Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
Art-Books-Music / Stradivarius versus new violin
« Last post by brianvds on July 15, 2013, 08:09:29 PM »
This may be of interest to members here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.full

Player preferences among new and old violins

Short version: Hugely expensive violins made by the great Stradivarius are not necessarily any better than vastly cheaper new instruments.

Why am I not surprised?

42
Art-Books-Music / The 28th Chelsea International Fine Art Competition
« Last post by AgoraGallery on January 30, 2013, 04:18:36 PM »
One of the great opportunities of the year begins on February, 12th 2013. The 28th Chelsea International Fine Art Competition  is the perfect way to increase your public profile as an artist. All visual artists worldwide who are 18 and older are invited to enter the competition. The competition is open to all media except video art, film, performance art, jewelry and crafts. Entries are processed using an online entry system; use high quality images to give the juror the best and most accurate impression of your work. There is a $35 entry fee for up to 5 images; $5 for each additional image. The juror of the 2013 competition is well-known writer, reporter and art critic Anthony Haden-Guest. 
Agora Gallery is proud to support the Children’s Heart Foundation, which contributes to research into diagnosing, treating and preventing congential heart defects, the number one birth defect in the United States, as well as providing information to families with children affected. As part of our commitment to helping art make the world a better place, Agora Gallery will donate 15% of its proceeds from the sale of artwork from the art competition exhibition to the CHF.
For further information, please visit the competition website: http://www.agora-gallery.com/competition/ or email: competition@agora-gallery.com.
43
Art-Books-Music / Re: Abstract art grandmasters
« Last post by mtgradwell on July 13, 2011, 01:32:46 PM »
Hello Mikhail

"This one ( http://scienceon.hani.co.kr/archives/18679 ) 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 (arXiv.org) 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%? .........."
44
Art-Books-Music / Abstract art grandmasters
« Last 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

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26882/

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/06/15/artist/

http://tsn.ua/nauka_it/vcheniy-pririvnyav-mavp-do-hudozhnikiv-abstrakcionistiv.html

This one ( http://scienceon.hani.co.kr/archives/18679 ) I can't read (perhaps someone of the forum members can help?)


However, some people write outright nonsene.

http://uk.io9.com/5811891/scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do

Quote
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.

Quote
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?


Quote
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:

http://www.popmech.ru/article/9194-ves-iskusstva/

Quote
?????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ???? ? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????????, ??? ? ???, ? ?????? ???????? ? ????????.

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

http://science.orf.at/stories/1684175/

Quote
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

Quote
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.

45
Art-Books-Music / Re: I don't understand the art in abstract
« Last post by brianvds on June 21, 2011, 09:50:37 PM »
He was great because he brainwashed people with a very effective strategy.

First he (Picasso) never learned to paint academically, instead he faked the signature on some of his father`s paintings (wich were academically acceptable) & passed them as his own.

I have often seen this claim. I have never seen any actual evidence for it. It is pretty obvious from some of his later work, that is unquestionably by him, that he was at the very least a competent draftsman.

Quote
Never asked yourself WHY is there practically not Leonardo da Vinci followers in technique today?
(and i mean, his technique CAN be used for abstract & non figurative work!)

There are plenty of modern followers of Leonardo. They do fantasy art.  ;-)

46
Art-Books-Music / Re: Telling fake from real poetry
« Last post by brianvds on June 19, 2011, 09:23:31 PM »
So perhaps it would not be surprising if I were unable to distinguish fake poems from real ones where the poems were written in an obscure style. But to my surprise, I scored 67%, so apparently I have some sort of ability to distinguish real poetry from fake poetry, even as complete amateur.
There is a 20% probability to get 67% or more by pure chance.

Ah well, that probably explains it then. I suspect poets can get away with a lot, because people who voluntarily read poems WANT to discern meaning in them, and if you really want to, I'm sure you can find many layers of meaning in any string of words, in the same way that some people can see the face of Jesus in a piece of burned toast.
47
Art-Books-Music / Re: Telling fake from real poetry
« Last post by Mikhail Simkin on June 19, 2011, 06:34:22 PM »
So perhaps it would not be surprising if I were unable to distinguish fake poems from real ones where the poems were written in an obscure style. But to my surprise, I scored 67%, so apparently I have some sort of ability to distinguish real poetry from fake poetry, even as complete amateur.
There is a 20% probability to get 67% or more by pure chance.
48
Art-Books-Music / Re: "Scientific Inquiry" ? No
« Last post by Mikhail Simkin on June 19, 2011, 05:53:06 PM »
In which case, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that people didn't recognize them.
Some do recognize. Just like in the art quiz.

