purported fake pollocks look real to me
That one reproduced looks fake to me, but I want to scream whenever I read about scientists thinking they can analyze art using mathematical models.
Critics fall victim to that, too--such as Pepe Karmel's computer-aided analysis of Pollocks to find traces of the human figure in his abstractions.
How about the "Mona Lisa is a self-portrait" thing that came out of Bell Labs?
Having painted portraits for years I think they all look a little like me. You work from the physiognomy you know best to construct an "interior model" that helps you understand the exterior you're looking at. Mathematical models can get within a hair of telling you what you want to know about various art things--but the hair is a human subjectivity factor that is the essence of connoisseurship. (Or Zenovian number-crunching to the end of eternity). I'm sure with wine a spectral analysis could match all the trace elements but it's stiil the nose that knows.
Forget the self-portrait, the hot new theory is Leonardo as artist/model of the Shroud of Turin. He covered himself with an obscure mixture and wrapped the fabric around his body to create the image. In this manner he invented performance art 500 years early, same as the airplane. I just don’t understand how NBC missed this angle since they have sold out the Olympics as a billboard for the upcoming da Vinci Code movie. But instead of working the Turin tie-in they’re calling it Torino. That’s how the locals say it, but they call it Italia too. The only thing I can figure is they’re working the muscle car angle.
OK it wasn't performance it was photography, and it's not a new theory but really, what's the difference? Do you want your news to be true? Do you want your truths to be new?
This story is hilarious! Those damn fractals oughta be good for something besides determining the circumference of Finland. I read a different version. To be honest, I actually think this is kind of cool, even if its bullshit: "The only shared thing in Pollock's very different poured paintings is a fractal composition that was systematic through the years," he said. "Pollock was in control. The large-scale fractals are a fingerprint of the artist's body motion."
One of the things I learned in art school was always break your own rules. That includes things like recognizing your own characteristic quirks and "body motions" so you don't repeat yourself. Pollock was "in control" but not a machine. You can't quantify the good artists. Or if you're going to start quantifying, you have to understand the art and what it means.
There are two dorks with computers analyzing Pollock--one (the guy helping Pepe Karmel) has concluded that every drip Pollock made started with a drawing of the human figure. The other, this guy, says the drips are chaotic, fractal patterns. It can't be both. Both are wrong.
I say it's because they don't get the art--a mix of psychodynamic inventiveness and alcoholic rage. An empath, not a scientist, is needed to authenticate Pollocks.
I agree the story is hilarious. I also find those charts tracking eye movements when men look at nudes funny. Can they tell us something we don't know?
I never learned that in school. We were too busy researching the cheapest ways to take down capitalism by infiltrating it with mass produced (ie: more than 2) art products. sigh.
Landau, however, says there may be a very good reason Taylor could not find the familiar fractal patterns in the disputed paintings: Pollock was experimenting with different styles influenced by Herbert Matter's photographic work.
Landau, author of books on Pollock and his wife Lee Krasner, said she can show that "Pollock was looking at Herbert's work, and he was thinking about Herbert's work, and obviously the two of them were exchanging information back and forth about their experimental attitude."
She said her research at the Matter archive at Stanford University uncovered "amazing photographs" that led her to material that shows strategies Pollock had involving the works of Herbert Matter.
Still, Landau acknowledges, "The only people who really know anything about these paintings are Pollock and Herbert Matter."
|
- bill 2-09-2006 1:20 am
That one reproduced looks fake to me, but I want to scream whenever I read about scientists thinking they can analyze art using mathematical models.
Critics fall victim to that, too--such as Pepe Karmel's computer-aided analysis of Pollocks to find traces of the human figure in his abstractions.
- tom moody 2-09-2006 2:03 am [add a comment]
How about the "Mona Lisa is a self-portrait" thing that came out of Bell Labs?
- mark 2-10-2006 12:41 am [add a comment]
Having painted portraits for years I think they all look a little like me. You work from the physiognomy you know best to construct an "interior model" that helps you understand the exterior you're looking at. Mathematical models can get within a hair of telling you what you want to know about various art things--but the hair is a human subjectivity factor that is the essence of connoisseurship. (Or Zenovian number-crunching to the end of eternity). I'm sure with wine a spectral analysis could match all the trace elements but it's stiil the nose that knows.
- tom moody 2-10-2006 12:55 am [add a comment]
Forget the self-portrait, the hot new theory is Leonardo as artist/model of the Shroud of Turin. He covered himself with an obscure mixture and wrapped the fabric around his body to create the image. In this manner he invented performance art 500 years early, same as the airplane. I just don’t understand how NBC missed this angle since they have sold out the Olympics as a billboard for the upcoming da Vinci Code movie. But instead of working the Turin tie-in they’re calling it Torino. That’s how the locals say it, but they call it Italia too. The only thing I can figure is they’re working the muscle car angle.
- alex 2-10-2006 4:39 am [add a comment]
OK it wasn't performance it was photography, and it's not a new theory but really, what's the difference? Do you want your news to be true? Do you want your truths to be new?
- alex 2-10-2006 5:00 am [add a comment]
This story is hilarious! Those damn fractals oughta be good for something besides determining the circumference of Finland. I read a different version. To be honest, I actually think this is kind of cool, even if its bullshit: "The only shared thing in Pollock's very different poured paintings is a fractal composition that was systematic through the years," he said. "Pollock was in control. The large-scale fractals are a fingerprint of the artist's body motion."
- sally mckay 2-15-2006 1:26 am [add a comment]
One of the things I learned in art school was always break your own rules. That includes things like recognizing your own characteristic quirks and "body motions" so you don't repeat yourself. Pollock was "in control" but not a machine. You can't quantify the good artists. Or if you're going to start quantifying, you have to understand the art and what it means.
There are two dorks with computers analyzing Pollock--one (the guy helping Pepe Karmel) has concluded that every drip Pollock made started with a drawing of the human figure. The other, this guy, says the drips are chaotic, fractal patterns. It can't be both. Both are wrong.
I say it's because they don't get the art--a mix of psychodynamic inventiveness and alcoholic rage. An empath, not a scientist, is needed to authenticate Pollocks.
I agree the story is hilarious. I also find those charts tracking eye movements when men look at nudes funny. Can they tell us something we don't know?
- tom moody 2-15-2006 1:44 am [add a comment]
I never learned that in school. We were too busy researching the cheapest ways to take down capitalism by infiltrating it with mass produced (ie: more than 2) art products. sigh.
- sally mckay 2-15-2006 2:02 am [add a comment]
- bill 2-27-2006 7:14 am [add a comment]