Orbit Trap

Did you miss me?

Shot of the 2011 Infinite Creations calendar.

[Image seen on BarnesandNoble.com.]

Just when you thought it was once again safe to enter your local chain bookstore…

The Fractal Universe Calendar (FUC) gets a name change and a new coat of renders.  But kick those familiar, sappy, spiral tires — and it’s easy to see what’s under this tired trope of a hood.

Notice of the FUC reboot was seen (unsurprisingly) on Keith Mackay’s blog.  “Daniel,” whose linked name goes to Orange Circle Studio, a commercial calendar site, leaves the following message

Orange Circle Studio now owns the rights to the Fractals 2011 wall calendar.

and provides a link that notes that in this NEW IMPROVED calendar

renowned fractal artists push their art to extremes and guide you on a journey through their infinite creations.

so I guess the inevitable questions will have to again be asked before this impostor starts hanging around strip malls in the fall:

–Who are these “renowned fractal artists”?
–How are they selected to be a part of this project?
–How are they compensated for having their art included?
–What is meant by “owns the rights”?  Has OCS purchased rights to re-use similar or even previous FUC images?
–Will you please explain in some detail how you ascertained that the images above have been “pushed to extremes”?
–The fuzzy wuzzy FUC “aesthetic” wasn’t hard to clone, wuzzit?

And the most critical question:

–Aren’t OT readers gladdened to know that the images above will be mass-marketed with the suggestion that this is the “most renowned” artistic expression our discipline is capable of producing?

You know, it’s starting to feel like Old Home Week around the blog lately…

~/~

I’d be remiss if I’d didn’t make time to acknowledge OT admirer and troll-in-waiting Chris Oldfield (milleniumsentry on deviantART) for blowing us virtual kisses.  Since I know he wants to reach a larger audience, and understand how much he enjoys having his work shared with others, here is a blown artwork posted with a dedication that reads: “A little something for the Orbit Trap bloggers…”

Green-Eyed Envy by milleniumsentry

Really.  He shouldn’t have…

Oldfield, singled out as one of the official DA “masters,” did not specifically tag this particular post as wanting constructive criticism — so I wouldn’t want to spoil the uniform tone of effusive, Fractalbook gushiness found in the comment thread located directly under the image.  If you haven’t yet had your daily recommended allotment of saccharine, you should drop by and drink deeply.

~/~

UPDATE: More mystery.  What could this be?

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal calendar, fuc 2 the sequel, fractal universe calendar, infinite creations calendar, orange circle studio, keith mackay, chris oldfield, milleniumsentry, meet the new schlock same as the old schlock, cruelanimal, orbit trap

I’m just like the Olympic torch.  I travel the world, and no one knows my route in advance.

[Promotional poster for the 2009 Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest Exhibition.  Image seen on Sandra Reid's blog.]

Apparently, the 2009 Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest Exhibition has begun. Of course, you’d never know this from checking the main BMFAC site, which remains as silent and dead as the audience at a screening of MacGruber. I have to ask again: Why is BMFAC co-director Damien M. Jones so consistently secretive and publicity-averse?

It appears one has to actually be a contest winner to receive any dribble of detail about the exhibition.  It was only by hunting and gathering at a few of the 2009 BMFAC winners’ virtual hang-outs that I could ferret out any information all at about the whats and whens of the exhibition(s).

A good place to start seemed to be Dave Makin’s Facebook page.  Why?  Because Makin, a three-time BMFAC winner, is one to never shy away from gratuitous self-promotion (as seen by his recent horn-tooting on a Benoit Mandelbrot Facebook page.)  Makin’s page showcases three YouTube videos of Spanish television coverage of the BMFAC exhibit in Bilbao.  This exhibition, according to BMFAC winner Sandra Reid’s blog, took place at the Universidad de Pais Vasco (University of the Basque Country) and ran from May 11th to May 21st (sorry — you already missed it).  The videos feature BMFAC co-director Javier Barrallo discussing the exhibit.  Close-ups of the art are seen — as well as long shots of the exhibition, and an excerpt of an animated 3D Mandelbulb created by Krzysztof Marczak is also shown.

Here are the three videos pertaining to the exhibition:

But wait.  Moving on to BMFAC winner Nicholas Rougeux’s c82 blog, we learn that there was a previous BMFAC exhibition in San Sebastián that ostensibly ran from April 26th to May 4th (sorry — again — you really already missed it).  Here’s a photo from Rougeux’s blog:

The BMFAC Exhibit in San Sebastián.

