Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

The Art of Physics, or should it be The Physics of Art ? (Sujatha)

Jackson Pollock may have been a secret physicist, judging by a recent scientific analysis of his techniques and works. Or not.

How many times do we do things without stopping to examine the underlying physical principles? I'm sure that many a cake may have been put together Amelia Bedelia-style, "A pinch of this, a toss of that", and the end result is sometimes better, though quirkier than the perfectly adhered-to recipe.

It makes for fun to know that we do what we do, but doesn't make the outcome palpably better. But the exploration of those principles can make for fascinating stuff.

Untitled_jp Pollock's works have alway been the subject of both awe and derision. Whether it was lauded as a 'liberation from value- political, esthetic, moral' or derided as 'a joke in bad taste', the paintings themselves, remain to this day, widely popular and iconic in status as the years pass.

 

From the Wired.com article:

"Now, Boston College art historian Claude Cernuschi,  Harvard mathematicians Lakshminarayanan Mahadevan and Herczynski have turned the tools of physics on Pollock’s painting process. In what they believe is the first quantitative analysis of drip painting, the researchers derived an equation for how Pollock spread paint.

The team focused on the painting Untitled 48-49, which features wiggling lines and curlicues of red paint. Those loops formed through a fluid instability called coiling, in which thick fluids fold onto themselves like coils of rope.

“People thought perhaps Pollock created this effect by wiggling his hand in a sinusoidal way, but he didn’t,” Herczynski said.

There is even an interesting video that illustrates the principle of the fluid mechanics behind some of the curlicues that show up in detailed view the Pollock painting.

 

Now you know what to do on a rainy day with food coloring/paint/flour and paper. Experiment away and make mini-Pollock style masterpieces of your own. You don't need to understand the Physics behind it to enjoy it. Maybe that was partly what Pollock's painting was all about, more about the enjoyment of the moment of creation, and less about understanding the phenomenon behind it.

Posted in , ,

6 responses to “The Art of Physics, or should it be The Physics of Art ? (Sujatha)”

  1. Norman Costa

    Way cool!

    Like

    Reply
  2. Ruchira

    The salient point of course is that there is not any physical activity we can do, (walking, talking, painting, thinking, cooking, singing or sleeping) that does not fall into one or more realms of science – physics, chemistry, biology or math. But do we always know the scientific principle behind our pursuits to do it well? Not at all. I was a student of chemistry and am a pretty good cook. Is there is a correlation between the two aptitudes? Perhaps but we don’t know for sure. I am not sure why the writers are making a big deal out of this especially since they concede towards the end that the artist most probably had no idea as to what the heck fluid dynamics are.
    Speaking of artists who were indeed trained in physics once, here is one I once talked about. Older readers are familiar with her; newer visitors please check her out.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Sujatha

    Whether one needs to know the scientific background behind the art is moot to me, Ruchira.
    For instance, I know of several connoisseurs of Carnatic music who can expound at length on the precise frequencies of the ‘Kakali nishadam’ vs. the “Kaisiki nishadam”. Their singing to illustrate the point, would however make the listener want to bolt out of the room.
    e

    Like

    Reply
  4. Ruchira

    Exactly my point, Sujatha. That is why I don’t understand why the authors have bothered to make a deal out of something which is actually not even particularly intriguing.
    When my son was in the 2nd grade, I used to volunteer in his school as a Picture Lady. Some of us art loving parents got together once every month for a couple of hours to introduce the youngsters to famous artists and their works. (The volunteer program was meant to be a meager attempt to replace the regular art classes that had been slashed due to school budget cuts). We would bring prints of paintings to the class, speak a little about the artists’ lives and then ask the children to create a piece of art work in the same style as they had just seen. We had considered Pollock and rejected him precisely because the children would have to splash and wiggle standing over a piece of paper that would lie horizontal on the floor. We did not want to leave the class room in a mess. We had amazing results with Mondrian, Paul Klee, Jon Miro and some others whose works are conspicuously idiosyncratic in style and execution. There was no mention of physics.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Dean C. Rowan

    Poor confused physicist. Poor confused journalist. Did you know that if you throw Jackson Pollock, one of his paintings, Lisa Freeman, and Andrzej Herczynski from the roof of a high building at the same time, they’ll all land at the same time? You didn’t?! Well, I’ve scooped ’em.
    There are in fact genuinely interesting, newsworthy cases of art’s intersections with technology and history. One of my favorites, probably mentioned here before, is the work in the 1980s by physicists at UC Davis in collaboration with bibliographer and manuscript historian Paul Needham on the ink content of Gutenberg Bibles. Here you have a story of true collaboration, rather than a simple-minded slow news day gee-whiz.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Sujatha

    Pssst… Dean. You should try out the honey experiment with your son, when you get the chance. Let him do the pouring while you pull the paper roll. And, schedule it before bath time, of course.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Dean C. Rowan Cancel reply