Title: Jackson Pollock and Fractals??? Post by: Sockratease on December 01, 2006, 02:57:22 AM So it's come to this.
Bah. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1164879802222660.xml&coll=2 Quote 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. I don't know if that is funny or offensive! Title: Re: Jackson Pollock and Fractals??? Post by: lkmitch on December 01, 2006, 11:35:28 PM 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?
Kerry Title: Re: Jackson Pollock and Fractals??? Post by: Sockratease on December 02, 2006, 01:01:41 AM Quote 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." I was Deeply Bothered that a quick hand sketch could produce fractals of the type they sought in the paintings. I would need to be convinced on this one that different Artists' fractal patterns differed enough, AND were consistent enough to use in this way. Given that test sketch, I doubt the process. Title: Re: Jackson Pollock and Fractals??? Post by: Nahee_Enterprises on February 16, 2007, 07:58:41 PM The New York Times has a follow up article about the art of Jackson Pollock and fractals:
Drip Wars -- A Pollock, in the Eyes of Art and Science http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04kennedy.html?ex=1328245200&en=e789e7a267ab68ee&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04kennedy.html?ex=1328245200&en=e789e7a267ab68ee&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) Title: Re: Jackson Pollock and Fractals??? Post by: Nahee_Enterprises on March 24, 2009, 03:25:06 PM 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? According to a recent article in the "Science News" magazine, made available on March 19th, 2009, scientists strengthen claim that fractal analysis for authenticating a Pollock painting is moot: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41944/title/Nevermind_the_Pollock_fractals (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41944/title/Nevermind_the_Pollock_fractals) The pendulum swings the other way now. :D |