On Scott Helmes and Mathematical Visual Poetry

The following is a blog entry devoted to another comment on June 4, 2010 from Pioh concerning my review of Scott Helmes work originally posted on May 30 2010

Dear Kaz
I'm sorry, but it all sounds like damning praise to me, concerning Scott Helmes. You are both "slighting" and "dismissive" while magically "marginalizing" re his influence, (or if not influence, then his status as a precursor). Too,ooo,ooo schizophrenic for my liking. (I wonder what he truly thinks!) (Or for that matter, others!) (Come on, lets open this thing up!) (I know others are reading/listening/thinking) (If we can't do it now, when?!). I would be loathe to describe Helme's work as "light hearted". You seem to be floundering with all due respect.
John Cage is good, but not really relevant in this discussion. If mathematical poetry is to be what "you like" then the subject is closed from what I can see. If there is something larger at stake then lets examine it, seriously. I don't mind being wrong.
Your emphasis on whether an equation is synchronicity or coincidence is not really helpful either. Once used, we have to deal with it; real or imagined!
Variables in an equation DO NOT have to be defined, anymore that WORDS in an equation. The EQUALITY sign DOES NOT mean EXACTLY THIS or EXACTLY THAT (as it does in masthematics) --- it would be a sorry day when we insist that an EMOTION or a THOUGHT or a ANYTHING is so simply put. I think that in MATHEMATICAL POETRY the equal sign (a) suggests, and/or (b) implies a possible ACTION. There are many ACTIONS of course in mathematical poetry (of the equation variety) that are NONSENSICAL, but…. we know what you mean. Which brings me back to the fact that mathematical poetry is better viewed as a system of linguistics. Dividing the MOON by the OCEAN to equal a PALMTREE is understandable as an "image" but multiplying the OCEAN with a PALMTREE only gives you the MOON approximately one-thirteenth of the time --- cos its not there. From my point of view the "equational" poem is of value cos it ALLOWS various JOURNYINGS and SOLUTIONS. Exactitudes are a myth.
You are right, REALITY is not POETRY (tho it contains it) and it isn't THINKING (tho it contains it), and POETRY isn't REALITY (tho it contains it) (… I hesitate to go on). But if a poetry purports to be THINKING, it’s a sorry state of affairs when it borrows contaminated LANGUAGE and pretends that they are context-less, connotation-less, and irrelevant to REALITY. Why bother!? I suggest we BOTHER cos the matrix of all of it still has a pull on us.
Thanxs for letting me talk
Love + anarchy
TT.O.


Dear Pioh,
I think you are missing the point in all of this. It is true that I am dismissive of a particular kind of aesthetic for which we are talking about yet you make it sound like I am being dismissive to Scott Helmes in a personal matter. I assure you that this is not the case and even Scott feels this way.
As far as marginalizing Scotts influence; there is only one person I know who claims to have been influenced by Scott’s work and that person is Bob Grumman. I would guess that Geof Huth was influenced as well but I have not heard him say so. That is not to say that there are not others; however, I have not heard the claims.
But, ultimately we can all have our delusions of Grandeur but the bottom line is that hardly anyone seems to be interested in doing Equational Poetry or Mathematical Visual Poetry for that matter. The most popular form of mathematical poetry (at least in the number of poems found on the internet) seems to be what I call ‘mathematics poetry’ which is lexical poetry influenced by mathematics. The torch for this genre seems to be carried by JoAnne Growney, Kate Stange and Sarah Glaz.
The reason that these blog posts seem critical is not necessarily to demean the genre of mathematical visual poetry but drive a ‘functional’ wedge between it and ‘equational poetry’ and what I mean by ‘functional’ is how each functions or the mechanics of this type of poem. Equational poetry has rules that must be followed this is quite different than mathematical visual poetry which may or may not possess mathematical rules. If this sound confusing well I would have to agree. No one has written any formal criteria for judging mathematical visual poetry. I on the other hand am trying to define criteria to use in determining the aesthetic foundation for ‘equational poetry’. Furthermore, these criteria can be used to determine the aesthetic value for a mathematical poem.

Pioh says, “Variables in an equation DO NOT have to be defined, anymore that WORDS in an equation. The EQUALITY sign DOES NOT mean EXACTLY THIS or EXACTLY THAT (as it does in mathematics) --- it would be a sorry day when we insist that an EMOTION or a THOUGHT or a ANYTHING is so simply put. I think that in MATHEMATICAL POETRY the equal sign (a) suggests, and/or (b) implies a possible ACTION. There are many ACTIONS of course in mathematical poetry (of the equation variety) that are NONSENSICAL, but…. we know what you mean.”

