Roger Bagula
2006-12-28 21:14:35 UTC
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/116695368129410.xml&coll=2
( first page of 7 pages: I've posted several, other articles on this at
sci.fractals)
The debate over fractals is proving most fractious
Case physicists roil scientific, art worlds
Sunday, December 24, 2006
John Mangels
Plain Dealer Science Writer
Kate Jones-Smith is the first to admit she's no artist.
The Case Western Reserve University physics student's doodles would look
at home in a kindergarten classroom. One of her drawings -- a
constellation of crude circles that resembles a bad case of chickenpox
-- was so ugly she titled it "Gross Pebbles."
Jones-Smith, in short, is no Jackson Pollock.
And yet, the 60-second scribbles she churned out on her computer one
evening this year fit the criteria of genuine Pollocks. They contain the
same distinctive geometric shapes that the famous abstract painter
supposedly spent his career perfect- ing.
According to University of Oregon physicist Richard Taylor, who has
spent years mathematically analyzing the expressionist's
drip-and-splatter canvases, only Pollock was able to master the ability
to consistent- ly create the complex pat- terns known as fractals in his
artwork.
The layers upon layers of paint in Pollock works such as "Blue Poles:
Number 11" and "Full Fathom Five" are "dense webs of fractals," Taylor
has written.
The researcher has staked his professional reputation on -- and won a
good deal of fame for -- his purported ability to judge real Pollocks
from imitations, based on what he says is their unique fractal signature.
So how to explain Jones-Smith's childlike jottings, which she has shown
can pass Taylor's Pollock tests?
"That's the whole thing - they're not very aesthetically appealing, yet
they're fractal," Jones-Smith said. "It attacks pretty much every one of
[Taylor's] claims. You can look at this and see either his criteria are
wrong, or these drawings are genuine Pollocks."
Taylor strongly disputes the findings, calling them "fundamentally flawed."
CONTINUED 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next
( first page of 7 pages: I've posted several, other articles on this at
sci.fractals)
The debate over fractals is proving most fractious
Case physicists roil scientific, art worlds
Sunday, December 24, 2006
John Mangels
Plain Dealer Science Writer
Kate Jones-Smith is the first to admit she's no artist.
The Case Western Reserve University physics student's doodles would look
at home in a kindergarten classroom. One of her drawings -- a
constellation of crude circles that resembles a bad case of chickenpox
-- was so ugly she titled it "Gross Pebbles."
Jones-Smith, in short, is no Jackson Pollock.
And yet, the 60-second scribbles she churned out on her computer one
evening this year fit the criteria of genuine Pollocks. They contain the
same distinctive geometric shapes that the famous abstract painter
supposedly spent his career perfect- ing.
According to University of Oregon physicist Richard Taylor, who has
spent years mathematically analyzing the expressionist's
drip-and-splatter canvases, only Pollock was able to master the ability
to consistent- ly create the complex pat- terns known as fractals in his
artwork.
The layers upon layers of paint in Pollock works such as "Blue Poles:
Number 11" and "Full Fathom Five" are "dense webs of fractals," Taylor
has written.
The researcher has staked his professional reputation on -- and won a
good deal of fame for -- his purported ability to judge real Pollocks
from imitations, based on what he says is their unique fractal signature.
So how to explain Jones-Smith's childlike jottings, which she has shown
can pass Taylor's Pollock tests?
"That's the whole thing - they're not very aesthetically appealing, yet
they're fractal," Jones-Smith said. "It attacks pretty much every one of
[Taylor's] claims. You can look at this and see either his criteria are
wrong, or these drawings are genuine Pollocks."
Taylor strongly disputes the findings, calling them "fundamentally flawed."
CONTINUED 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next
