|
You know I'm going to get on my Pollock soapbox.
His work near-perfectly reproduces what scientists have determined is the most pleasing visual distribution of an image--something found in nature, for example, as a dense forest canopy. This wasn't by accident. Computer analysis of the visual distribution of his work shows a clear, unmistakable trend--he was fairly close, in his earlier works, to the perfect distribution; he steadily, empirically, improved over time; and once he was able to produce his most "pleasing to the human eye" images, he never wavered and never fell back down in effectiveness--there were no statistical outliers in this trend, it was methodically consistent. This was a purpose-driven result. He knew exactly what he wanted to do and he achieved it through persistent effort.
Computer analysis of a Pollock work can accurately date at which period of his career he produced it, and determine with complete confidence if it is a forgery of a Pollock work--others are not able to produce the images he does, even when "copying" his work.
Taste is subjective, but appreciation of a craftsman's facility and technique isn't an evaluation of taste. I don't think "fraud" is the correct word to describe someone who is literally, scientifically verified to have achieved a very specific, measurable result.
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
|