convinced, show me how to do read calculus aloud and make it intelligible. Two pages minimum.
Because the visual representation is integral to the intelligible communication of all but the simplest mathematics, I would argue that mathematics is inherently visual language, and that by extension, mathematical poetry is also inherently visual poetry. The visual poem may still not depend on which font is used (though I have examples where that is the case as well), but it still can’t be read aloud and have the same meaning, because it will not then register as mathematical.
Kaz wrote in response to Endwar:
That is an interesting argument however, you seem to be making a distinction between the existence of a math equation which doesn’t have to be seen (like your Euler example) and then the distinction of performing the mathematical operations which have to been seen. (or at least I will agree that I would have extreme difficulty working out equations with out seeing them). Yet, since you can have math equations in verbal form (you just can’t work them out) it seems that math does not have to be in visual form and therefore not necessarily ‘exclusively’ visual. Or this begs the question what is math? Is it the performing of mathematical expressions or is it the expression itself? Or a mathematical Platonist would claim that math is an inherent object in nature … Gee why did I have to drag the Platonists into this – go ahead and slap me and forget that I said that.
Yours,
Kaz
Bob Grumman wrote:
Thanks for all the comments, endwar. I’ll get to all of them, I hope. Right now, just some thoughts in response to your comments about mathematical poetry.
I don’t care whether a poem can be read aloud or not. Mathematics is written in text just as ordinary verbal material is. Text printed standardly is effectively not visual, as far as I’m concerned: it’s symbolic. So a purely mathematical poem, in my definition, would be expressed in verbal and mathematical symbols.
On further thought, it seems to me all mathematics can be read out loud. So what if one needs to see it on the page to understand it? That would be true of many linguexclusive poems, too. Even relatively simple ones. I’ve almost never understood poems I was unfamiliar with when read at poetry readings.
As for the child and candy cane, I like your reasoning, but it now seems to me you have simple shown that “candy cane + child = happiness” and “candy cane + child = obesity” are both incorrect! They should be “candy cane + child = happiness + X” and “candy cane + child = obesity +Y.” And “happiness – obesity + X – Y.”
* * * * * * *
.
By the way, I love this discussion of mathematical poetry. I suddenly wondered, though, if there’s a subject fewer people in the world would be interested in.
One futher note: even if we admitted that difficult math must be seen to be understood, that would not make “candy cane + child – X = happiness” a visual poem since that particular poem would not have to be seen to be understood. That said, I can’t wait for the first mathematical poem based on mathematics you have to see on the page to understand.
–Bob
Kaz wrote:
As far as this Candy Cane analogy goes. I think that in both cases multiplication works better than addition. That said, I would imagine that people would relate to the following best.
Candy cane + childhood = happiness
Candy Cane x childhood = obesity
I am going to ignore the two equations above and rewrite them as multiplication problems with coefficients. The bottom-line is asking what numerical values you assign to these variables or words:
1(Candy Cane) multiplied by 100000(Childhood) equals 1(happiness)
Yet,
1000(Candy Cane) multiplied by 1(Childhood) equal 1(Obesity)
Kaz wrote:
Bob said, “Text printed standardly is effectively not visual, as far as I'm concerned: it's symbolic”
Gee Bob, if symbols are not visual then what are they? … verbal descriptions of symbols are just that ‘descriptions’ they are not the symbol.
Here you make an excellent point that language is just as difficult to understand when listened to as large mathematical equations Thus making a stronger case that pure mathematical poetry is not visual poetry or possibly making the case that all poetry is visual:
“On further thought, it seems to me all mathematics can be read out loud. So what if one needs to see it on the page to understand it? That would be true of many linguexclusive poems, too. Even relatively simple ones. I've almost never understood poems I was unfamiliar with when read at poetry readings.”
Instead of the definition of Visual poetry being – Poetry that has to be seen then state it as such: “Visual poetry is poetry that cannot be verbalized.”
