Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.ai
Subject: Re: Hofstadter on computer music
Message-ID: <1548@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-May-85 17:06:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1548
Posted: Sun May 19 17:06:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 18:06:46 EDT
References: <582@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> <195@u1100s.UUCP> <14174@watmath.UUCP> <sdcsla.858>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 61
Summary: 


>> Although I agree with the conclusion, I can't agree that fractal geometry
>> provides more realistic descriptions of scenery than human artists.  Real
>> scenery is not fractal except in unusual circumstances.  The effects of
. . .
>> other shows a dipping saddle of cliffs.  Fractal geometry provides
>> aesthetically pleasing pictures that sort-of look right, especially
>> when compared with previous computer-based graphic methods.  But it's
>> a long way from there to realism.
>
>Wrong. There are important areas where one cannot describe the scenery at all
>without the aid of fractal geometry. Mountain landscapes are just one example.
>Another good example of the impact of fractals is in predicting the shape of
>coastlines bordering major oceans ( pacific, atlantic, indian ) and the shape
>of islands. Without fractal geometry we have no coherent theory for predicting
>the shape of coastlines, islands, etc. With it, we can generate by computer
>near exact predictons of the shape of major continents.
>
>
>> 
>> Music doesn't require realism, and I do think that the right computer-based
>> approach may well provide music of deep aesthetic satisfaction (i.e. "great").
>> -- 
>> 
>> {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
>
>Who says music doesn't require realism? Perhaps someone who also
>does not think fractal geometry is required to describe nature.
>One may ASSUME that realism isn't important, but this assumption doesn't
>provide evidence against the argument the realism MIGHT BE important.
>
>
>
>Read Mandelbenoit, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, for the real scoop.
>
>eric
>-------

If you are going to appeal to authority, at least try to get the name of
the authority correct -- Benoit Mandelbrot.  And yes, I have read his books,
which is the reason I posted my original commnet.

Fractal geometry provides pictures of landforms that look nice to the
untrained eye, but confuse the geographer, in much the same way that
a chessboard with randomly placed pieces looks nice to a non-chess-player,
but confuses the chess master.  It's better than a checkerboard with
lumps of things on it, but it isn't a realistic *chess* board.  Likewise,
fractally derived landforms are better than previous computer-based
efforts, but they shouldn't be confused with realism.

Fractal geometry is a great step forward in understanding the geometry
of nature, but don't be beguiled into believing it to be the end of
the journey.

(Anyway, what could "realism" mean in music? Using the call of the
cuckoo in music representing "Forest Murmurs"?)
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt