- Hi Goetz,I am not sure about your mathematics here. If you multiply both sides of an equation by the same number (other than 0), the relative relation between both sides will remain equal. If you multiply by 0, this does away with any difference (and maybe the idea of "equation" itself), by making both sides equal 0, or no-thing. So, this does not seem to help here. Isn't what we are speaking of an inverse relation, where as we analyze smaller segments of a picture the chances of seeing "connections" rise? When we lower the one side to the smallest parts (points) the connections become so prominent that they seem exactly the same (the highest value). Therefore it is no wonder that you are perceiving connections as your field gets smaller. This is the reason why I jokingly suggested that you narrow your field even further, so that you would see direct connections, although these would be to every other picture ever produced!If my proposal is not suitable, then, by the same token, yours, while seeming a bit better, does not reach the point where you can give rational and helpful answers. I would suggest that you at least look for whole objects which do no require the perceiver to carry out the removal of meaning in order to see them. If one begins to remove this meaning/context then where would one stop, other than at absurdity? In my opinion if we add meaning to this type of analysis we may then stop somewhere near the truth - be it to prove what we set out to show or to conclude that what we at first saw was in fact a false "equation".All best,Fernando
**From:**Goetz Kluge <goetzkluge.0001@...>**To:**lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com**Sent:**Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:35:55 PM**Subject:**[lewiscarroll] Re: Holiday did not "plagiarize" in The Hunting of the Snark.

--- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@. ..> wrote:

>

> Hi Goetz,

>

> ...If you can take such small parts of pictures and see a connection worthy of naming as a type of model, why can't I find smaller segments (lines and points) and see direct "borrowings" ?...

Yes. You could search one single pixel in one picture and would find with high probability a matching pixel in any other picture. (However, the easiest way to come to an equation is to multiply both sides of it by zero.) So it seems, that your proposal is not really suitable to compare the pictures. The messages which the pictures generate in the beholders' minds are more relevant. Tests will have to focus on that aspect. - --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@...> wrote:
>

The approach seems to be useful for art historians.

> Hi Goetz,

>

> I've come to the conclusion that your approach is not at all useful to me. In my opinion it yields so few possible links and so much nonsense that I believe it to be a waste of time. So, why would I want to trace how you developed that approach or waste my own time looking (in some unruly Post-Modernist fashion?) for straws that "resemble" Carrollian needles? This is particularly the case for me because the bottles of hay that you've chosen probably don't even contain needles.

>

> We know from Hancher's work that AAiW and TtL-G have definite references to Punch, though Tenniel. "Definite references" here are real objects and characters borrowed from a source the artist and the author were well aware of, not lines or bits from some obscure piece they may never have seen.

>

> Fernando

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Goetz Kluge <goetzkluge.0001@...>

> To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:08:05 AM

> Subject: [lewiscarroll] Arnheim

>

>

> --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@ ...> wrote: