Mm. Some artists use and discuss the golden mean, but usually their stuff looks perpetually like student work, or like technical demonstrations for students.
   There's a book out about math and the Mona Lisa, but it's discussion of optics and elusive smiles and such doesn't seem to me to rise above the level of a neat visual trick. Those moving images you used to get in cracker jack boxes have really improved over the years, but haven't risen to the level of high art yet.
   I think I disagree that symbols aren't real. It's like saying there's a "line" between art and life, when art is really a wholly owned subsidiary. Symbols are real in the firmest reified sense because people use them and think in the shadows of them, and actual things happen. Take away the concept of zero, or repetion systems of numbers, and things would probably be observably different. So if you grant that science can observe itself to some extent, or can observe people, learning, brain development, language, and such, you have to grant symbols some real status, but just so much.

Why does a mirror reverse things from left to right, but not up and down?

This simple problem was in my daughter's homework and generated a little controversy. If you take 100, divide it by 1/2, add 19, and subtract 11, what's your result?

Why can math divide things longer than they are?

How do you determine how high a kite is flying?