An art historian who wanted to write a paper like an economist would draw a stick figure with a smile and explain, “My model of the Mona Lisa has the following implications. . .”
7 thoughts on “The art of economic modeling”
Arnold;
It’s unfair. An art historian writing like an economist might provide a black and white pictures of several paintings with some highlights in simple geometric patterns, or stick figures drawn over to represent the poses of the figures; and then propose the implications of the relationship between the proportions of the figures or the general features of the patterns. Yes, he might.
But, my stick figures are better than your stick figures.
I like the comparison. Art, like a specific economic “snapshot in time”, is impossible to correctly replicate or model, and the importance of any variation is up for debate.
“ I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition … we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.”
-John Eccles
Art = Skill, two nouns that denote great ability in doing or performing that is attained especially by study or practice.
I think that the simple modeling of exchange as represented in the Edgeworth box is as extraordinary as the Mona Lisa. As a teacher, I had many opportunities to explain the E-box and I enjoyed every one: it was the product of a brilliant mind. As a researcher, many times I regretted not to be able enough to model interesting social interactions
I assume that as teachers, many art historians can tell us stories about how da Vinci thought and painted the Mona Lisa. I’m not expecting, however, they can paint a Mona Lisa.
I don’t understand what Arnold wanted to say in this post.
Never pass up a moment to invent bogus theory, and I won’t.
The painting was finished in France, and Leonardo was not happy about being moved to France, but an offer from the king is not refused. Leonardo also knew the King liked the unfinished painting, and wanted it for his own. So Leonardo created the expression that would haunt the King, in revenge. It was secret resentment.
An art historian who wanted to write a paper like a *macroeconomist* would choose a political position, and then figure out how to make the data and math support it.
Arnold;
It’s unfair. An art historian writing like an economist might provide a black and white pictures of several paintings with some highlights in simple geometric patterns, or stick figures drawn over to represent the poses of the figures; and then propose the implications of the relationship between the proportions of the figures or the general features of the patterns. Yes, he might.
But, my stick figures are better than your stick figures.
I like the comparison. Art, like a specific economic “snapshot in time”, is impossible to correctly replicate or model, and the importance of any variation is up for debate.
“ I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition … we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.”
-John Eccles
Art = Skill, two nouns that denote great ability in doing or performing that is attained especially by study or practice.
I think that the simple modeling of exchange as represented in the Edgeworth box is as extraordinary as the Mona Lisa. As a teacher, I had many opportunities to explain the E-box and I enjoyed every one: it was the product of a brilliant mind. As a researcher, many times I regretted not to be able enough to model interesting social interactions
I assume that as teachers, many art historians can tell us stories about how da Vinci thought and painted the Mona Lisa. I’m not expecting, however, they can paint a Mona Lisa.
I don’t understand what Arnold wanted to say in this post.
Never pass up a moment to invent bogus theory, and I won’t.
The painting was finished in France, and Leonardo was not happy about being moved to France, but an offer from the king is not refused. Leonardo also knew the King liked the unfinished painting, and wanted it for his own. So Leonardo created the expression that would haunt the King, in revenge. It was secret resentment.
An art historian who wanted to write a paper like a *macroeconomist* would choose a political position, and then figure out how to make the data and math support it.