The equation sign in mathematics has a particular meaning and if you try to loosen its definition then it ceases to be mathematics and falls into some other category. Here again we force this type of viewpoint into the realms of mathematical visual poetry as opposed to equational poetry that follows explicitly the rules of mathematics. As far as the term nonsense goes I use it loosely when discussing metaphor and primarily to mean ‘not rational’ – an example of this would be the statement: Joe is a deer. Well, this seems a bit odd sense we all know Joe is a man. This I would consider nonsensical due to it not seeming to be a rational statement. However, ultimately, ‘nonsense’ is not a good term for this situation because metaphorically speaking Bill could be a deer. The type of nonsense that I am critical of is that in which you have rules for a system, namely mathematics, and then you don’t follow the rules. There it ceased to be mathematics and thus become gibberish, vague or decoration at best.

Pioh says, “Dividing the MOON by the OCEAN to equal a PALMTREE is understandable as an "image" but multiplying the OCEAN with a PALMTREE only gives you the MOON approximately one-thirteenth of the time --- cos its not there."

I say, “While I am not terribly excited about this poem, it does function as an equational poem however, I cringe when you put out this arbitrary number of ‘one-thirteenth’ – on another note; I really see limited use of numbers in equational poems. I see numbers only working as coefficients for emphasizing magnitude within a poem” If you say: 4lovemaking x 2arguments = 12emotions then you better have a very good reason to say 12 instead of 8 – Yes you can do it but I find it very cumbersome from an aesthetic view.
I hope this clears some things up.
K
Oh on another note yet related to Pioh’s understanding of the equation sign – Here is a ‘Mathematical Poem’ that he sent me.

More on Scott Helmes

I received some interesting comments from TT.O. concerning my blog entry on the mathematical poetry of Scott Helmes. I have copied the comment below and below his comment I will address it.


Dear kaz
It always annoys me when people use words like "whimsical" it seems so demeaning to me. I looked it up and it said, 1. full of or characterized by whims or whimsy 2. oddly out of the ordinary; fanciful; freakish 3. subject to sudden change; unpredictable. Is the implication that other "mathematical" poetries are the opposite of "whimsical" i.e. the antonym "nonarbitrary"???? I think it unkind. In Scott Helmes's "Second Order Programming" the churning up of the linguistic elements with the mathematical elements is a powerful poem in the "imagist" style. I can sense the aeroplane's engines, the timetables, schedules etc and the sense of urgency in them --- that is, if I read the poem as a whole and not separate it into "five" singular equations. I can sense the pilot going thru their routines etc. You say the equation "serves as nothing more than a real mathematical equation that could be used for something had all of the variables been defined beforehand" --- I don't see why the variables should have to be defined beforehand. The sense of "alienation" from those variables are very much my (your?) experience of aviation. There is a sense of anticipated hope and faith every flyer has that those equations are correct and will work. And whose to say that those "equations" are NOT correct, i.e. REAL equations used in AVIATION? Equations as metaphor are perfectly acceptable "mathematical poetry" I would assume. Further to that, the "sequencing" of equations (i.e. one equation leading on from the one before and so on), builds a "model" i.e. an "object", it "manifests"; takes it out of the realm of the non-substantive, even "spiritual" (say). You say "it seems to me following that path really leads to nowhere"; hypothesizing dead-ends seems to me to be a dangerous art-practice, or at least not wise. It might be asserted (I dare suggest) that the World (or the emotions contained therein) cannot bare or endure the myth of a single equation. It would seem to me that reality or emotions only exist or can be interpreted as a "cluster" of equations, and that each and every equation may be "trivial" on its own, but collectively creates a simulacrum of sorts, an "evocation" of sorts. I find Helmes's poems extremely liberating and full of potential AND mathematical poetry to boot! That is not to exclude other kinds, but the "family" is growing! I'll send you a small offering of mine via attachment on an email. Thanxxxxs for the continued talking.
Love + anarchy
TT.O.

Dear TT.O.
1. Wiktionary.org says this about it -- Given to whimsy; capricious; odd; peculiar; playful; light-hearted or amusing.

