April 2, 2017
There is an interesting programme in youtube called “Vincent van Gogh Documentary”. This is an artist that I greatly admire, and once again there was a sudden paradigm shift in the space of three or four years from a powerful but technically ungifted artist, producing drawings and dark, rough looking paintings, to the same kind of startling originality as Dylan Thomas, using vivid colours and his own famous style. ECE and ECE2 should be looked at in the same way as poetry or art. It is an original style of science, now well known throughout the world. When it first appeared it caused a riot, so did Manet, Cezanne, van Gogh, Rodin, Picasso, Braque, Munch, Stravinsky, and anyone who is worth anything. The Philistines had a fit all over it.”
Another drunkard, obsessed with a whore and ‘treated’ by a quack. He even painted pictures of drug-addicts (that strange glass in one of his daubs was shaped so as to hold a sugar cube and soften the taste of absinthe). Don’t worry, we are fully in agreement with the idea that pseudoscientists are exactly the same as so-called avant garde artists. They all produce drivel which does not reflect reality and has constantly to be ‘interpreted’ and defended by the perpetrator or his hangers-on. They eventually come to public notice for some extraneous, and usually sleazy reason (suicide, murder …), whereupon opportunists seize the moment. Money and notoriety then take over in their usual autocatalytic manner. Ask 1000 random people what they know of Gogh, and the vast majority will just say ‘expensive’. We admire illustrators. They are always far more technically skilful, produce work of photographic accuracy but can ‘slum it’ and imitate amateurs like Gogh if paid. One might even say that illustrators are analogous to scientists.