It's nice to see Gonzalo back on the list! ...and what a great subject
for art and architecture! I would like to share a few comments about
my observations ad opinions on his subject.
I have taught the foundation year for many years. During that time, I had
alsways hoped to persue "surfaces" with my students. However, there was
always so much basic work to be understood in the area of geometries. This
obscured the movement intothe subject of surface studies. I still would
like to work in this area with my students.
In our specific situtation here there has been an emphasis on "architecture".
Unfortunately, that has been narrowly defined. It is very difficult to open
other related disciplines of mathematics into the process of study, because
of this situation. When it is done, one risks political retributions.
For example, there was a wonderful article about a fellow at Princeton
University. [I cannot remember his name.] This fellow was involved with
topological studies. Bringing someone like this to speak to our archi-
ture students would be very valuable to them. It would open new avenues
of exploration into space. It would not be supported in our limited
academic environment---because it was not "architecture". This is a
damning situation for education by research. It should not exist.
Just this year, this university has established a Center for Gravational
Studies. It involves, of course, geometries of this kind. I had the
pleasure of attending the lecture by Ruth Lawrence, [Harvard University].
She gave a brief lecture on "Linear Connections of Three Dimensional
Manifolds". Although the mathematics was beyond me (without further detailed
study), the concepts of geometry were graspable. It was a lecture I will
remember all my life for its intensity. It is this kind of thinking that
needs to be shared with our students---even though they may have some
difficulty in understanding its precise mathematics or ist possible
applications. How tobegin to think about the problems of surfaces could
lead to new approaches in both art and architecture. The work need not
be persued purely from an analytical mathematical perspective. Studies
in geometry could lead to these analytical perspectives later---if needed
or desired. What Ilike about the Lawrence lecture was its definition of
the problem between two poles of thought about the problem. It provided
everyone with an opportunity to think further about finding answers
somewhere between those two poles. Everyone could participate in solutions
in their own way and with their won arguments. Beautiful!
I think an attach needs to be leveled at institutions having colleges,
schools, departments, etc. which stand against this kind of exchange of
information. After all university worlds *should* act as a universe of
"stars" and "planets" and "galaxies" that depend on one another for
life and the truth of their existence. NO?
[The word "attach" above should read "attack"!]
Thanks, Gonzalo, for the prompt!
--------------------------------
for art and architecture! I would like to share a few comments about
my observations ad opinions on his subject.
I have taught the foundation year for many years. During that time, I had
alsways hoped to persue "surfaces" with my students. However, there was
always so much basic work to be understood in the area of geometries. This
obscured the movement intothe subject of surface studies. I still would
like to work in this area with my students.
In our specific situtation here there has been an emphasis on "architecture".
Unfortunately, that has been narrowly defined. It is very difficult to open
other related disciplines of mathematics into the process of study, because
of this situation. When it is done, one risks political retributions.
For example, there was a wonderful article about a fellow at Princeton
University. [I cannot remember his name.] This fellow was involved with
topological studies. Bringing someone like this to speak to our archi-
ture students would be very valuable to them. It would open new avenues
of exploration into space. It would not be supported in our limited
academic environment---because it was not "architecture". This is a
damning situation for education by research. It should not exist.
Just this year, this university has established a Center for Gravational
Studies. It involves, of course, geometries of this kind. I had the
pleasure of attending the lecture by Ruth Lawrence, [Harvard University].
She gave a brief lecture on "Linear Connections of Three Dimensional
Manifolds". Although the mathematics was beyond me (without further detailed
study), the concepts of geometry were graspable. It was a lecture I will
remember all my life for its intensity. It is this kind of thinking that
needs to be shared with our students---even though they may have some
difficulty in understanding its precise mathematics or ist possible
applications. How tobegin to think about the problems of surfaces could
lead to new approaches in both art and architecture. The work need not
be persued purely from an analytical mathematical perspective. Studies
in geometry could lead to these analytical perspectives later---if needed
or desired. What Ilike about the Lawrence lecture was its definition of
the problem between two poles of thought about the problem. It provided
everyone with an opportunity to think further about finding answers
somewhere between those two poles. Everyone could participate in solutions
in their own way and with their won arguments. Beautiful!
I think an attach needs to be leveled at institutions having colleges,
schools, departments, etc. which stand against this kind of exchange of
information. After all university worlds *should* act as a universe of
"stars" and "planets" and "galaxies" that depend on one another for
life and the truth of their existence. NO?
[The word "attach" above should read "attack"!]
Thanks, Gonzalo, for the prompt!
--------------------------------