END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

Last year, a University of Oregon physicist, Richard Taylor, used computers to analyze six of the disputed paintings. Taylor was looking for subtle but distinctive geometric patterns called fractals, which he said his image analysis technique had previously identified in the swirls of authentic Pollock paintings.

Taylor reported that the patterns in the disputed paintings didn't match the sophisticated fractals he claims to have found in accepted Pollock artwork. While not declaring outright that the newly discovered works were illegitimate, Taylor suggested other artists could have painted them.

As a test, Jones-Smith quickly and crudely sketched a field of stars in the manner of a 3-year-old's scribble. She subjected the drawing, which she called "Untitled 5," to the kind of analysis Taylor used.

The screening indicated that "Untitled 5" contained a complex fractal, one that Taylor contends only the highly skilled Pollock was consistently able to produce.

"My simple drawing had those two fractal dimensions, and it looks like a kindergartner's artwork," Jones-Smith said in an interview Wednesday. "We're saying that fractal analysis, in its current state, should not be used to authenticate artwork. We think this is not good science, and as scientists, it's our responsibility to get out there and say so."

Why must it be either?  The history of art is full of folks using all manner of means to authenticate pieces.  If an x-ray machine can be used, why not a fractal analysis?  Seriously--what's the objection?