Kaz wrote:
Bob said on his blog:
This is, I believe, the first time I’ve accepted that the operations are metaphorical, as Gregory St. Thomasino tried to convince me six months or so ago. My trouble (still) is that the operations seem actual to me–the sun really does multiply a field to get flowers!
Kaz said as a comment to Bob’s Blog:
There is a bit of a disconnect here. All mathematics is based in metaphor not just mathematical poetry. The problem Gregory had was that he was trying to delineate mathematical poetry from pure mathematics by claiming that mathematical poetry works by analogy and Pure mathematics doesn’t.
If you read George Lakoff’s book “Where mathematics comes from” then you will come to realize that all mathematics is based in metaphor. Not just mathematical poetry.
Lately, there has been a bit of passionate yet conflicting talk debating the definition of Mathematical Poetry among those who care. I will present six definitions. You pick what you like best or come up with your own.
Here is Bob Grumman’s:
A mathematical poem is a poem some or all of whose verbal elements undergo a mathematical operation centrally important to the poem that is simultaneously both significantly mathematical and significantly verbal–in the opinion of those capable of appreciating the poem.
Here is Karl Kempton’s:
A visual poem must contain a visual element consciously composed so that the poem must be seen to fully grasp meaning and experience, a mathematical poem must contain a mathematical operation, such as a addition, to fully grasp meaning and experience. a mathematical poem can or not be a visual poem.
Here is Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino’s ‘working’ definition:
The “mathematical poem,” if it is to be, or to contain, poetry, must have some poetic elements, as well as some formal symbols and operations of math.
I want to emphasize that by “operations of math” I do not mean that the poem will be “doing math.” What I mean is that the poem will be, in some way or in some sense — be that metaphorical, allegorical, but for the most part figurative — mimicking or imitating or finding a trope in that operation (whichever that operation may be). (I emphasize: I do not mean that the poem is “doing math.” Math does math. The poem is representational.)
Here is Kaz Maslanka’s: Mathematical Poetry is a umbrella term that covers any poetic expression involving Mathematics. Maslanka has broken mathematical poetry into five categories – they can be viewed here
Here is Sarah Glaz's: Mathematical poetry is an umbrella term for poetry with a strong link to mathematics in either imagery, content, or structure.
Here is JoAnne Growney's: Years ago when I first began to bring poetry into my mathematics classrooms, I used the term “mathematical poetry” to refer to poems in which some of the imagery involves mathematics; it was a sort of “applied mathematics.” Now, after lots of reading and exploring, the possibilities for math-related poetry seem nearly endless--including shaped poems, functional poems, permutation poems, various Oulipian structures, and then--on the Internet--a myriad of possibilities including animated poems, interactive poems (including linked hypertext), and so on. These days, I mostly avoid the term “mathematical poetry” (since I can’t formulate a definition that satisfies me). Instead, I think of the multiple possibilities as intersections of mathematics and poetry. (See, for example my blog: “Intersections -– Poetry with Mathematics.”)
The photo above is Bernar Venet and me.
When going back and re-reading the section about Bernar Venet in Ursula Meyer’s book on conceptual art, I was fascinated again from the statements that the young Venet made in 1971. He presented math and physics not as art but as knowledge. I remember reading this in 1978 while studying with Robert C. Morgan and saw this work to be exciting yet I was confused by the idea that physics could be presented as art. Eventually, I focused on what his statement explicitly said and I separated the aesthetics of Physics from the aesthetics of art. Even though Venet did not directly take these different disciplines to have different aesthetics I eventually read them as such and focused on separating, understanding their differences, and then putting them back together (polyaesthetics) in a single context as in my physics paradigm poems.
We are fortunate enough to have had the Scott White Gallery here in San Diego bring 13 pieces of Venet’s sculptures here to San Diego to be viewed for a year in certain urban locations of San Diego as well as along the waterfront of the bay.
The image below is a photo I shot of one of the sculptures.
Before I talk about addition and multiplication in mathematical Visual Poetry I would like to present the following two paintings by Giorgio De Chirico. These were created in the beginning years of the 20th century.
