Mel Bochner. Counting Exercise- Circles, 1972
TM Research Archive – 1989 Issue 5
There is an "underneath" for this "overneath", as this is simply a glassine key for a relatively complicated photo showing a group of meteorological instruments1. Taken out of context, though, the overlay without the reference image takes on quite a different and appealingly Dada-like complexion, an artful canvas of enumerated blankness...that, or a rendering of unregulated numbers in the wild, a capture of herding physical numbers. Do numbers exist? Are there points in space, and lines, and planes, floating out there just beyond our knowledge like Arthur C. Clarke-like monoliths or Abbott's Flatland objects? Well, no. But it is enjoyable to find these printed forms that, if we look at them in a certain way and allow for a bit of fancy, take on a life of their own. (What a funny thing it would be if numbers had names other than their number-- for example, "3" is the form only but its name is a taste or smell, or "Borges", or the bubble 44,332 in the head of a pint of Guinness, or a particular wavelength...that could spice things up.)
A History of Blank, Missing, and Empty Things, Part 48: Numbers Numbering Nothing (via JF Ptak Science books)
Henri Cartier-Bresson, Spain, 1933
numbers letters
Representation of the ordinal numbers up to ωω. Each turn of the spiral represents one power of ω ( the smallest infinite ordinal).
More beautiful math. I wish I had been taught math differently in school. There is something extraordinarily lovely about it to me now. In elementary/high school, unlike words and letters, numbers were just fear and confusion and mercury-like slippery sliding across the page and out of my brain.
The kind of barely imaginable *fuckery* of math is still there, just really trixy at the advanced level, and hence can be interesting, in a way eg:
Any ordinal is defined by the set of ordinals that precede it: in fact, the most common definition of ordinals identifies each ordinal as the set of ordinals that precede it. For example, the ordinal 42 is the order type of the ordinals less than it, i.e., the ordinals from 0 (the smallest of all ordinals) to 41 (the immediate predecessor of 42), and it is generally identified as the set {0,1,2,…,41}.
James Joyce is a light-weight with words compared to this stuff.
(more cats and nudes soon, promise)
"How large is that number? That number is larger not just than all of the particles in the universe - it is larger than all the particles in the universe if each particle was itself a universe." detail from the dizzying: What are the odds? (that you exist, as you, today? .... basically zero) by Ali Binazir at visual.ly