BF2S Forums Jackson Pollock

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Fucking shit.

This is art.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … Goings.jpg

Yes, that's Oil on canvas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … utor_1.jpg

Again, Oil on canvas. Not a picture.

Funky_Finny wrote:

Miggle wrote:

@finny, no u.

Stevie fucking Wonder saw that coming.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Fucking shit.

This is art.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … Goings.jpg

Yes, that's Oil on canvas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … utor_1.jpg

Again, Oil on canvas. Not a picture.

Why bother painting something you can see in real life?

Why bother splattering some supposedly "fractal" lines of paint or someshit on a piece of canvas? It's a demonstration of skill that very few people can do, most Abstract art is just ideas that come into your head when you're high. They don't really demonstrate any skill.

Infact, Abstract art is a skill. In terms of how good you are at explaining your work of art shit. If you've got good vocabulary, a wild imagination etc.. you can turn a square into a work of art. Which is fucking stupid.

Pictures like the ones I posted, they don't need no explaining. When you tell someone that it was painted, they actually go "wow", whereas with Abstract art. It's more about explaining some shit just to give the artwork some meaning. You spend more time reading/listening about what the actual Abstract art is, than actually looking at it. I mean what's up with that?

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Ugh... I had classes on this guy during my American Art course. I'm leaning more towards art than con artist though... I see where you guys come from with "it's just a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas" and I agree to some extent.. but Pollock had a special way of splattering the paint, making it look like something more than just splattered paint. For example, I really like this painting he made, called Guardians of the Secret:

http://www.kaliweb.com/jacksonpollock/i … secret.jpg

ghettoperson wrote:

Jackson Pollock is one of the last modern 'artists' I'd criticize. At least his stuff looks cool. There are plenty of modern 'artists' that make fucking terrible 'art'.

S.Lythberg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

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.

You may not, but mathematicians do:

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.

^(source)

See also http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/phys_about/ … aylor.html

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:
http://www.coolmath.com/fractals/images/fractal21.gif

because all lines are approximately alike, so all lines are fractals in their definition.

bogus tbh

S.Lythberg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

You don't understand fractals.

I was part of a team that constructed a 20 foot fractal pattern back in 6th grade, i do know fractals.

There is only a small degree of similarity between his lines and angles, and is a very weak example of a fractal, possessing neither scale symmetry or repeating patterns.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-05-06 20:36:07)

S.Lythberg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

I was part of a team that constructed a 20 foot fractal pattern back in 6th grade, i do know fractals.

There is only a small degree of similarity between his lines and angles, and is a very weak example of a fractal, possessing neither scale symmetry or repeating patterns.

Oh, so something you did when you were 11years old means you know all about fractals?

There is so much more to fractals than mandlebrot, sierpinski, dragons and ferns.

If you really know something about the mathematics of fractals, read this and you'll see that his splash paintings are indeed fractals.

Would you say the coastline of the US (or any non-land-locked country) is a fractal?

no, i would not.  It is possible to express anything mathematically, that does not mean it was intentionally designed that way.  I consider a fractal to be a design with a high >50% correlation between random parts, not a coastline or pattern of squiggles with single digit correlations.

His designs may be very loosely correlated on a small scale, but so is everything else in the universe, and it's not impressive.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-05-06 20:44:39)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Anything can be correlated if you try hard enough,

their equations require a logarithm for both variables to make it statistically relevant, and based on the graph, it appears that the correlation is on the order of 10^-6, not exactly significant.

Again, you just don't really understand fractal geometry.

Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-05-06 21:07:45)