Merry New Year, y'all, and a Happy... christ... you know what I mean :)
Roger Bagula wrote:
> Roger Bagula wrote:
>
>> ttp://www.fractalus.com/info/manifesto.htm
>
> That's:
> http://www.fractalus.com/info/manifesto.htm
>
> Let's see if there is anyone paying attention here:
> The Jackson Pollock question:
> 1) "It is impossible to make a forgery of Jackson Pollock's work,"
I disagree. It is possible to make a forgery of ANY work, though a
perfect copy would be more difficult, probably impossible.
> 2) Taylor:
> Jackson Pollock painted fractal art.
> 3) All fractal art is "painted by the numbers":
> that is : it is "machine painted".
Contradictory statements.
If 2) then not 3); and if 3) then not 2).
IMHO Pollock produced art of a fractal structure, but the term "fractal
art" is not very well defined in my head (yes, I read the manifesto).
> 4) All reproductions and prints are of less value than one off
"originals"
> that are unforged.
I agree, to some extent. It does somehow make sense that an original
painting (containing the 3D surface-structure etc.) is 'cooler' to have
hanging on the wall than a stunningly sharp reprint of the same work.
> Inductively then:
> All fractal art is worth less than human painted art which is "one off"
> and "original".
> ( the key words here are "worth less"....)
In pure economic value; absolutely! (though this is not necessarily fair
to the fractal artist who might spend hundreds of hours composing
his/her art).
> For the sake of all fractal artists this doctrine has to be false
> since their art only comes from the computer printer
> or pictures of a computer screen.
>
> Those of you that think you are above" The Jackson Pollock question "
> should realize that this argument affects the acceptance of all art
> that has "fractal" associated with it.
>
> If this treatment of art doesn't make you angry,
> then you don't get it
> and aren't paying attention?
>
> They want to buy these fellows "original art"
> for less
> because they can only produce it
> using machines.
> They admit it is "original" and "creative", but ...
To me, the main difference is that art generated using a computer and a
printer can be perfectly reproduced and hence there might exist
thousands of exactly identical copies (assuming a superb-quality
printer...).
Whereas an artwork which truly is one-of-a-kind and includes some
3D-texture (ie: painting, woodwork, et.al.) is not perfectly
reproducible, no matter how good a photocopier you have...
But don't get me wrong; the work/time involved and the eye needed to
generate good (whatever that means) fractal art is also worth a fair
penny and a mediocre painting isn't worth jack sh** no matter how unique.
And I for one truly enjoy my fractal wallposters, even though there must
be millions of copies worldwide of those exact images.
=)
/BG -The value of Art is in the eyes of the beholder.
|
