Reader Feedback on Fractal Expressionism
February 14, 2011 Victor
I wonder what your relationship with Richard Taylor is? This is very old news and has no value of bringing it as new. The last anyone has heard from Taylor was 2005. Why did you conveniently leave out the fact that Taylor’s fractal analysis has been debunked years ago? I have seen several paintings that are clearly not by the hand of Jackson Pollock who passed his fractal test. Are you willing to put down $100 million for those paintings? And what are we going to do with some of the known works from Jackson Pollock that did not pass Taylor’s test? Burn them?
You write: “Shortly thereafter, a number of organizations worldwide adopted Taylor’s method for authenticating works of art.” Please name one organization that has done so. Not too difficult, just one.
Your article is filled with mistakes and only shows one side of the story. You seem to be good friends with Richard Taylor since you wrote this “a@#-kissing” article. When you talk to him, can you ask him why he has never gave up his test results for peer-review like every other respected scientist would do?
If his science would really be so ground-breaking as you suggest, Mr. Taylor would be the leading Pollock expert in the world, very strange that we never heard from him again, after his science was debunked.
I am sure you want to do your pal Taylor a little favor, maybe he is short on cash, but next time be a bit more correct. There is not one institution in the world who uses his science, he is not affiliated with the Pollock Krasner Foundation. And his “science” has never been used to authenticate a painting.
Taylor is a nice guy who made a computer program that can recognize fractal patterns, but the conclusion he makes from his analysis is just as laughable as your article.
To answer your question: I have no relationship with Richard Taylor, I’ve never met the man. As I indicated, much of the information in the article came from a piece written by Taylor himself. If you’re suggesting he outright lied about everything, then your anger would be justified. But I don’t think that’s the case.
In any event, I saw no reason to treat this like an investigative piece, nor to treat Taylor like a “hostile witness.”
I’m sure his method would not be applicable in every instance with every artist, but apparently he got it right the case I cited, and his conclusions were supported by the Harvard pigment study. I don’t think Taylor ever aspired to become an art expert–he’s a physicist. I just found the crossover to be fascinating. For the moment, that’s all I can tell you.
If you have further issues with Taylor, I encourage you to take them up with him.