Rougeux also points out that the exhibit will travel to Buenos Aires this month and then move on (as advertised) to Hyderabad, India, for the 2010 International Congress of Mathematicians on August 19–27.

Even a few of the competition’s winners seem surprised to learn of some of these turns of events — like OT’s old friend and deviantART’s master of masters Fiery-Fire (Iwona Fido) who appeared taken aback on her redbubble page to receive an email containing the videos of the Bilbao exhibit — but quickly uploads them (again) to YouTube “in order to show-off ROFL !!!”

Stay classy and humble, Ms. Fire…

~/~

So, let’s review the good news here:

–TV coverage.  Cool.
–Multiple venues.  Neat.
–BMFAC judges’ work still not included in the exhibition (so far).  Outstanding.

But I do have a few questions and concerns.  Like:

–How come so many people are going to have to hear about all of this from Orbit Trap?  Why isn’t the main BMFAC site all over this news?  Why has even the formerly official organ of all things BMFAC — that is, the Ultra Fractal Mailing List — not been discussing the now-suddenly-plural exhibition(s)?  Or, according to the contest co-directors,  is the majority of the fractal community seen as being on a strictly need-to-know basis?

–Who’s paying for all of this?  Like the different exhibition spaces?  Like the freight charges to ship the show around Spain, then to Latin America, then over to India?  Did the sponsors in India foot the printing costs, so the other venues could display the prints for free?  Who’s making the calls and paying the costs here?

–Is this why the 2009 BMFAC was held so far in advance of the announced August 2010 exhibition in India?  Because there were a number of earlier, additional exhibitions planned as well?  If so, why weren’t these other shows announced at the time of the competition?  And if the other exhibitions fell into place later, then why keep so tight-lipped about this development?

–Although, as seen in photos of the San Sebastián show on Rougeux’s site, some of the prints are fairly large, most are merely medium-sized — which comes as a puzzler given the contest rules that all entries needed to weigh in at an unwavering, gigantic 8000 pixels to be eligible for the contest. I’ve made larger prints than many I saw in the photos and videos at less than half that size.  This incongruity just further feeds my gut instinct that the file sizes are deliberately made monolithic to privilege one of the co-director’s pet programs — Ultra Fractal.  If you aren’t going to print everything big as a barn door, then why insist all entries must be massive?

–Why are all of the prints for the exhibit made on canvas?  Aren’t Giclée (ink-jet) paper prints, using archival inks and papers, the common standard for making fine arts prints from a digital source for a museum setting?  Even Wikipedia thinks so and flatly notes:

Artists generally use Giclée inkjet printing to make reproductions of their original two-dimensional artwork, photographs or computer-generated art.

–What’s with the poster boards and blue backgrounds at the Bilbao show?  Isn’t a white (or maybe black) background conventionally used for exhibitions to cut down on color clash?

–Why is there nothing about the India exhibition on the 2010 ICM web site?  A search of every variant of the phrase benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest turns up zip.

–It looks to me like the real winner of the 2009 BMFAC is — the animated Mandelbulb.  Isn’t that the image that got the most TV screen time?  And, to think, the poor thing wasn’t even entered.

And how about we end this post with two new OT contests of our own (and, hey, we won’t even impose any entry size restrictions):

First, guess where the BMFAC exhibit will unexpectedly turn up in July.  1st prize?  An honorable mention!!

Second, guess who will circumstantially be BMFAC’s newest surprise sponsor next week.  Hint: it rhymes with “Argentina”!!

~/~

A tip of the hat here to Tim.

Update: Corrected a misspelled name.

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal contest, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest exhibition, bmfac, international congress of mathematicians, damien m jones, javier barrallo, set your exhibition on random render, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Dance first.  Think later. It’s the natural order.
–Samuel Beckett

[Photograph seen on Janet Parke's Sketchblog.]

In a post to the Ultra Fractal Mailing List, Janet Parke describes a recent project mashing fractal art with ballet.  She links to an entry in her Sketchblog where she outlines the genesis of the mixed-media performance as follows:

I had the idea to merge the two artistic passions of my life into one project — a ballet about the iterations and relationships of my life, costumed with my fractal art printed on fabric.

The Sketchblog post traces the creative ideology behind the undertaking and includes the fractal image used as a model, design sketches, and photographs of the costumes.  A link to a video excerpt of the performance, entitled through you so i, is also included.