Salieri was not a lightweight composer.
Certainly not a Bremen musician. So the results are far less scandalous than those of artist vs. ape quiz.

I might watch a film, think it is absolutely superb, and then upon seeing it again it fails to move me.
That's especially true for a detective story.
49
Art-Books-Music / Re: "Scientific Inquiry" ? No
« Last post by brianvds on June 17, 2011, 10:37:53 PM »
"Don Giovanni" might be a popular opera on the whole; it doesn't mean every aria in it is popular.
I used one of the most popular arias from the opera. Arias  used in the quiz were taken from the CD "Mozart arias" which featured Mozart's best music.

In which case, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that people didn't recognize them. Perhaps most of the quiz takers are just not very familiar with Mozart. I am fairly familiar with his better known instrumental music, but not his operas (I dislike opera). But I haven't taken the quiz myself: I have a cap on my internet data transfer, so I can't listen to all that much music online. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if I couldn't tell much of Mozart and Salieri apart, though. Salieri was not a lightweight composer. And of course, the Classical (with a capital C) style did to some extent produce somewhat generic music; it was the taste of the day. Similarly, if you had a quiz featuring fugues by Bach and by some of his contemporaries, people might not easily tell them apart either.

When I watched the film Amadeus, one of the things that struck me that of all the many inserts of opera, the one I actually liked the most was the bit by Salieri! That was of course not at all all the intention of the film makers.  ;-)

Anyway, I think this issue of taste in the arts is a complex one. I'm not sure the quizzes test everything one needs to test. Here's something that just occurred to me. I know from personal experience that I can seldom decide at a glance what kind of art/music/literature/films I like. I might watch a film, think it is absolutely superb, and then upon seeing it again it fails to move me. Or I might not think much of it initially, only to find that it sort of lingers with me and eventually grows on me. It happens with music as well. Much of my taste in music is very much an acquired taste.

So it seems to me that in the arts, works often have to marinade a bit before we can decide whether they are great or not. Perhaps a similar thing is at work not just in individuals, but in society as a whole. After a century, some works linger while others disappear, for reasons that are difficult to codify and that are not apparent at first glance. This might be at work in cases like Dickens/Bulwer or Mozart/Salieri, and a quiz that takes a few minutes to do will not test for that effect.

There can be little doubt that hype and publicity plays a big role though. Especially in abstract expressionism.  ;-)

50
Art-Books-Music / Re: True art
« Last post by brianvds on June 17, 2011, 10:23:15 PM »
Since the great majority of people get 100%, Pollock is better than his fellow drippers. If they merely could tell them apart, they would be equally likely to score 0% as 100%.

In other words, people cannot just tell them apart, they can tell which is the art and which the bird droppings. I'm not sure this necessarily makes the drippings better than the droppings, because most people have some idea of what a bird mess looks like, and Pollock's paintings do not quite look like it. But I'm not sure they actually look any better either. Most people would probably also be able to tell pools of vomit from bird droppings, and tell you which is which, but I'm not sure that makes a pool of vomit a superior artistic statement to bird droppings.  ;-)

Did you read the history of creation of the quiz, or named those two by chance? The mentioned picture also enjoys some popularity

I did read the article, but then forgot that you mentioned Picasso and Matisse. I doubt whether your computer created art actually resembled Picasso? Perhaps the people you showed it to didn't know Picasso? His name has become a sort of byword for modernist excess, but his work is actually mostly relatively conservative, and almost all of it is more or less representational. Much of it doesn't really look like child or monkey art. Whether one needs to be particularly skilled to come up with it is another question. A Picasso quiz might be an interesting exercise, though once again one will run into the problem of many of his images being well known. Monkey art or child art it clearly isn't. Great art? Perhaps that's a subjective judgement...













Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10