It's worth noting that Wilson's comment is A->B, C->D, not A=B, C=D.

Yeah, I know. It's just not clear that you have to love complexity and not like reductionism to get art. It's not A <-> B.

If it's not A <-> B then it's A -> B but even that seems sketchy. Lots of people love spouting, sketching, whatever, complex nonsense without doing anything I'd describe as art.

Of course, it'd help in this situation to be able to point at art - but the whole thought seems very muddled and imprecise, and the issues seems far from the blank assertion it's presented as.

Does that sound like a love of complexity to you?

No.