I don’t think it would be possible to go back and reconstruct the
original, even if one knew the process. Naturally, at the programming
stage one could position-stamp every transformation of the data to
allow it to be reconstructed later on, but as it stands now, the
information simply gets sorted into 3 or 6 colored piles, and the
original content is lost to entropy. You’re suggestion is worth
pondering, though. It might be interesting to map the transformation
blocks onto a different original image, in other words, force an alien
statistical distribution-scheme on a picture, and see what happens. (I
have an idea related to this in audio that I’m itching to try, as a
matter of fact.)
As for Johns, in False Start especially, there are a few places where
the original pokes through. For instance, you do see the original’s
orange rectangular section pretty clearly in the first block, and the
green in the green block. The other pics, because I apply what is
essentially an averaging and sorting process to what is originally an
all-over type painting (as is the case with the De Kooning as well),
there aren’t many position markers retained from the original. If I
applied the process to a picture with more solid blocks of color in it
and more easily identifiable forms, like the naked picture, more of the
original would poke through and still be recognizable, yes.
But thinking backwards, I need to do more of that, thanks!
m
On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Alan Sondheim wrote:
Thanks for all of this. Two things - I wonder first if it would be
possible at all to reverse-engineer - I'm thinking naturally of the
'naked
people' piece - to recuperate any of the original configuration? And
second - here more of the Johns - where any of the configurations
might be
'leaked' into the deconstructed image?
- Alan
