Most of the time a cube is connected to fourfold symmetry - cubic and square. Sometimes also with twofold symmetry. But looking at a cube perpendicular over one of its corners it can be clearly seen that it is also connected with threefold and sixfold symmetry.
This is a triple exposure and push 200->400 for getting an abstract glimpse of that geometry.
Oops, considering the many photographically useless "ka's" and similar disease, I forgot to say thanks for the nice comment. I am glad that you find it classic despite the fact that it does not have anything classical at all.
Hmm, just in case you thought I am a ka, a have to diappoint you. Of course if it is meant as "yes", then you still can use it, but the syntactical rules of english are somewhat different regarding the position and the function of a "yes". :-)
Or let's say, the meaning of the word "woman" and of the word "yes" is... the same? Ne? Oh well... ;-)
Hi ka Nick ;) (ka again) this is a very good triple exposure with the colour ka. I like this colour. So for me this picture look classic ka .;) Regaeds from china ka.
Thank you very very much for the detailed and very interesting reply, Bhabesh! I don't find your comment nerdy at all - quite the opposite is the case! It brought me to thoughts, and I thank cou very much for this.
Indeed, the simplification in terms of symmetries, or other basic things, out of which we reconstruct the world, is mathematically extermely interesting for its own self. Though the absolutely "perfect" C2, etc group does not exist in the physical world, it does exist in the mental world. It seems like the case of speaking about the earth as if it were a sphere, which it is of course not. So, we map some things onto mental constructs that have some similarity with the "real" world, but are not themselves the "real" world - modelling.
Even the most essential things, like points or lines do not really exist physically, but are abstractions from the physical layer, that seem to develop a very important property: They get self-contained and stabilize as thoughts, which then allow any further investigation. For example, in nature we don't have real points but rather spots of different sizes, colors, etc. It is then the abtraction to those few properties that make the mental product - the geometrical point - a very good fundament for further work, but it still remains quite a "ghost". (Euclid: A point is that which has no parts. (???)) But if it weren't that way, we would have to consider colors, weights, and other insignificant properties of the meaning of the point, that would take away any chance to sublime the few important things, on which further formalisation is possible. The naive platonism may be.. naive, but it turns to be an extremely powerful method. (You might want to take a look at http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt.html#contents - excellent online publication on the very essence of mathematics itself.)
On the image itself, now I understand what you mean. Indeed, the symmetries seem to dissolve into each other in a very subtle way. Perhaps one reason for that is that the image does some projection of 3D into 2D? The spectator knows what a cube is, and it looks like a cube, but then you follow the lines of the edges and somehow it flips to a hexagon - or something like that.
Thank you so much for this extremely interesting comment, and best wishes!
Hi, Thanks for adding me as a friend and I am so glad to have you as a friend. Yes, by illusion what I meant is...the geomatric shapes are defined by their angles, edges, sides and planes. Now if you follow some edges of any given shape, it dissolves into one plane and no longer remains an edge, and ultimately takes you into another shape before you even realize. Its like a puzzle. I think the basic human nature is to simplify anything, a simplistic approach is to define the shapes in your composition...but even if you want or don't want, you enter into something which wou did not think about. Probably illusion is not the best word to describe that feeling...but it is something close probably. I am not sure if my explanation clarifies or makes it even confusing...and thats due to the effect of the composition, you see. In the about section you talked about symmetry, and there is symmetry...but if you try to find it in terms of C2, C4, etc...then you will be lost. Since you are a scientist, probably you are famillier with the C2, C4 etc...the stereochemical way. Is it or is it not?? My commet really looks very nerdy and I apologise. Regards, bhabesh
0 
