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?
|
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