dymax78 10 hours ago

~10 years ago I had a renewed interested in perspective drawing, and was struggling with an 'exercise' that utilized curvilinear perspective & oblique angles. Anyways, I stumbled on some of Rafael's drawings and found their inclusion of the guide lines / measuring lines invaluable, but for the hell of it, I emailed him some questions. He promptly responded and then dumped images and reference material on dropbox for me - very nice guy.

Personal fav is "Dürer" that demonstrates Albrecht Dürers method of projecting a spiral.

https://www.rafael-araujo.com/product-page/d%C3%BCrer#

monkmartinez 11 hours ago

At first glance the "masterpieces" looked like a crap ton of lines and circles around a sketched shell or butterfly. You know, the kind you see when you tell Stable Diffusion to "sketch". Then I watched the video for a sec... WOAH!!! He is talking about a "formula" quite a bit... ctrl-f "formula" == 0 results.

Google: Rafael Araujo artist formula. Ahhhh! https://www.rafael-araujo.com/calculation

Now we are getting somewhere... and another that shows the process a bit better: https://hazelhomeartandantiques.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-cal...

Now I am trawling github to see if I can find some processing or similar libraries that I can play around with. Golden Ratio sketches, defining physical objects and shapes from purely mathematical constructions... I love rabbit holes!

Yestas 10 hours ago

I believe that we still know so little about nature and its laws. Sometimes it seems that we are moving in the direction of technological development instead of developing our knowledge about nature and aligning ourselves with it.

  • dcreater 8 hours ago

    Hi, id like to introduce you to eastern philosophy

gilleain 10 hours ago

Technically amazing - such fine detail, and of course precision. However ...

I recently heard the saying "a great artist knows when to stop" (it was Ben Afflek talking about AI art - I guess he was quoting someone?). I feel like in the case of these drawings, less detail would actually be better. More readable, perhaps.

Still, an impressive amount of effort for each one, given only straightedge and compass.

  • BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago

    I think the detail IS the art, or at least the strongest element that the artist wishes to demonstrate.

    Removing the details removes the reference to the formula(e), which is the soul around which the beatiful pictures are created. In this case, the art is the process, more-so than the end result - which is a by-product.

Mistletoe 10 hours ago

Is the Monarch one based on a geometric way they fly or something?

mkl 7 hours ago

> he unfolds the significance of the Golden Ratio, showcasing its spiritual depth and presence within the natural order.

Yikes. The golden ratio has limited significance, nothing to do with spirituality, and little presence in nature [1]. Araujo's pictures look great, but in almost any of them you could replace the golden ratio with 1.6, 1.7, or 1.5, and get something no less beautiful.

The Wikipedia page is fairly good on this, especially the "Disputed observations" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Disputed_observat...

As a mathematician, fetishisation of the golden ratio bugs me.

[1] The main place is spiral arrangements of leaves, petals, etc. Vi Hart explains why (watch all three parts): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXIMUkSXX0

  • esperent an hour ago

    I'm also a mathematician, and it doesn't bug me at all.

    > nothing to do with spirituality

    It clearly does have a lot to do with spirituality, for many people, as symbol. Much as the cross does for Christans. Neither of these symbols have spiritual meaning to me - a cross is just a cross, a spiral is just a spiral. I don't have much need for spiritual symbolism myself - when I meditate, I rather to focus on a simple sound or light source - but I'd consider it highly egotistical of myself if I was to start judging other people's use of symbols just because they don't understand maths, or whatever.

    > fetishisation

    I've yet to ever see this word used except to denigrate other people's beliefs, or as an attempt to make the user feel superior. I believe you did both here.

    My advice, one mathematician to another: chill and let people have their symbols. Don't expect them to have a deep understanding of mathematics, much as we don't have a deep understanding of their need for spiritual symbolism. Nonetheless we can let each other be, and all get along.

    Who knows, perhaps a fascination with this "sacred geometry" as they call it, might be a starting point for someone to have a genuine interest in mathematics.

  • numpy-thagoras an hour ago

    > As a mathematician, fetishisation of the golden ratio bugs me.

    I know, but hear me out: it's a decent hook for teaching people about Geometry, Recursion, and Dynamic Programming.