I'm not sure I entirely understand the idea of the "beautiful calculation", but I feel wary of it nonetheless. Something awful happened to 'serious' music during the 20th century when the notion of an underlying science nudged beauty and accessibility out of the way and substituted unique "systems" on it. When I was in conservatory many years ago, composition students found even the major contemporary composers anathema if they were at all approachable. As a consequence, much of what was composed also seemed to include long-winded technical explanations and even posited unique notation to make itself understood....which, by and large, it wasn't, and ISN"T!
If art and photography go down a road that requires words to explain them, then much will be lost. Truly visual artists, and truly musical composers, make their art first. Then theorists get hold of it and try to figure out how, and why, or even whether or not it works in their view, and what its about technically. Often, they fail but persist nonetheless because its' their job and "art speaK" happens. I'll need a far more specific explanation of what is meant by a "beautiful calculaton" and how that's different than a visually organized and creative sensibility before I can give much more thought to this guy's thesis.