Art, Beauty, and Monotheism

Cypress said:
I really like the stark simplicity of the Vietnam memorial, but I think the intent is to invoke an emotional response, not to win awards for pure aesthetic beauty.

A lot of people don't like the drip paintings of Jason Pollock. But there is obviously some reason they sell for millions of dollars. They seem to have some pattern, texture , or geometry that is striking to people of a certain aesthetic taste. Why is that? Because mathematicians have determined there is a subtle underlying fractal pattern in Pollack paintings. Amateurs wouldn't get fractals by randomly dripping paint on a canvas.
Click to expand...

I had not heard about the factals in Pollock's paintings. I am quite curious about that. I wonder how robust the math works. In otherwords is it something that happens occasionally randomly in that sort of random set and does it propagate across the canvas or is it limited to certain regions.

Given that I'm 100% certain Pollock was not seeking to do anything even remotely like that it would have to be a random chance effect. But to your point that a professional like Pollock might be able to achieve something different from pure random.

It's an interesting topic. Thanks for posting that.
 
Cypress said:
I really like the stark simplicity of the Vietnam memorial, but I think the intent is to invoke an emotional response, not to win awards for pure aesthetic beauty.

A lot of people don't like the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock. But there is obviously some reason they sell for millions of dollars. They seem to have some pattern, texture , or geometry that is striking to people of a certain aesthetic taste. Why is that? Because mathematicians have determined there is a subtle underlying fractal pattern in Pollack paintings. Amateurs wouldn't get fractals by randomly dripping paint on a canvas.
Click to expand...

I agree with the intent of the memorial but it's simplicity is beautiful. I don't see any connection between intent and beauty.

Yes Pollocks sell mostly I think because they aren't traditional. It's trendy to be "edgy". No one buys them for their beauty because they are. Again what affect art has on people is separate from it's beauty.
 
Yakuda said:
I agree with the intent of the memorial but it's simplicity is beautiful. I don't see any connection between intent and beauty.

Yes Pollocks sell mostly I think because they aren't traditional. It's trendy to be "edgy". No one buys them for their beauty because they are. Again what affect art has on people is separate from it's beauty.
Click to expand...

I like Jackson Pollock better than Piccasso, Salvador Dali, or Edward Munch or any of the post-modernists. I think they were trying to hard to be edgy

Pollock, to me, seemed to be focused on texture, pattern, geometry, and color. There's nothing contrived or affected about it. And maybe it's because his paintings express fractals which explain why they have achieved iconic status.


il_fullxfull.2869489971_1o5b.jpg
 
Cypress said:
I like Jackson Pollock better than Piccasso, Salvador Dali, or Edward Munch or any of the post-modernists. I think they were trying to hard to be edgy

Pollock, to me, seemed to be focused on texture, pattern, geometry, and color. There's nothing contrived or affected about it. And maybe it's because hia paintings express fractals explains why they have achieved iconic status.


il_fullxfull.2869489971_1o5b.jpg
Click to expand...

Never heard of the fractal stuff before you mentioned it.
 
Cypress said:
I like Jackson Pollock better than Piccasso, Salvador Dali, or Edward Munch or any of the post-modernists. I think they were trying to hard to be edgy

Pollock, to me, seemed to be focused on texture, pattern, geometry, and color. There's nothing contrived or affected about it. And maybe it's because his paintings express fractals which explain why they have achieved iconic status.


il_fullxfull.2869489971_1o5b.jpg
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd much rather look at a pollock all day than any of those others. I wouldnt call Pollocks work beautiful though.
 
Yakuda said:
I agree. I'd much rather look at a pollock all day than any of those others. I wouldnt call Pollocks work beautiful though.
Click to expand...

Not beautiful. But curious, intriguing, striking.

Salvador Dali's melting clocks just don't do it for me. Though I read somewhere it was sort of a homage to Einstein's discoveries about relativity and time.
 
Yakuda said:
Agreed but ugly art also has an effect. I don't see any connection between the two.
Click to expand...

One of my ALLTIME FAVORITE art shows was at Kiasma in Helsinki where they were showing their "most loved and most hated" modern art.

