31 thoughts on “The history of art in graffiti

  1. The Pollock isn’t bad, either. (Oops, I sound like a waiter at a seafood restaurant!)

    But where are Chagall (a fiddling cat on a shtetl roof, perhaps) and Josef Albers (known for his series “Homage to the Square”)? [I only added Albers because his squares-within-squares might be hard to do as a cat.]

    1. The “Pollock” suffers from the handicap of spray-can technique inadequately trying to simulate the aleatory results of drip-painting.

      Even though Pollock’s works have recently been shown by Katherine Jones-Smith, Harsh Mathur and Lawrence Krauss as not truly fractal ( doi:10.1038/nature05398; arXiv:0710.4917v2; arXiv:0803.0530v1; contra Micolich et al., <arXiv:0712.1652v1), Pollock's characteristic 2-3 orders of magnitude of aleatory scaling remain hard to replicate via stylus-control gestures. (Fig. 4 in the EPAPS Supplement of arXiv:0710.4917v2, drawn by K. Jones-Smith, exemplifies the difficulty.)

      The most interesting theoretical result of Jones-Smith et al., investigating the color separation layers of Pollock’s paintings: the union of Cantor dusts is not scale invariant over the same range as the constituent fractals, but a complex multifractal on the shortest length scales.

      The “Picasso” is rather good, though. The “Dali” is more of a “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Cat”.

      1. Actually, although there is obviously chance involved in where the individual drips land, the selection of paint, thre selection of the painting implement, and the movement of the painting implement through three dimensional space are deliberate in the sense that art can be deliberate whilst still being art.

        1. Yes, indeed! Rothko’s cat is very much like Alber’s cat would be, except for the orange rug.

    1. forgot to say, but it seems to have evolved. Although some would say that plagiarism is intelligent design.

  2. It irritates me more than it should that pop culture has settled on ‘DaVinci’as Leonardo’s name. A combination of bad pop history books, Dan Brown, and general laziness have changed the great mans name for no good reason whatsoever. Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian. We don’t call Michelangelo “Buonarotti”, do we?

    It is true that he would sign his name as “Leonardo da Vinci”, but his friends, patrons, and earliest biographers consistently refer to him as Leonardo. Look up the real art historians on him, you will see his drawings and paintings cited as “Leonardo, ca 1504″ etc.

    Now you open a magazine and its ‘DaVinci DaVinci DaVinci…” Yuk.

    1. Perhaps to avoid confusion with Leonardo Nascimento de Araújo, known as Leonardo, the Brazilian former football (soccer, to our septic friends:)) player? Or even Leonardo DiCoprolite, the actor.

    2. I can assure that I knew of him as “da Vinci” for decades before I ever heard of Dan Brown.

      Are you upset about Fibonacci as well?

      1. Its the discrepancy between serious, scholarly work on Leonardo, and the popular name. Its as if popular writing on Einstein referred to him as Albert. As I said above, why not call Michelangelo “Buonarotti” or “Simoni”

  3. That is an amazingly erudite piece of graffiti! And remarkably well executed. I’d say it’s a credit to the public taste of whichever city it’s in.

    1. I’d say it’s a credit to the artist. The Monet (or yes, Seurat*) would be particularly hard to do with a spraycan.

      *Maybe s/he attributed it to Monet to avoid a name with “rat” in it.

      1. A credit to the artist, yes, certainly. But also a credit (maybe I should say ‘compliment’) to the city that the artist thought people would ‘get’ it.

Leave a Reply