Physists give, and physists take away. The ability to be a master of chaotic motion that is:
In articles that appeared in scientific journals and news magazines including Nature, Physics World and Scientific American, Taylor and coworkers also claim that fractal analysis can be used to distinguish Pollock’s drip paintings from imitations.Intrigued, Jones-Smith began to examine Taylor’s articles, but quickly found that the work was seriously flawed She showed that doodles that she could make in minutes using Adobe Photoshop were as fractal as any Pollock drip painting, vividly refuting Taylor’s claim that Pollock was able to generate fractals by hand only because he had attained a mastery of chaotic motion.
Jones-Smith presented a pointed critique of Taylor’s work to Case astrophysicists and was encouraged to write up her critique for publication. But since Taylor’s original work had appeared in Nature five years earlier, she thought interest in the topic had waned.
Actually, this isn’t entirely inside baseball for a couple of reasons: the use of scientific analysis in areas they weren’t originally used is a great way to make breakthrough discoveries, and there’s a lot of money at stake in being able to determine real Pollock’s from somebody else’s work. And besides, I just don’t like people claiming more certainty than they should.
