Boy, some people really know how to take the joy out of life.

Beautiful, isn’t it? But it’s also turbulent, a little frightening: the artistic outpouring of a tortured soul. It is a priceless work of art, hanging in New York’s Museum of Modern Art for all to see, for each to interpret in his or her own way.

Or is it, instead, a depiction of “the mathematical structure of turbulent flow”? [Katie Hunt, CNN, September 19, 2024.]

What was that again? What on earth is “turbulent flow”?

Well, damned if I know. After reading Ms. Hunt’s rather lengthy, very informative article on the subject, I have no clearer understanding of the concept than I had before. Science is not my thing. In fact, I had never before even heard the term.

And I wish I hadn’t heard it now, because it has altered the way I look at Van Gogh’s masterpiece — in fact, all of his works. I don’t think that art should be viewed from a scientific point of view, which is apparently what some physicists in China and France have done with this particular painting.

As described in the article:

“As a common natural phenomenon observed in fluids — moving water, ocean currents, blood flow, billowing storm clouds and plumes of smoke — turbulent flow is chaotic, as larger swirls or eddies, form and break down into smaller ones.

”It may appear random to the casual observer, but turbulence nonetheless follows a cascading pattern that can be studied and, at least partially, explained using mathematical equations.” [Id.]

The article goes on to explain more of the study headed by one Yongxiang Huang of Xiamen University, China, and how,

“Using a digital image of the painting, Huang and his colleagues examined the scale of its 14 main whirling shapes to understand whether they aligned with physical theories that describe the transfer of energy from large- to small-scale eddies as they collide and interact with one another.” [Id.]

Enough!! I don’t want to know how they “precisely measured the brushstrokes and compared the size of the brushstrokes to the mathematical scales expected from turbulence theories,” or that “they used the relative brightness or luminance of the varying paint colors.” [Id.]

The article goes on to discuss the “fluctuations in a flow’s speed and the rate at which its energy dissipates,” as described in the 1940s by Soviet mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov’s theory of turbulence. And something about weather forecasting; the “plasma between galaxies”; “algae blooms being swept around by ocean currents, or dust and particulates in the air”; and the Great Red Spot on the planet Jupiter.

I’m sure that is all fascinating — and possibly even of some scientific importance — to experts in the various fields of science. But to me, it is a joy-killer.

All I want to do is lose myself in The Starry Night in all of its dark beauty. Don McLean knew what he was doing when he wrote the haunting music and lyrics to the immortal “Vincent.” That, to my mind, is how you pay tribute to a work of art and its creator.

The next thing you know, someone will be telling us that Mona Lisa’s smile is crooked, indicating the probability that she suffered from some debilitating illness. And I definitely do not want to know that.

Just sayin . . .

Brendochka
9/25/24