Networks, Patterns & Paintings
I have shared the story of a client saying one of my network maps reminded him of a Jackson Pollock painting. That is J.P. above starting a new painting. [ I never do my network maps standing on one leg.]
Various mathematicians and physicists have looked for mathematical patterns, like fractals, to discover fundamental building blocks present in biological, social, and man-made networks. Now, some of these same number-crunchers are applying their algorithms to a group of recently found paintings -- suspected to be by Jackson Pollock. Are these real? Or are they fakes? Maybe mathematics and motifs will tell us. An initial study of these paintings cast doubt on their authenticity. Now, a group of physicists from Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University have come out with what they say is a better analysis.
We as humans leave behind repeated patterns and motifs in our architecture, music, writing, and social networks... so why not in how we paint?
3 Comments:
Hmmm...What about the painting where Pollock threw paint up into the exhaust stream of a jet engine? I'm not sure if that one would square with the ol' algorithm. ;o)
By zenpundit, at 11/11/2007 10:09 PM
Actually the jet engine might produce a very unique pattern that needs no algorithm at all! And after 9/11, artists can not get access to jet engines for "experimenting".
Do you have a graphic of his jet engine painiting?
By Valdis, at 11/11/2007 10:17 PM
RE: [ I never do my network maps standing on one leg.]
Then perhaps you should try. Stretch. Reach. Be off balance, open, vulnerable. Create.
Besides, what makes you think you should be attached at two points when everybody else on the map has just one? Or (and here's where it gets messy), should every position on a map have two points of attachment, each linking differently?
By Tim Ferris, at 11/13/2007 6:52 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home