When I was visiting the inner harbor of Baltimore, Maryland I came across a most interesting tower. I later found the name to be "The Shot Tower". (Below)
As you can see, it is tall, cylindrical and has a little flag on the top of it. It reminded me of the towers I have seen in many Giorgio De Chirico paintings. I only included two painting here in this blog post but, there are many more that can be found in art history books.
So I got the idea to take it into Photoshop and turn the scene into a De Chirico-ish image.
I titled the piece: “THE QUESTION OF DE CHIRICO” and it poses the question: “Is the image on the right side of the piece equal to the ideas of Baltimore times De Chirico or is the image equal to the ideas of Baltimore plus De Chirico?
In my original post on this 'kogwork' I received a couple of responses that proved to me that it is an interesting question and the answer is not as esoteric as one might imagine. I will display and discuss the responses at the bottom of this blog entry.
I gave a lecture on Polyaesthetics and Mathematical Poetry last year at the Salk Institute and within the boundaries of my presentation I had a section that addressed this very issue. From that lecture I am going to borrow a few images to help illuminate this most interesting idea.
Let us think about the equation 3 + 4 = 7 and let us look at a pie chart to help illuminate our quest. When we add 3 and 4 together we can distinctly see the separate pieces within the pie as well as seeing the entire seven pieces. (Shown below)
The Bottom line is that it is easy to remove the 3 slices or the 4 slices from the mix of 7
Now let us think about the equation 3 x 4 = 12
When it comes to multiplication our task gets a little trickier tracking where the numbers 3 and 4 end up (visually). The difficulty is due to them get integrated into each other to produce the number 12. It is though they form an augmentation from which each other play a part in constructing. If we look at a pie chart again we can see that the 12 pieces can be viewed as 4 groups of 3 or we can view it as 3 groups of 4. Both numbers influence the whole in their own way.
Above we have 4 groups of 3 to yield the product of 12
Below we have 3 groups of 4 to yield the product of 12
So what we see is that the multiplier and the multiplicand both augment each other to produce the product.
So how does all of this relate to mathematical poetry? How can we multiply concepts or even images?
Let’s look at the next image titled "Americana Mathematics" and analyze its components.
We see an the popular American icon depicting a NASCAR racing machine added to an 8 ball from the game of pool to yield a strange vehicle that is part race car and part pool table. Here in this example as in our pie chart we can see the two concepts added in such a way that it would be easy to pull them apart and break them out of the whole. The two concepts can be clearly separated in addition however; in multiplication it is again trickier. Let’s look at 8 x 8 = 64 Here again we can refer back to our pie charts showing how the multiplier and multiplicand each augment the other idea to create a whole that possesses much more amplitude than the originating two concepts. Here our product is not a race car but a rocket ship that is obviously involved in some sort of pool game.
Now that we have the tools to understand the mechanics of this artwork we can then spend our time experiencing the interacting metaphors involved to come to our understanding of the signified.
Here is an image (above) which illustrates Todd's idea of a mathematical weave between two axes. The image is titled "Distance" and it uses the distace equation:
Distance = velocity multiplied by time.
Also, addition seems to be one-dimensional, while multiplication seems to create two dimensions. Addition happens along the number line, while multiplication can be graphed along the x and y axis.
They say you can't add apples and oranges. In addition you have to find a common denominator before you can add. This implies the number line again. As soon as two things are on the same dimension they can be added. For example, de Chirico and Baltimore are both physical things and so they can both be photographed together and said to be "added together" in the picture.
But with multiplication there is less restriction. You don't need a common denominator to multiply two things. The combination creates something new that is not merely more quantity of a common denominator. In pure mathematics 3 x 4 creates a rectangle of area 12. Before there were only lines (one dimension), after multiplication there is area (two dimensions). New space is created. In the example of de Chirico, Baltimore x de Chirico created a new vision of Baltimore colored by de Chirico's own inspiration. No one had seen Baltimore in quite the same way. It is as if a new dimension was opened when these two were combined.
Well, I didn't plan to write this much, but it's fun to think about.
