[nsphere]

"There is such breathtaking depth and heartbreaking beauty in this ancient art form. How ironic that people dismiss mathematics as the antithesis of creativity. They are missing out on an art form older than any book, more profound than any poem, and more abstract than any abstract. And it is school that has done this! What a sad endless cycle of innocent teachers inflicting damage upon innocent students. We could all be having so much more fun."

As a Mathematician I've always identified as a creative person, yet struggle to convince "artsy" persons that what I do is creative. As soon as I utter the word math they convulse and shutter as if they were afflicted with a PTSD flashback. I try explaining what the idea involves and draw a diagram or three, but all they do is just nod and say "yeah, yup, okay.." Are the ideas of math that inaccessible to the general population when compared to a work of Art?

[sampo]

"Are the ideas of math that inaccessible to the general population when compared to a work of Art?"

I'd guess at least some fine arts (composing classical or modernist orchestral music, modern abstract painting and sculpting) would also be pretty inaccessible to general population.

[codyb]

Yes, but when a classical composer converses with you and says something along the lines of "There actually is, with all the creativity, a sort of formula I follow to produce my best pieces. You see I do this first, revise it three times, etc, etc." and no one will sit and shutter and have the PTSD style flashback the original comment talked about because they do not know and they do not have preconceived, strongly held, notions in mind about the subject.

Or at least I think that'd be true.

[nsphere]

Exactly! With the exception that most of the artist's I've conversed with don't like the word "formula", but liberally us the word "process". Also anyone is Science seems to favor "methods". They all are talking about the same activity of concentrating on an action their passionate about. Language can be a funny thing.

[sampo]

But if the composer would use a more geeky language, and talk about e.g. E7#9 chords, mixolydian modes and chromatic passages? How long would a layperson bother to listen.

(Well I used rock/jazz terms, since I am not familiar with classical music.)

[john_b]

I think that language (at least English) fails us here. The word "creative" can be used to mean both "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work" [1] or "resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative" [2]. It seems that most people identify the word more strongly with the artistic sense of the word, in which creativity is a proxy for a kind of self-expression that is not bound by any rules, logic, or structure. In doing so, they seem to mistake one of the more visible manifestations of creativity with its essence, which really lies in the "originality of thought" and "imagination" of the creative person.

If we had a specific, unique, and widely used word for the "artsy" free-expression type of creativity, I think the confusion many people express when you try to convince them that mathematics is a creative endeavour would be greatly diminished.

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creative

[dwc]

> creativity is a proxy for a kind of self-expression that is not bound by any rules, logic, or structure

I do not find this to be the case. Art is full of structure, rules and logic. When artists "break" the rules, it usually means they been able to operate using underlying rules, and understand well the rules they break.

[saraid216]

Or they're creating new rules.

[dwc]

Yes, indeed. For instance, the creation of bebop in jazz. Of course Bird could only do this by a comprehensive understanding of the existing rules and seeing deeper.

[nileshtrivedi]

The way I read the essay, it seems to me that math is compatible with [1]. You don't have to follow any given rules. Make up your own ideas and see what they lead to. What if square roots of negative numbers exist? What if the sum of angles of a triangle is not 180 degrees? What if a proposition can be both true and false at the same time?

[sp332]

There have been campaigns to put logic above all other human pursuits. As if only logical things are pure, and anything less rational is beast-like or uncivilized. Artists and poets naturally rejected this idea, but many also rejected the whole subject as hostile.

[jackmaney]

"Are the ideas of math that inaccessible to the general population when compared to a work of Art?"

Yes, if only because many (if not most) don't want access. Been there, done that, got the medications to prove it.

[math_junkie_20]

"got the medications to prove it."

Please, elaborate?

[dagw]

yet struggle to convince "artsy" persons that what I do is creative.

As another mathematician I've almost found the exact opposite. As soon as I mention math to an arts person they instantly start babbling about fractals and chaos and Fibonacci and all kinds of other vague pop-culture terms they've heard of but don't really understand. Artsy types almost seem to find math much more artistic than I do.

[nsphere]

They look at fractals and spirals and enjoy seeing the pretty pictures with all the symmetry and colors. However when an explanation of how the series is generated and how it can vary is presented, interest is feigned and the core concepts still elude them. It's almost as if they don't like getting their hands dirty in a different medium.

[rquantz]

Come on, that's a gross generalization.

[gizmo686]

There is a different between artsy and creative. Artsy (roughly) refers to things that appeal to the senses. Creative is a much more general notion of creating. In math, you defiantly create things. And you arguably create beautiful thing. But the beauty is not in the senses, it is in the mind. The senses are involved only as a form of communication.

[saraid216]

It's the same kind of beauty you'd find in a well-stated argument.

[agumonkey]

IMO, Mathematics are abstract aesthetics, invisible unless you to forget your senses for a minute and see in relationships, recurrences, evolution .. patterns. Add the fact that the mathematical culture is cryptic .. (centuries of abstraction stacked and compressed in a symbol, unspoken principles, ...) and that it's very badly taught in the first years of school, you get inaccessibility.

[realitygrill]

"Music is a stupid way of art, usually for stupid people. If you are writing literature or poetry, then you should be an intellectual; as a really good musician, that's not a must." -Holger Czukay

So there is this idea of different arts being more or less accessible to the general population.

[rquantz]

There are lots of stupid musicians, just not any I want to hear. But be careful comparing writing to performing. Yes, you can be a mindless automaton and still sound pretty good. But composers are generally intellectual, and in my experience the set of good composers who are not blindingly intelligent is very small.