Re: The Case of Pollock?s Fractals Focuses on Physics

NG2000 wrote:

http://www.ng2000.com/news.php?tp=fractals

Two physicists' work provides a new twist in the mystery surrounding a group
of small drip paintings discovered several years ago in a storage locker in
Wainscott, N.Y.






NG2000
It seems interesting to me that none of these
"experts" is actually a fractal expert.
No one in fractal mathematics actually has done such
analysis on paintings as far as I know.
These people are art experts and physics people... ?
The scale conclusion is wrong as stated in:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061204123447.htm

In their Nature article, Jones-Smith and Mathur show that Pollock's works lack the range of scales needed to be considered fractal in the sense of box-counting analysis. This is because typically the smallest marks of paint are only a thousand times smaller than the entire canvas.

That statement clearly shows a lack of knowledge of fractals, multi-fractals
and chaotic roughness.

I wouldn't have said the painting were "fractal" in the first place, ha, ha...
I posted that news article (here a while back) on the Taylor analysis.
I'm really glad there has been some argument generated.
Roger Bagula
.