Thanks,
Todd
I also want to thank Todd Smith for his wonderful comments as well. I think the point that we all would like to assert is that this idea of adding and multiplying images (or concepts) is easy to understand. I would love to see more from everyone out there.
Thanks.
Kaz
The similar triangles poem above titled Sherrill's Music is inspired by Robert Sherrill's 1970 book titled "Military Justice is to Justice as Military Music is to Music"
Read me first
In this section of the side bar there are four articles.
The first article is a paper that was published in the journal of mathematics and the arts titled “Polyaesthetics and Mathematical Poetry”. This paper is a good introduction to Mathematical Poetry for it shows some of the main ideas as well as some techniques used to create mathematical poetry. One of the more important ideas it addresses is that of mathematical metaphor. The paper addresses basic theory as well as providing examples.
The second article is a paper published in the 2006 Bridges Proceedings titled “Verbogeometry, The confluence of words and analytic geometry” This paper explains the mechanics of how mathematical poetry can use Cartesian space as a medium for words. It provides examples of analytic geometry as well as the mathematical poetic counterpart.
The third article is an interview published online at word for/word a journal of new writing. The interview was conducted by poet/theoretician Gregory Vincent Thomasino and is formulated in three groups of questions. The first group of questions is about the influences of Kaz Maslanka and the second and third address mathematical poetic theory.
The forth article is a list of terminology that is related to the area where the arts and mathematics meet.
I would like to address a comment made in reference to the piece “Peano’s String; A History of Spiritual Stories”(displayed above) … the following (text in green) is a copy of a comment from my blog entry “New Work Accepted At The Bridges Show In Leeuwarden Netherlands Aug 2008”:
This is a strange place. Im all for maths, dont get me wrong. Anyone who's any good at maths needs to make it part of themself but democrats? Abraham? maths is made a cliche with these comparisons. Everything can be expressed in maths but some things shouldnt. Just make a billboard with euler's formula
My response:
I appreciate you giving me some feedback to my blog and I would love to engage you in discourse on any concerns that you may have. I am certainly not going to imply that I am always correct in my assumptions of anything. Furthermore I consider myself a student.
I want to note that I may not defend mathematical poems made by others so if you wish to criticize the axiomatic poem concerning Barack Obama and the democrats you may wish to address your concerns to its author. I also wish to make this same disclaimer concerning any mathematical poetry posted on this blog that is not authored by me. However, I will be happy to address any concerns or criticism involving my work. My Job at this blog is to promote interest in mathematical poetry not criticize it. Yet, I may someday express criticism of someones work if I feel “the discipline” of mathematical poetry is being subverted.
To get to your concerns let’s look at the term cliché and what Wikipedia has to say about it:
A cliché (from French, pronounced [klɪ'ʃe]) is a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty, especially when at some time it was considered distinctively forceful or novel. The term is most likely to be used in a negative context.
It seems that you have applied this term ‘cliché’ to my axiomatic poem titled, “Peano’s String; A History of Spiritual Stories”. So I can only assume that there is something about this mathematical poem that you would consider overused. It is hard to imagine that you may be referring to mathematical poetry in general since there is so little of it. What is it that is overused here? Is your concern related to my references to biblical history? Are you feeling that I have taken biblical references out of context in jest? I can only say that while I can see how one may find this mathematical poem humorous, the root of it can be taken very serious. Maybe, what you may really be trying to say, is that mathematical poetry is aesthetically trivial. This may be is a little more difficult for me to defend due to my belief that just because I find something beautiful I can never assume that anyone else would find it such. However, I do find mathematical poetry extremely beautiful especially in its use of dual aesthetics. My fear is that you, or anyone else for that matter, will discard this entire proposition and never really answer the following questions.
I am not going to discount that you may provide an argument to the idea that my work is cliché and trivial but I would hope you address the latter questions within your argument.
Thanks!
Kaz
I receive a very important comment the other day from Jonathan who uses the JD2718 to identify himself on his blog. His comment was in reference to axiomatic mathematical poetry. However, I think his question is much broader.
