A Case Western Reserve University graduate student has rebutted the idea that Jackson Pollock's paintings can be authenticated by their fractal characteristics. Katherine Jones-Smith's article appears in Nature: "Fractal Analysis: Revisiting Pollock's drip paintings" (subscription required for full article), and it debunks previous work by physicist Richard Taylor who claimed, in a 1999 Nature article, that his analysis identified certain fractal statistics that only Pollock could produce, and subsequently that two controversial new works were not authentic Pollocks based on this analysis. He also went on to say other silly things, according to Jones-Smith, like "this is why Pollock is such a master—that he had mastered the language of nature." From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
As a test, Jones-Smith quickly and crudely sketched a field of stars in the manner of a 3-year-old's scribble. She subjected the drawing, which she called "Untitled 5," to the kind of analysis Taylor used.
The screening indicated that "Untitled 5" contained a complex fractal, one that Taylor contends only the highly skilled Pollock was consistently able to produce.
"My simple drawing had those two fractal dimensions, and it looks like a kindergartner's artwork," Jones-Smith said in an interview Wednesday. "We're saying that fractal analysis, in its current state, should not be used to authenticate artwork. We think this is not good science, and as scientists, it's our responsibility to get out there and say so."
Link: Case researchers say artwork analysis flawed - Cleveland Plain Dealer
Lessons: it's easy to fool people with math, and even publications in prestigious science journals can be wrong.
See also:
Recent Comments