Even art that people find ugly and horrible is art. Sometimes I think the art one dislikes can be as much fun as art one actually likes.
 
Cypress said:
Because mathematicians have determined there is a subtle underlying fractal pattern in Pollack paintings. Amateurs wouldn't get fractals by randomly dripping paint on a canvas.
Click to expand...

This is genuinely fascinating. I wonder why that is. Since fractals arise perfectly naturally from many random processes (eg electric discharge lichtenberg patterns, river drainage patterns, etc.) I wonder what Pollock's was a result of.

Just leafing through some of the literature on this it appears that the "box counting" method might hold the key. I wonder, mathematically, if the existence of more curved lines of a given scale would lead to this.

Look at FIG 7 in THIS ARTICLE which compares a "chaotic pendulum" vs the "poured paint" image which has much more curvature to the lines. I wonder if there is a mathematical reason for one to have a factal dimensionality while the other fails.

I honestly do not think Pollock went out of his way to create something with scale invariance at one particular level. I'm pretty sure any fractals that arise out of his paintings are PURELY RANDOM CHANCE AND/OR SOME MATHEMATICAL FEATURE THAT FALLS OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF RANDOM GENERATOR.
 
BidenPresident said:
Never heard of the fractal stuff before you mentioned it.
Click to expand...

I read an article years ago that is how art museum curators detect fraudulent Pollock paintings which circulate on the art market, from genuine Pollacks. Mathematicians supposedly discovered that Pollock's paintings express subtle fractal forms which aren't present in the fraudulent paintings.
 
Cypress said:
Nobody calls Picasso's Guernica beautiful.

But any who reflects on it with a discerning mind can appreciate the psychological impacts it conveys about a notable atrocity committed in the Spanish civil war
Click to expand...

It helps if you know what Guernica is about. Because without someone telling you it is about a particular event in the Spanish Civil War it would be VERY hard, indeed, to figure out anything about it. Personally without the added context it really fails for me as art. I feel nothing just from the image itself.
 
Telocollinite said:
It helps if you know what Guernica is about. Because without someone telling you it is about a particular event in the Spanish Civil War it would be VERY hard, indeed, to figure out anything about it. Personally without the added context it really fails for me as art. I feel nothing just from the image itself.
Click to expand...

You don't seem like the type who likes any art.
 
Cypress said:
Not beautiful. But curious, intriguing, striking.

Salvador Dali's melting clocks just don't do it for me. Though I read somewhere it was sort of a homage to Einstein's discoveries about relativity and time.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough. I think it's beautiful

That makes sense doesnt it?
 
Telocollinite said:
It helps if you know what Guernica is about. Because without someone telling you it is about a particular event in the Spanish Civil War it would be VERY hard, indeed, to figure out anything about it. Personally without the added context it really fails for me as art. I feel nothing just from the image itself.
Click to expand...

That's because good art, like good literature, good science, and good philosophy, take work. You can't just appreciate it in a vacuum.

Those who are going to appreciate Geurnica are those who have done the work of studying history, listening to art historians, and reading the printed museum summaries that come with the painted collections.
 
Telocollinite said:
One of my ALLTIME FAVORITE art shows was at Kiasma in Helsinki where they were showing their "most loved and most hated" modern art.

Even art that people find ugly and horrible is art. Sometimes I think the art one dislikes can be as much fun as art one actually likes.
Click to expand...

What constitutes art is an entirely different subject. This is about beauty.
 
Cypress said:
That's because good art, like good literature, good science, and good philosophy, take work. You can't just appreciate it in a vacuum.

Those who are going to appreciate Geurnica are those who have done the work of studying history, listening to art historians, and reading the printed museum summaries that come with the painted collections.
Click to expand...

You have to choose to be affected by the work.
 
Yakuda said:
Ok fair enough. I think it's beautiful

That makes sense doesnt it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I don't think there is one single flavor of beauty, like in a Norman Rockwell painting, or a dozen roses.

I think there are quaint beauties, savage beauties, stark beauties, natural beauties, strange beauties, etc. Beauty has a certain intangible quality to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top