Architecture[edit]

Architecture has quite an important place in the history of mathematics and art, not least because of the record it leaves, but also because many of the early theorists on the subject wrote about both visual arts and about architecture. There are however many buildings and architects who could deserve a mention, so separate lists, or even a separate template (with inevitable overlap with the present one) are possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knotting link[edit]

This template currently has a link to the Knot article, which has little on the topic. It would be better to link to specific articles such as Celtic knot, Croatian interlace, Interlace (art), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, added those. Feel free to extend if need be (within reason). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Maybe better without the large image for needed horizontal template space? If an image is needed why not Da Vinci's image of the human body or an artwork which would connect better historically and vertically. [EDIT: removed much of my objection, looked into it more and agree that it's a very nice artwork to represent the topic for the template] A nice template and good work. I'll move on to less math-y things. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo's art treatise[edit]

I added Leonardo's A Treatise on Painting, as it covers the same topics as De Prospectiva pingendi (perspective, proportion etc.) but I wonder if Leonardo should be put into both the Renaissance theorists and artists sections, with A Treatise on Painting in the former (similar to how Francesca is in both). Grove calls him a "theorist" if that's any evidence. Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition. The standard is for each name to appear just once; this can be difficult but we certainly want to minimise duplication. I'll scratch my head for possible reorg to avoid duplicating both L. and F. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like an issue without a clear solution. The only thing that comes to mind is potentially giving both L & F a star (*) and having something like "Both an artist and theorist*"—similar to what I did at ((Ars nova)). Though this may be overthinking it; I suspect the issue may not be outstanding enough to warrant much or any change. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo has enough diverse accomplishments that it seems his name and work could easily fit into two, three, or four sections simultaneously. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we want his name to appear four times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But two seems okay, especially given how the topics are laid out. He did earn the listings, sweat and tears and all that. Will leave it at that, although since I'm here again want to mention that this very good template succinctly covers a lot of ground, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artists template[edit]

The template is getting quite large, with the number of artists steadily ticking up; the rest of it seems quite stable over the past few years. I wonder if we shouldn't split the artists out into their own template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, they are their as representatives of entire art movements (cubism, constructivism) that could in some way be seen as mathematical. I agree, it does not seem sustainable to haphazardly list individual artists. Maybe we could replace it with a list of movements and a few movement-uncategorized artists?

Sounds plausible. How would we do about that? New articles on movements? And we might still need an artists template actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap. If the problem is the large number of links in only one section (Artists), then we can create a new section for "mathematicians". There are two kinds of people who use math in art: 1. Mathematician artists 2. Visual artists who use math in their art. We can have a section for each group. But if the problem is the large number of the links in the whole template, then perhaps a new template can be a good idea. Could you explain which one is the problem? Natural Helnorama (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be the accretion of artists and their works. Giving them more sections will hardly stop them from flooding out the template! Quite the reverse. You may be right that a smaller subset of those are mathematicians, in which case we can just rename the section to be more specific, i.e. 'Mathematicians who are also artists'. If anyone thinks that artists more widely need to be covered then we need a separate template. Even more so if their works are also to be listed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics in Islamic architecture[edit]

I note with regret the removal of Islamic architecture and Mughal architecture from this template. It is true that these articles say [too] little about mathematics. There are short sections on both topics in Mathematics and architecture, but the small number of examples given there illustrate three points:

1) it is not the case that Islamic geometric patterns exhausts the use of mathematics in Islamic architecture: quite the reverse, as the patterns aspect is literally just skin-deep, whereas the use of ratios is fundamental to the plans of Islamic (inc. Mughal) buildings and gardens.
2) we are missing an article on Mathematics in Islamic architecture, including Mughal.
3) The two articles would both benefit from a section with "main"/"further" links and summary of the future article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Rochallyi is off-topic[edit]

An editor is repeatedly inserting this literary figure without evidence of mathematical art over at the Radoslav Rochallyi article, or for that matter on the Internet. The lead article on the template's topic defines its scope clearly as "mathematics in the visual arts". I do not see any evidence of this in Rochallyi's work, so he appears to be off-topic for this template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about an author at all. You write that article Mathematics and Art clearly defines its scope as mathematics in the visual arts. But the problem is that the title of the article is Mathematics and Art. Art clearly includes literature. So both the article and the template need to be clarified and renamed (Mathematics and Visual art), or expanded to include the other arts. Am I wrong? EwerestPool (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're correct, it's not about one artist but about scope. But the main article is crystal clear on the subject, as I've quoted above. "Art" is actually a common usage for "the visual arts", indeed it's almost a synonym for "painting" of pictures on canvas. This is a centuries-old usage and it's quite reasonable for Wikipedia to follow it. If you're really uncomfortable with the template, and I don't see any special reason for that actually, we could add the word "visual" to the template's title, but since the main article linked there clearly defines the scope (and there's nowhere in a template for either scope-setting or citations, so the main article is where folks always have to look) I'd have thought we had the bases rather well covered in this case. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work, but some of your arguments are misleading. You write that "art" is in fact a commonly used term for "fine art," almost synonymous with "painting" pictures on canvas. This usage is centuries old, and it is quite reasonable for Wikipedia to follow it. This is completely untrue. It's your work, so keep it that way. I don't care. But if someone does a math and dance article, or a math and literature article, your article will have to be renamed, and a "crossroad" will come in its place. Wouldn't it be easier to have it all in one article? But again, it's your article. All best EwerestPool (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the appreciation. I'm not sure why you should deny the long-established usage of the term "art" to mean mainly visual arts. It's possible that the use of "art" to mean forms such as painting is more of a British English usage, but it does not seem that the usage is limited by nation: for instance at random, an American gallery states "When we talk about art, many people’s minds will jump first to paintings." Anyway, as you say, there is some freedom to select the scope of articles, and the definition in the article is clearly practical. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories