Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
So when might a Jackson Pollock painting actually be a kid's drawing of a bunch of stars?
When you try to authenticate it with "fractal" statistics, says a pair of physicists.
Diving into a long-running art world debate over whether science can spot authentic art, physicists Katherine Jones-Smith and Harsh Mathur of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland contend in the current Nature journal that a noted way of spotting real Pollocks is bogus.
"We're basically saying it's not a good idea to use fractal analysis on these paintings. It gives an unreliable result," Jones-Smith says.
Pollock, who died in 1956, was well known for his "pour" technique of painting swirling canvases. His trademark style, instantly recognizable for its looping spatters, made his name in abstract art.
In 1999, Oregon State University physicist Richard Taylor published a study in Nature finding that, statistically speaking, Pollock's works from 1943 to 1952 had "fractal" signatures.
Fractal objects have multiple-repeating self-similar (not necessarily identical) shapes. Snowflakes are one of the best-known examples of natural fractal shapes.
Earlier this year Nature published another analysis by Taylor looking at a trove of disputed possible Pollacks. His study's findings "indicate that Pollock's specific fractal signature has not been found in the submitted paintings."
Not so fast, says Jones-Smith in her own paper in the Nov. 30 Nature. When she submitted her own drawings of stars and random walks to Taylor's technique, it turned out they possessed the fractal signature that it used to designate a Pollock. One, dubbed Untitled 5, a bunch of kidlike star doodles, is a particularly good Pollock, it turns out.
In statistical physics, a debate is ongoing over the proper use of the term "fractal" as a way to designate shapes, Mathur adds. "We think it is incorrect to call these shapes 'fractal' in the first place," he says.
Basically, the critics say the fractal signature technique is based on too few paintings to be reliable and is just bad statistics, overall.
In a reply published in the journal, Taylor and colleagues say the critique "would also dismiss half the published investigations of physical fractals." (Jones-Smith agrees, saying that might be a good idea.)
They also complain the critics have used their technique improperly in evaluating Untitled 5.
"Or maybe (Jones-Smith) just naturally produces Jackson Pollacks," Mathur jokes. "We'd be happy to sell it to an art collector."
To see more of USAToday.com, or to subscribe, go to http://www.usatoday.com
© Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
