In some areas of knowledge, such as mathematics and art, there is a distinct

difference in the approach taken towards complexity. Mathematics often

involves reducing complex ideas into simple components, while art integrates
simple components into a complex whole. This reflects the contrasting ways
these areas of knowledge seek to understand the world.
In mathematics, there is a drive towards abstraction, reducing complexity to
uncover fundamental truths. Mathematical concepts often begin with
particular examples, then generalize to encapsulate common properties and
eliminate unnecessary details. This process extracts the essence of an idea.
For instance, the complex motions of physical objects are simplified into basic
kinematic equations like s=vt. The specific properties of the object are
stripped away, leaving only variables for displacement, velocity and time. The
result is a simple relationship that reveals an underlying pattern, applicable
across contexts. As the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North
Whitehead stated, “the aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of
complex facts.” Mathematics exemplifies this pursuit of simplicity.
However, while abstraction reduces complexity, it can also obscure meaning.
Remove too much context, and the concepts become detached from reality.
As Einstein cautioned, “make everything as simple as possible, but not
simpler.” Abstraction is a double-edged sword – it brings clarity but loses
connection. Mathematical models, for instance, make precise predictions but
may miss influential factors. There is a difficult balance between simplifying
while retaining relevance.
In contrast, art often pursues complexity over simplicity. Rather than distill the
world into sparse abstractions, art luxuriates in the richness of experience. It
draws together diverse sensory elements into a coherent aesthetic whole. A
painting synthesizes colors, textures, shapes and subjects to convey a scene.
A novel integrates settings, characters and themes into an elaborate narrative.
The meaning arises from the interplay of parts. As the critic John Ruskin
wrote, the goal of art is “getting at the whole truth...not one part of truth only.”
While math extracts the essence, art embraces the abundance.
This holistic approach allows art to represent nuanced perspectives. For
instance, Picasso’s Guernica combines disjointed images of anguish and
suffering into a powerful anti-war piece. The disjointed parts come together to
transmit complex emotions in a way that literal images could not. As
Dostoevsky said, “beauty is mysterious as well as terrible.” The intricacy of art
allows it to capture life’s mysteries.
However, unifying divergent elements is also challenging. Too many pieces
without coherence can descend into chaos. Unity in variety requires a balance.
The Russian novelist Maxim Gorky wrote that “the irrationality of art is quite
rational.” There is a logic in how art harmonizes multiplicity. Masterworks
exhibit this rational integration of diverse perspectives into a meaningful
whole.
Thus mathematics and art take opposite approaches towards complexity.
Mathematics simplifies the messy world into abstract rational relationships.
This reductionism gives mathematical knowledge its precision and
universality. In contrast, art embraces the cacophony of sensations that
bombard our consciousness. It weaves them into an integrated aesthetic
experience. This holism allows art to convey intricacy and meaning.
However, both simplicity and complexity have limitations. As mentioned,
excessive abstraction strips away context, making concepts detached and
artificial. But unfettered complexity also has downsides. According to the
psychologist William James, a complex idea or object can be distinguished
from a simple one based on the number of its constituent parts and the
intricacy of their interrelations. As either factor increases, there is greater
cognitive load to processed the idea or object. An excessively intricate
concept or entity can become impenetrable.
This relates to the distinction between concepts and propositions highlighted
by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Concepts are the basic elements of
thought. Propositions combine concepts into judgments. Simple concepts
can be assembled into highly complex propositions. For instance, in Euclid’s
Elements, basic geometric concepts like point, line and plane are woven into
elaborate proofs. The concepts themselves remain fairly intuitive and
straightforward, but the propositions can become extremely complicated.
So while mathematics favors conceptual simplicity, it also employs
conceptual simplicity to construct complex chains of reasoning. This is
exemplified in number theory, where simple ideas like prime factorization are
logically developed into advanced ideas like the Riemann Hypothesis. The
intrinsic complexity arises from connecting concepts, not the concepts
themselves.
In art, there is again a reverse tendency. The individual elements may be
simple and accessible, but their synthesis creates emergent complexity. As
Aristotle noted, a tragedy may utilize a straightforward plot, but the overall
impact emerges from the artful construction. The experience of viewing
Guernica arises from how Picasso combines the visual components to
provoke complex emotions. The nuance emerges from the integration.
Thus, while math simplifies concepts and complicates propositions, art
simplifies components and complicates the emergent whole. This difference
likely stems from the aims of these areas of knowledge. Mathematics seeks
timeless abstract truths about an ordered universe. Thus, simple and universal
concepts have priority over contextual details. But art explores fleeting
subjective human experiences. Thus, art relishes the concrete and complex,
weaving simplicity into profundity.
In conclusion, mathematics and art take diverging approaches towards
complexity in their understanding of the world. Mathematics simplifies
experience into elegant theories, finding parsimony and clarity in abstraction.
In contrast, art emulates experience in all its intricacy, constructing complexity
from simplicity. Neither approach is intrinsically superior – both offer
meaningful insights. As exemplars of objective and subjective knowledge
respectively, mathematics and art showcase the diverse function and
limitations of simplicity and complexity across different domains. How an
area of knowledge relates to complexity reveals its core values and
limitations.
The contrast between mathematics and art highlights a broader debate about
the merits of reductionism versus holism in comprehending the world.
Reductionism believes that complex systems can be understood by breaking
them down into their constituent parts. The behavior of the whole is
explainable through the properties of the parts. This aligns with the
mathematical approach of distilling concepts down to their essence. Holism
instead argues that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Complex
systems exhibit emergent properties that arise from the relationships between
parts, not just the parts in isolation. This fits with art's synthesis of
components into something novel and intricate.
These contrasting philosophies extend into other disciplines. In psychology,
some believe emotions can be reduced to neurological mechanics. Others see
emotions as gestalts emerging from subjective experience. In economics,
some models simplify human behavior into equations of rational self-interest.
Others argue that economics relies on complex psychological and
sociological factors. Across fields, there are attempts to either simplify
phenomena into elemental pieces or contextualize them within intricate
systems. The relative utility of reductionism versus holism remains a subject
of lively debate.
In our quotidian lives, we oscillate between these perspectives. Sometimes it
helps to zoom out and see the bigger picture, not becoming lost in details.
Other times, focusing narrowly illuminates a problem, preventing extraneous
factors from obscuring the essence. Wisdom involves discerning when to
simplify and when to embrace nuance. Mathematics and art exemplify the
contrasts between reductionism and holism, but most perspectives involve
utilizing both approaches in moderation. By flexibly applying simplicity and
complexity, we gain multidimensional understanding.