Jonathan expressed the following:
Abraham, cats, Gods.
One, numbers, successors.
Which is really more poetic?
This is a sticky question because I want to avoid slipping into the bottomless void of the “What is poetry? What is art?” question However; I can discuss elements of poetry from which my idea of poetics is derived. I also want to add the following statements are not a value judgment on the aesthetics of mathematics. The mathematical aesthetic is one of the most wonderful experiences one may realize.
To answer Jonathans question; I am assuming that his question implies that pure mathematics is poetic. It is my view that pure mathematics is not poetic. Furthermore, the quick and dirty response to this question is that pure mathematics is different from poetics the same as pure mathematics is different from physics. Physics and Mathematical poetry, although vastly different, live in the realm of applied mathematics. Even when we ‘feel’ that pure mathematics is poetic, we are applying mathematics to some preconceived notion of what we believe poetry is without actually applying it. We may choose to argue that mathematics contains elements of poetry such as rhythm and pattern. Yet one may argue that it is not maths that has poetic elements but poetry that has mathematical elements. For the sake of argument, let us say that poetry possesses the mathematical element of pattern. I would like to make the point that it is difficult to get excited about these metric patterns when taken out of the context of poetry and view in only the light of mathematics. I know we are starting to get away from the intention of our question however, the point I want to make is that the aesthetics of mathematics is much different from the aesthetics of poetry and poetics. The ‘polyaesthetic experience’ that we are discussing is a vector sum experience of the aesthetics of art/language poetry and the aesthetic of mathematics. (They are different aesthetics) If we were to separate the mathematical aesthetic from a language poem how beautiful is it? Now let us look at the aesthetics of mathematical pattern by comparing the beauty of the pattern in iambic pentameter (or any other meter for that matter) to the beauty of self-similar patterns in a mathematically generated fractal. Which is more beautiful? Is the ‘isolated’ metric pattern in poetry more beautiful than a fractal? How about asking, “Is the fractal poetic?” If so what are the elements of poetry in the fractal. Is it the concept of rhythm that makes maths poetic? Are all things displaying rhythm poetic? The point I am trying to produce is that mathematical poetry, makes the structure of mathematics poetic only by application of poetics within that structure. Pure mathematics is not poetic by itself.
When addressing the metric beauty in language poetry; the metric beauty is not relevant to the mathematical pattern per se. It is relevant to the aesthetics involved in the relationship of the pattern to the words and the sounds of the words with its synesthetic energy igniting the meaning of the words as they point further to the cultural and historical relationships within the poem. The mathematical aesthetic devoid of the poetic aesthetic plays an extremely limited role in the aesthetics of language poetry. Yes, there is maths in the poetry however, break it out of the poetry, isolate it and I believe it becomes aesthetically trivial.
Let us look at metaphor – Does pure mathematics express metaphor? How could it? for pure mathematics is more about illuminating the logical structure of thinking. The key word that I want to stress is “logical”. Metaphor requires logical tension if not paradox to function as a concept to bridge the infinite to the concrete. However, I must say that mathematics does provide us with the linguistic structure to express metaphor. Again, this is the issue of pure mathematics relative to applied mathematics. To express metaphor you have to have an application of poetic concepts. You need a source domain and a target domain. (see the section on metaphor structure at Wikipedia) Pure mathematics does not have these metaphoric domains until we apply the poetic idea to the structure of maths as we do in mathematical poetry. The essay “Polyaesthetics and mathematical poetry” goes into more detail on this matter as well as an interview conducted by poetic aesthetician Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino. The interview will soon be published at “word for/word” an online journal of new poetry. I hope to announce the interview soon at this blog.
In March of 2007 I announced “Polyaesthetics and Mathematical Poetry.” published by
The contents of the paper are available for downloaded free at this link.
Journal of Mathematics and the Arts published “Polyaesthetics and Mathematical Poetry” March 2007 Volume 1 Number 1 ISSN 1751-3472
The published paper can be purchased at this link.
