Those are dirty numbers!! "The images in this room are created entirely from mathematical algorithms. If you find them offensive in any way, all I can say is that beauty (or obscenity) is in this case most certainly in the eye of the beholder." (via)
posted by JPowers (24 comments total)
All images can be encoded as mathimatical formulas. posted by delmoi at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2006
JPEG is a mathematical algorithm too. posted by b1tr0t at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2006
that's pretty great. posted by shmegegge at 9:10 PM on June 11, 2006
I like Eros ex Math 11, because it sure looks like something dirty is happening, but I have no idea what. posted by pinespree at 9:13 PM on June 11, 2006
Someone's having sex on top of the KONICA color copier again... posted by twjordan at 9:13 PM on June 11, 2006
This is one nice, uh.....well, it's an ass, and it sure is nice! posted by ashbury at 9:18 PM on June 11, 2006
Damn! I really should have NSFWed this mofo. Matthowie, a little help? posted by JPowers at 9:19 PM on June 11, 2006
Yeah, the logic here is a little bit suspect. After all, every image on your computer or the web is just a series of numbers with a corresponding formula on how to turn them into an image. So in that sense, this is nothing different from any other web page on the internet.
Or it's kind of like that half-ass argument that since any given bit sequence can eventually be found in Pi or e if you look hard enough, that you could express any work of art (such as an XviD copy of hollywood's latest movie) as simply a position and length inside Pi, and presto! no more copyright infringement. (riiiight) [This of course ignores the task of finding the given bit sequence, the fact that doing so might take billions of years, or that representing this position once found might take millions of times more bits than were contained in the original file anyway.] posted by Rhomboid at 9:40 PM on June 11, 2006
Damn! I really should have NSFWed this mofo. Matthowie, a little help?
posted by JPowers at 9:19 PM PST on June 11
Nah, your post clearly describes the context. If a workplace would get offended by this, you already know not to click on the link from your description. posted by bigmusic at 9:47 PM on June 11, 2006
Math Porn- NSFW?
whoda thought. posted by pointilist at 9:55 PM on June 11, 2006
I suppose nature uses similar algorithms to grow all the parts these mimick, so it's as close to porn as any other assembly of digital bits. posted by HTuttle at 10:15 PM on June 11, 2006
They make me feel... funny... posted by paladin at 10:29 PM on June 11, 2006
It has more to do with the algorithms used to generate the pieces, rather than the encoding of the jpeg that displays them. It's an interesting application of generative art. Fleshy color palette + smoothing lines + decaying particles + ????? + gaussian blur = Math Porn! posted by ryoshu at 11:34 PM on June 11, 2006
i saw this on fark a couple of years ago, and to this day a guy i know asks in a nasely voice "are you looking at math porn again" as if it's all i ever do on the internet. Although i suppose he would be vindicated on this particular evening. posted by sourbrew at 11:57 PM on June 11, 2006
I agree with ryoshu, that the distinction between encoding/compression and generation algorithms is important. Why? Hmm, how to phrase it ... not everything in the more abstract areas like mathematics "is the same anyway", small differences can have far reaching consequences, which the human mind often isn't build or trained to see. posted by vertriebskonzept at 5:31 AM on June 12, 2006
So were the colors used in the images determined by a formula or were they seeded with something remotely flesh-like? posted by craniac at 6:43 AM on June 12, 2006
Math gives me a J-curve
posted by fatbobsmith at 10:47 PM CST on June 11
You might want to see a urologist. posted by Ynoxas at 7:33 AM on June 12, 2006
« Older
Music Competition...
| Shakespeare in the Bush:...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by delmoi at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2006