reverent entertainment

reverent forums => Art-Books-Music => Topic started by: Mikhail Simkin on July 12, 2011, 08:32:56 PM

Title: Abstract art grandmasters
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on July 12, 2011, 08:32:56 PM
My recent article (, which had shown that abstract art grandmasters perform on the level of class D amateurs, attracted some media attention.

The following articles present my research fairly

This one ( ) I can't read (perhaps someone of the forum members can help?)

However, some people write outright nonsene.

Simkin looked at one fairly well-known experiments in which people are asked to pick up and compare different weights. As the weights get closer together, people have more difficulty determining which is heavier, and the subjects could only distinguish a 100 kg weight from a 96 kg weight 72% of the time.

It is 100 and 96 g, not kg.

That 72% clip is, of course, better than any of the success rates for abstract art. Simkin points out that, if you were to translate the results from one study to another, you could say professional abstract art is the 100 kg weight, and stuff done by kids is the 96 kg weight. And that is the scientific proof that abstract art is 4% better than what a kid or an animal could do.

Again kilograms instead of grams. And what exactly is wrong with the scientific proof?

Simkin's paper also offers another comparison point. Using that same 4% difference, he compares the difference between professional abstract art and children's random drawings to that between a chess novice and the next-lowest ranking, a D-class amateur.

No, "that same 4% difference" has nothing to do with the chess comparison that I used.

Here comes  a comment from  another  genius:

?????? ??????? ???????? ????????? – ??? ????????? ??????? ???? ? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????????, ??? ? ???, ? ?????? ???????? ? ????????.

This translates as "the approach of the scientist is surprising - as a comparison of the right angle to the boiling point of water on the grounds that both are measured in degrees." Apparently, the author of that remark got used to measure temperature in Celsius, where water boils at 100 degrees - only ten more than the number of degrees in a right angle.    However,  we can also use Farenheit, where water boils  at 212. This is already over two times the number of degrees in a right angle.  In my article I compared the fractions of "better" and "heavier" judgements. I challenge any genius to offer a variable transformation, that will challenge my conclusion.

Another commentator wrote this

Nur: Fälschungen gibt es, daran darf auch einmal erinnert werden, auch in der Wissenschaft. Der koreanische Stammzellenforscher Hwang Woo Suk hat etwa jahrelang Fake-Studien im renommierten Fachblatt "Science" publiziert, ohne dass den Fachkollegen etwas aufgefallen wäre. Hwang war bis zu seinem Fall ein wissenschaftlicher Weltstar und die fachliche Plausibilität seiner Arbeiten wurde nicht nur per Online-Quiz geprüft.

Soweit der Stand in der Stammzellenforschung, die nicht seriöser oder unseriöser als andere Wissenschaftsdisziplinen sein dürfte. Was folgt daraus? Beziehungsweise: Folgt überhaupt etwas daraus? Simkin könnte die Antwort kennen. Vielleicht hat sie etwas mit Gorillas oder Gewichthebern zu tun.

This translates as

But there are fakes even in science. The Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk has for years published  fake studies in the prestigious journal "Science", without the peers notice anything.  Hwang until his indictment was a scientific superstar and the technical viability of his work was not only checked by an on-line quiz.

As far as the status of stem cell research, it is probably not serious as other science disciplines. Was folgt daraus? What follows?  Does anything follow?  Simkin might know the answer.  Maybe it has something to do with gorillas or weightlifters.

The comparison is invalid since  Dr. Hwang's papers only described his experiments but were not experiments themselves. The scientist merely trusted his word. Equivalent art test  would be to judge paintings without actually seeing them, but  by the descriptions given by the artists. So Hwang case is far less devastating, than the scandallous results of the quizzes.

Title: Re: Abstract art grandmasters
Post by: mtgradwell on July 13, 2011, 01:32:46 PM
Hello Mikhail

"This one ( ) I can't read (perhaps someone of the forum members can help?)"

I'm afraid my Korean is a little rusty, but Google's translation has parts that almost make sense. Other parts (especially, I suspect, the first sub-heading after the Author's name) have been more than a little Faulknerized, but that just adds to their entertainment value.

Here's part of it, enough to give you an idea (I think the whole would be too big for a comment on a blog).

"[Handbook] abstract art masters work and child figure of four percent of the difference?  ( 8 )
BY ohcheolwoo   l 2011.06.15
Scientists puzzling contemporary abstract art to blow his ass.
Mockery of the University of California Institute of topics containing the papers

Lf the above figure of the artist's abstract works by famous and amateur paintings also available. Now, what do the 'real' Is the artist's abstract work?

Mikhail Simkin (Mikhail Simkin) the University of California (UCLA) researchers (doctorate in physics), a work of art on the internet a few years ago, which put up 12 episodes that really the work of artists, friendly, and asking what is fake what kind of 'art collector quizzes' are shown in Figure. The real work of renowned artists will pick whip fake works by Dr. Simkin is going green. I have tried a challenge. Well, fine arts In high school, you can only ever received a good practical performance, own sense of art (?), Have you ever heard the saying is a little bit. Mitgoseo sense of art that does not cover the two eyes floating knee report, really? ... Not a fake. ... No, no, no, I really click as we continue to discriminate to do so. OK now to enter the answer. So, what is this? ... Oh! ? ?% point (not too low jeomsura public). Crikey!

? As you crank up again with ... here is go in there.

Simkin difficult to understand such a researcher of contemporary abstract art mocking me of one short article (page 2) with using a recently released paper, a database of physics ( has become a hot topic plus up: "abstract art masters The score D (D) is similar to scores of amateur grade "is the title of the paper is In this paper, "abstract works of artists and children of the figure of four percent difference," says his claims stand out as most impressive.

4%? .........."
Title: Re: Abstract art grandmasters
Post by: Bilzarder on July 08, 2015, 09:21:45 PM
I love this forum And I talked to a friend.
Title: Re: Abstract art grandmasters
Post by: Ewomaraka on August 06, 2015, 08:49:18 PM
I would like to see this a lot.
Title: Re: Abstract art grandmasters
Post by: Anastosun on October 07, 2017, 01:10:41 AM
I want people to turn back to the forums more.