| Cutting Edge Artist | 36% | 36% - 25 | ||||
| Con Artist | 63% | 63% - 44 | ||||
| Total: 69 | ||||||
con artist's are still artists I guessFlaming_Maniac wrote:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/F … ollock.jpg
A pretty controversial figure in the world of us lesser-beings who don't take every single painting ever called art to be a masterpiece. So do you think this guy was worthy of being called one of the most important modern artists, or he was just a drunk guy out of his mind out to make a buck?
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/F … e-1948.jpg
it is not a scribble.Funky_Finny wrote:
It's a scribble. Get over it.
fuck off.Miggle wrote:
it is not a scribble.Funky_Finny wrote:
It's a scribble. Get over it.
"to write hastily or carelessly: to scribble a letter."
"to write or draw in a hasty or careless way."
"to make meaningless marks, scrolls, lines, etc., with a pencil, pen, or the like."
I would say that the 3rd definition pretty much matches that 'art'.Miggle wrote:
it is not a scribble.Funky_Finny wrote:
It's a scribble. Get over it.
"to write hastily or carelessly: to scribble a letter."
"to write or draw in a hasty or careless way."
"to make meaningless marks, scrolls, lines, etc., with a pencil, pen, or the like."
He passed away a while ago...Miggle wrote:
He's kinda hot.
with a pencil, pen, or the like.liquidat0r wrote:
I would say that the 3rd definition pretty much matches that 'art'.Miggle wrote:
it is not a scribble.Funky_Finny wrote:
It's a scribble. Get over it.
"to write hastily or carelessly: to scribble a letter."
"to write or draw in a hasty or careless way."
"to make meaningless marks, scrolls, lines, etc., with a pencil, pen, or the like."
How much talent does it take to just throw paint on a canvas? None.Eye-GiZzLe wrote:
i can see how some abstract stuff is art, but seriously, how much talent does it take to throw paint on a canvas? /fail imo
lmaoScorpion0x17 wrote:
How much talent does it take to just throw paint on a canvas? None.Eye-GiZzLe wrote:
i can see how some abstract stuff is art, but seriously, how much talent does it take to throw paint on a canvas? /fail imo
How much talent does it take to throw paint on a canvas and make it fractal? Fuck loads.
Stevie fucking Wonder saw that coming.Miggle wrote:
@finny, no u.
zomg it arent fraktalS.Lythberg wrote:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3113 … ecekv4.jpg
I R artist?
I'll take my millions now!
Eye-GiZzLe wrote:
zomg it arent fraktalS.Lythberg wrote:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3113 … ecekv4.jpg
I R artist?
I'll take my millions now!
Last edited by argo4 (2008-05-06 15:23:30)
You may not, but mathematicians do:S.Lythberg wrote:
i don't see a fractal pattern in any of his works, it looks like a jumble of paint lines, and little else.
(source)Fractals have experienced considerable success in quantifying the complex structure
exhibited by many natural patterns and have captured the imagination of scientists
and artists alike [Mandelbrot]. With ever widening appeal, they have been referred to
both as "fingerprints of nature" [Taylor et al 1999] and "the new aesthetics"
[Richards]. Recently, we showed that the drip patterns of the American abstract
painter Jackson Pollock are fractal [Taylor et al 1999]. In this paper, we describe
visual perception tests that investigate whether fractal images generated by
mathematical, natural and human processes possess a shared aesthetic quality based
on visual complexity.
(source)Physicist Richard P. Taylor of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who is also trained as an artist, has taken a mathematical look at Pollock's splatter paintings to try to uncover the secret of their appeal to many viewers.
"The unique thing about Jackson Pollock was that he abandoned using the brush on canvas and actually dripped the paint," Taylor says. "That produced trajectories of paint on the canvas that were like a [two-dimensional] map or fingerprint of his [three-dimensional] motions around the canvas."
Taylor photographed the Pollock painting Blue Poles, Number 11, 1952 (see http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/art/pollock.html), which the Australian government had purchased in 1972 for $2 million and put on display at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra. He and his colleagues then scanned the photos and used a computer to analyze the color schemes and trajectories evident in the painting.
The researchers discovered that Pollock's patterns could be characterized as fractals--shapes that repeat themselves on different scales within the same object. In a fractal object or pattern, each smaller structure is a miniature, though not necessarily identical, version of the larger form. Fractals often occur in nature, from the meanderings of a coastline, in which the shapes of small inlets approximate the curves of an entire shoreline, to the branchings of trees and the lacy forms of snowflakes and ferns.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-05-06 15:30:45)
Oh, well they seem to be using a BS definition of fractal then. The definition I would use is a repeating series that forms a larger, also repeating series, such as the fractal dragon picture, a snail shell, or this:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You may not, but mathematicians do:S.Lythberg wrote:
i don't see a fractal pattern in any of his works, it looks like a jumble of paint lines, and little else.(source)Fractals have experienced considerable success in quantifying the complex structure
exhibited by many natural patterns and have captured the imagination of scientists
and artists alike [Mandelbrot]. With ever widening appeal, they have been referred to
both as "fingerprints of nature" [Taylor et al 1999] and "the new aesthetics"
[Richards]. Recently, we showed that the drip patterns of the American abstract
painter Jackson Pollock are fractal [Taylor et al 1999]. In this paper, we describe
visual perception tests that investigate whether fractal images generated by
mathematical, natural and human processes possess a shared aesthetic quality based
on visual complexity.(source)Physicist Richard P. Taylor of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who is also trained as an artist, has taken a mathematical look at Pollock's splatter paintings to try to uncover the secret of their appeal to many viewers.
"The unique thing about Jackson Pollock was that he abandoned using the brush on canvas and actually dripped the paint," Taylor says. "That produced trajectories of paint on the canvas that were like a [two-dimensional] map or fingerprint of his [three-dimensional] motions around the canvas."
Taylor photographed the Pollock painting Blue Poles, Number 11, 1952 (see http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/art/pollock.html), which the Australian government had purchased in 1972 for $2 million and put on display at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra. He and his colleagues then scanned the photos and used a computer to analyze the color schemes and trajectories evident in the painting.
The researchers discovered that Pollock's patterns could be characterized as fractals--shapes that repeat themselves on different scales within the same object. In a fractal object or pattern, each smaller structure is a miniature, though not necessarily identical, version of the larger form. Fractals often occur in nature, from the meanderings of a coastline, in which the shapes of small inlets approximate the curves of an entire shoreline, to the branchings of trees and the lacy forms of snowflakes and ferns.
See also http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/phys_about/ … aylor.html
