http://phys.unsw.edu.au/phys_about/PHYSICS!/FRACTAL_EXPRESSIONISM/fractal_taylor.html

In contrast to the broken lines painted by conventional brush contact with the canvas surface, Jackson Pollock used a constant stream of paint to produce a uniquely continuous trajectory as it splattered on to the canvas below [1]. A typical canvas would be reworked many times over a period of several months, with Pollock building a dense web of paint trajectories. This repetitive, cumulative, ‘continuous dynamic’ painting process is strikingly similar to the way patterns in Nature evolve. Other parallels with natural processes are also apparent. Gravity plays a central role for both Pollock and Nature. Furthermore, by abandoning the easel, the horizontal canvas became a physical terrain to be traversed, and his approach from all four sides replicated the isotropy and homogeneity of many natural patterns. His canvases were also large and unframed, similar to a natural environment. Can these shared characteristics be the signature of a deeper common approach?

Since its discovery in the 1960s, chaos theory [2] has experienced spectacular success in explaining many of Nature’s processes [3]. Could Pollock’s painting process therefore also be chaotic? There are two revolutionary aspects to Pollock’s application of paint and both have potential to introduce chaos. The first is his motion around the canvas. In contrast to traditional brush-canvas contact techniques, where the artist’s motions are limited to hand and arm movements, Pollock used his whole body to introduce a wide range of length scales into his painting motion. In doing so, Pollock’s dashes around the canvas possibly followed Levy flights: a special distribution of movements, first investigated by Paul Levy in 1936, which has recently been used to describe the statistics of chaotic systems [4, 5]. The second revolutionary aspect concerns his application of paint by letting it drip on to the canvas. In 1984, a study of a dripping tap showed that small adjustments could change the falling fluid from a non-chaotic to chaotic flow [6], and Pollock could have likewise mastered a chaotic flow.

…

Pollock died in 1956, before chaos and fractals were discovered. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that Pollock consciously understood the fractals he was painting. Nevertheless, his introduction of fractals was deliberate. For example, the colour of the anchor layer was chosen to produce the sharpest contrast against the canvas background and this layer also occupies more canvas space than the other layers, suggesting that Pollock wanted this highly fractal anchor layer to visually dominate the painting. Furthermore, after the paintings were completed, he would dock the canvas to remove regions near the canvas edge where the pattern density was less uniform. He also took steps to perfect the ‘drip and splash’ technique itself. His initial drip paintings of 1943 consisted of a single layer of trajectories which, although distributed across the whole canvas, only occupied 20% of the 0.35m2 canvas area. By 1952 he was painting multiple layers of trajectories which covered over 90% of his 9.96m2 canvas. This increase in both canvas size and density of trajectories was accompanied by a rise in the pattern’s fractal dimension from 1 to 1.72. Finally we note that, because D follows such a distinct evolution with time, the fractal analysis could be employed as a quantitative, objective technique to both validate and date Pollock’s drip paintings [15]. In conclusion, Pollock’s contribution to the evolution of art is secure. He described Nature directly. Rather than mimicking Nature, he adopted its language – fractals – to build his own patterns.

Pollock painting (1950)

http://www.7digital.com/artists/ratatat/lp3/04

I’ve seen autumn rhythm 30 at met. It’s an impressive object, if not simply because of its size.

But the color balance and composition are very satisfying, a little like looking at forest from a balcony. (that thing is really gigantic) the overall effect is very lovely. I really like it.

the one above is
One: Number 31,

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=78386

It doesn’t evoke as much reaction for some reason. The black paints is too striking.