Personally I see nothing pejorative about this term. When I used the word, “Whimsical” my intention was playful; light-hearted and amusing. Although some may think so, I think very little of my work is light-hearted – only two pieces come to mind that may fit that category. What I am doing here is stylistically comparing his poetry to mine. I am not making judgments on different types of mathematical poetry. His mathematical poetry appears to be equational poetry yet it functions quite different. Now when the dust settles I think that the bottom line will yield that we have a different view of what is important when it comes to aesthetics. All forms of mathematical poetry are valid but that doesn’t mean that I personally am interested in the aesthetics employed by them. While John Cage was a huge influence on me when I was young and I have always enjoyed his work, yet, his indeterminate processes don’t interest me - at least not the process itself. The beautiful thing about John Cage is how he teaches us to focus on the moment. I have always felt that he was not interested in you being excited about his systems for they are not the point. All of his work was to get you to not focus on art but focus on the moment that you are experiencing. Randomness and stochastic systems are only a tool to help you experience your experience. I have very little appreciation for random gizmos. In other words stochastic systems in general bore me as well as artists who make aesthetic decisions based on “warm and fuzzy feelings” Every inch of the canvas, every word in a poem, every symbol in a mathematical statement has meaning and as an artist I believe you should have a very good idea of what it means to you for your expression.
2. What is important about Scotts work is WHEN it was done and how much of it he was doing -- about ten years before I was doing mathematical poetry but then again my work is quite different than his. There have been a few who have done mathematical poetry before him even as early as the year 1800 however none that I know did as much as Scott had done in the 1970’s.
3. You say; --- “I don't see why the variables should have to be defined beforehand.” I say, “of course you don’t need to define them if you don’t want to; however, at that point they function as pure mathematics and operate as such … if they have meaning you have to bring it to the equation yourself. This seems to be what Scott wishes as well. This issue really begs the question; how much should one have to bring to the table for the piece to work ‘well’ and of course what does ‘well’ mean? It seems to me that if I have to bring a lot to the table and I can view it a number of different unrelated ways then I will see the piece as vague. I would much rather the poet say something in particular – point at something. What turns me on is an artist or poet who points at an archetype but does it in a new fresh way.
4. As far as you said, “who says those equations are not used in aviation? “ Even though I would not find it that interesting if they did; the probability of an aerospace structural engineering equation having those exact variables that spell out words would be astronomically unlikely. However there are equations that do spell out things for instance Energy = mad (mass times acceleration time distance) – again, as curious as these are I don’t find them that interesting. I think my aesthetic boils down to this: Synchronicity is much more interesting to me than Coincidence.
5. In reference to: "it seems to me following that path really leads to nowhere"; you said “hypothesizing dead-ends seems to me to be a dangerous art-practice, or at least not wise.” I say, “The reason I say it is a dead end is because the equation variables are not defined – There is no place to go mathematically speaking. It is too ambiguous - the equation can be solved in too many ways to have any meaningful relationship with the words. Yes you can imagine that it is an aerospace equation but that says more about you and your imagination than it does the equation or the art.
6. You said, “It would seem to me that reality or emotions only exist or can be interpreted as a "cluster" of equations.” I say, “Reality has nothing to do with equations – in fact Reality is just the opposite of equations. Reality is not thinking.”
7. All this said – I don’t want you to think that I don’t like what Scott has done. I like it and especially for the time it which it was done – it is extremely important work.

Mock Paper Scissors

Quote from Mock Paper Scissors:
(Failed song-and-dance man turned cowboy icon, John Wayne X Beverly Hillbilly Jethro Bodine) Divided by top banana Bonzo and his presidential second billing, Ronald Reagan = Chimpy McStagger.
Quote from Mock Paper Scissors:
(Crazed psycho founder of the murderous Manson Clan, Charles Manson) + (Crazed founder of the follow-the-meteor Heaven’s Gate Death Cult, Marshall Applewhite) X (the Jonestown Cult’s favorite beverage) = Crazed founder of the 700 Club, and one-time GOP Presidential Candidate, Pat Robertson


The Australian Math poet Pioh has turned us on to some more wonderful stuff. Thank you Pioh!!

These are a perfect example of Math poetry in politics. Click here for the entire site http://www.mockpaperscissors.com – there are many more of these so please check it out. If you sit on the left you will find them extremely funny. If you sit on the right you may be disgusted. I am politically moderate however I am left of center so the two posted here are my favorites.

