BF2S Forums Jackson Pollock

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

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.

Thankyou for proving that you know absolutely nothing about fractal geometry.

Fractals have nothing to do with design.

They have a lot to do with nature.

Coastlines ARE fractal. Trees are fractal. The pattern of craters on the moon is fractal.

Nature is fractal.

None of these things were designed.

Yes indeed nature follows fractal patterns all the time. That doesnt mean his pattern is art. Its still just lines on a page, it doesnt express anything, if no one can understand what your art is meant to be or say it isnt art. To me that would be the total opposite of the purpose of art.

All though ill give him credit as its atleast closer to art than some dude shitting on a stool and putting it in an art gallery like some total tards.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-05-06 21:12:35)

S.Lythberg wrote:

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.

either way, his designs are not intentional, i could splash random lines on a canvas and then mathematically compute the fractal correlation (which would require a hell of a lot more talent than the painting part)

and Cowami, don't think about fractals too hard, they're not on the exam.  AB is harder than BC btw.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong they were intentionally painted like that - he didn't intentionally paint them to be fractals - the term 'fractal' didn't even exist when he painted them - but rather hew wanted to reflect nature, which just happens to be fractal.


And go ahead, splash random lines on a canvas, then take it to a gallery of modern art and tell tham it's a genuine Pollock.

They'll take it off your hands and get it tested.

Then they'll come back and tell you to fuck off.


Why? Because you don't create fractal patterns like that. Fractals are NOT RANDOM.


The whole point about Pollocks being fractal is that he wanted to recreate what he saw in nature. Nature just happens to be fractal. And, he ended up painting fractals. WITHOUT KNOWING.

The man was a genius.

brb going out to splash paint on the ground for monehs

Be a Jackson Pollock yourself and throw paint all over the place at http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

Remember to left click to change color

I watched clip from some show a while back all about modern art and stuff, this dude who looked like your stereotypical modern art collector (skinny, goatee beard and a turtle neck jumper, called Jorg or something) was saying how brilliant modern art is (bearing in mind at the time he was admiring three black lines and a red circle). He said that art depicting something real is pointless as its a representation of something, and modern art represents (yes he said that) emotion or something. Meanwhile backstage they got a chimp, gave it some paper and paint and let it loose with it. Then when it was done they brought it out and this guy thought it was brilliant, I srsly lol'd when he asked who had painted it and they brought out this chimp .

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

either way, his designs are not intentional, i could splash random lines on a canvas and then mathematically compute the fractal correlation (which would require a hell of a lot more talent than the painting part)

and Cowami, don't think about fractals too hard, they're not on the exam.  AB is harder than BC btw.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong they were intentionally painted like that - he didn't intentionally paint them to be fractals - the term 'fractal' didn't even exist when he painted them - but rather hew wanted to reflect nature, which just happens to be fractal.


And go ahead, splash random lines on a canvas, then take it to a gallery of modern art and tell tham it's a genuine Pollock.

They'll take it off your hands and get it tested.

Then they'll come back and tell you to fuck off.


Why? Because you don't create fractal patterns like that. Fractals are NOT RANDOM.


The whole point about Pollocks being fractal is that he wanted to recreate what he saw in nature. Nature just happens to be fractal. And, he ended up painting fractals. WITHOUT KNOWING.

The man was a genius.

Spot on. He's no Caravaggio though.....

If you want to see some shit modern art, have a look a Tracy Emin's stuff.
http://rantingsofanenglishman.files.wor … 000001.jpg

Damn! If it took a pic of my room right now, I'd be a millionaire

Ok, you guys need to chill the fuck out.

Art is subjective, not objective. What you may not see, someone else might. I personally love the Impressionist paintings, because they tried to mimic true colors, not true forms so much. Other people hate it.

I only like selective modern art, but I don't question that it's art. Same goes with abstract art. What many of you may not know is that Picasso actually did many many revisions of the same painting to get it to the point of it being in it's final form.

I'm not so sure I agree with you about the photorealistic diner either, FM. It takes great skill to get a painting to that level of detail. I prefer Nighthawks as well, but that doesn't retract the fact that the photorealistic diner is impressive and a work of art.

I don't know, I just think that it makes more sense to say you don't like a certain style, than writing it off to being a piece of shit and that it's not art.

At least respect other people's views..

Art is totally subjective. What one may see as art another may see as simply lines. Art is different for anyone and there is absolutely no way anyone has the right to say "that's not art". Art isn't a picture. It's an experience. To both the creator and viewer.

Freezer7Pro wrote:

No.

Just no.

Can that guy even draw a stick figure?

Your sig avatar is art tbh

kylef wrote:

At least respect other people's views...

Last edited by jsnipy (2008-05-07 09:47:38)

He is a true artist because he started the modern movement. Before him, people had never seen anything like that. He tried hard to create things that invoke emotions and interest. Yes, anyone can slap paint on a canvas like that, but he gets credit for being the first one to take that step.