Enjoy

What Is The Difference Between Multiplication And Addition In The Context Of Mathematical Poetry?

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. I now want to post two responses to the original question of De Chirico from the blog entry on August 7, 2008. The first being from the Math Poet TT.O. The text in Blue is from TT.O. and the text in white is mine My attempt at a solution to the difference in addition and multiplication in mathematical poetry is as follows:----- As the difference in nomenclature suggests, the above problem of A+B=C and A*B=C may be a issue of semantics, and in the case of "mathematical poetry" the said equations NOT equal. Consider One: A + B = C may mean let A abut B i.e. let image A physically touch image B, a kind of concatenation, a bringing together. Which would then go on to suggest that A + B = C1, and B + A = C2 since A + B ≠ B + A, and as their relative positions read from left-to-right would imply, the bringing together would result in an AB versus BA result. Notice that the collapse into a visual representation would suggest a kind of visual multiplication. I want to add for any mathematicians that are reading this -- when he says A + B ≠ B + A we all realize that this is definitely not true in pure mathematics however, it is debatable within the context of mathematical poetry due to syntax having some bearing on the results. From my perspective the influence of syntax is minimal when performing addition, although, I am willing to listen to all arguments. I will say that syntax is more important with multiplication. One can see the importance within the recent post I made called a+b+c does not equal c+b+a in this post our attention is brought to a problem with the order in which one experiences a phenomena. The author titled his observation a+b+c does not equal c+b+a however I believe that he should have realized what he was performing was multiplication not addition. Consider Two: A * B = C may depend on how it is read i.e. a issue of semantics (again) i.e. the number to be multiplied is called the "multiplicand", while the number of multiples is called the "multiplier". Perhaps this is better seen in the following equation A ( B + C ) = D. Here, the multiplier is A while the multiplicand is (B + C). The semantics of the equation would then suggest that ( B + C ) A ≠ A (B + C) in mathematical poetry, since it would depend on which was the multiplicand and which the multiplier, and in what order they were being taken to be (or read) i.e. what was to be infused by what, or what was to be increased by what i.e. a kind of what is being "acted on" (passive) and what active. Here TT.O. has provided a good argument to warrant attention being paid to the syntax of the equation within the context of mathematical poetry. However, there could be an argument that within the realm of pure math syntax makes no difference and therefore the poet needs to create his/her metaphor to reflect this mathematical truth. In other words make the product reflect an equal amount of the conceptual essence of the multiplier and multiplicand. From where I stand, in the equation A + B = C, A cannot infuse into B (or visa versa), but can only stand-by it. Multiplication, in the equation A * B = C, on the other hand (to carry on the metaphor) "impregnates" B but not visa versa. I don't understand your poem properly, because I don't understand the basic essence of De Chirico's work (i.e. a specific painting???) or who or what Baltimore is i.e. a City? An Artist? An attitude? However, I would suggest that Baltimore × De Chirico is different from De Chirico × Baltimore and different to Baltimore + De Chirico, and De Chirico + Baltimore, and that we should be mindful of it in our equation making. TT.O. I want to thank TT.O. for commenting on “The Question of De Chirico” and I must ask forgiveness for not explaining that the image is one of my photographs of a tower that resides on the inner harbor landscape in downtown Baltimore, Maryland USA. I modified the image to be in the style of the twentieth century painter Giorgio De Chirico. (See Google) Here is a few excerpts from a response from Todd Smith: Here's my take on it: The painting on the right seems to fit the style of the painter Giorgio de Chirico, so I assume that it is his work. If this is the case, I would vote for the equation: de Chirico (Baltimore) i.e., multiplication. Multiplication implies a combination (almost a mixing of two elements) and it generates something more than the sum of the two entities being combined. I would suggest that a snap shot of de Chirico with Baltimore in the background to be represented by the equation de Chirico + Baltimore. But a work of art produced by de Chirico in which Baltimore is featured would mean multiplication to me. The painting is as much de Chirico as it is Baltimore. The two are inextricably intertwined. Multiplication seems to be a more complex combination than addition to me. Two spools of thread might be added together when placed in a shopping bag, but they would be multiplied together if they were woven into a shirt. 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

Eddingtons Anti-Sonnet

Here is a mathematical visual poem done by the Australian visual poet pi.o. to see his explanation check it out on Geof Huth’s blog here