Parke asked the UF List for comments.  And, unsurprisingly, she got plenty.  Here’s a sampling:

Your ballet is GORGEOUS AND INSPIRING!!
–Blythe Hoyle

Amazing! Beautiful! Brilliant!!! What a perfect blend of arts.
–Mad

Absolutely brilliant, Janet, and an inevitable fusion of your two talents. Gorgeous!
–Pam Blackstone

This looks Ultra(Fractal) Cool! Great idea, and beautiful show!
–Eveline Berkman

Amazing. The costumes look so gorgeous. Wouldn’t you ladies all love to have one of those dresses? I know I  would…
–Yvonne Mous

Thank you so much for sharing Janet. I love the costumes and the way you were able to transform your two passions into something new and special. Great!
–Thea Verkerk

wow !!
Do I recognize the art you showed in 2007 in San Sebastian (Spain) from the BMandelbrot-contest??
–Juliette Gribnau

And so on.  You get the idea.

~/~

Since comments were asked for, I have a few of my own.

First, about the responses.  Who’s surprised?  This is a case of maximum preaching to the choir.  The UF List, whatever its pretensions as an art-sharing resource, proves again to be just another Fractalbook social networking site dedicated to mutual ego-stroking and sycophantic flattery.  Frankly, I see little difference in form and tone between the responses above and those I discussed from the deviantART fractal-sucking “masters” from a few months back.  Even if the replies are sincere, they still reek of cloying mawkishness and illustrate the rote kudos assembly line that so commonly infects Fractalbook.  What a solipsistic, self-contained environment.  It’s no compliment to point out that they are indeed their own audience.

And why are so many of the UF Listers gushing over Parke’s decision to print fractals on fabric — as if this is some kind of novel approach?  I have digital artist friends who’ve embraced the fiber arts for years.  Besides, how many of these fawning jokers have their own CafePress or similar sites where they routinely hawk their fractal wares on t-shirts, tote bags, ball caps, and even thongs?

As for the ballet itself, you’d think I’d be inclined to like it.  After all, I’ve advocated in previous OT posts that fractal art should evolve into more Phase Two variations — that is, should move beyond software-bound expressions and more openly embrace facets of the fine arts.  But, in such cases, I generally assume that fractal mixed media has coherent and legitimate associations.  Other than slapping fractals on tutus, what exactly are the interdisciplinary connections here?  Parke seems a bit uncertain herself, and, in a response on the UF List to Ed, who “wondered why there were no ties with fractal motivs [sic],” says:

Perhaps you meant you didn’t see a direct connection between the choreography and the art that was used on the costumes. I didn’t really try to make a connection there. I just knew that the art had the palette I was looking for and the soft gradation of color and minimal fractal structure that would be effective on fabric for this type dress.

In fact, the only connector between the art and the dance specifically mentioned by Parke on her blog is the music that was used in the performance.  She notes that

The soft, painterly, oogey quality of the fractal’s coloring seemed a natural fit for the music I had chosen and the style of contemporary movement I would be using.

but, ironically, the performance video is scored with different music because of “performance rights agreements.”  Can we then assume the replacement music is also a “natural fit”?  If so, then can any of us just substitute any score of our choosing?  Since the costumes reminded me of tie-dye, I played the video with the sound off and put the Grateful Dead‘s “Dark Star” on my stereo.  The result?  A theatrical representation closer to “Stoned Lake” than “Swan Lake.”

You know, I’d also like to jump on this bandwagon and combine my two passions — fractals and burlesque.  I plan to print my art on skimpy lingerie.  I’ll replace tassels with spirals and strategically position a Mandel”box” right over the pubic area of the dancers’ panties.  Then I’ll stage my “performance” at a local “gentlemen’s club.”

Do you find my proposal lewd and absurd?  I’d agree.  But I’d also assert that my thought-problem/half-baked-public-performance idea has just as many (if not more) interdisciplinary cross-connections between fractals and dance as does Parke’s.

And, if it will help persuade any potential backers, I’ll even insist my dancers peel off their garments in a strictly non-Euclidean manner.

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal dance, dance this mess around, janet parke, through you so i, ultra fractal mailing list, fractalbook, self similar strip tease, cruelanimal, orbit trap

It’s mine!!  All mine!!

[Image seen on nikadon.com.]

Can one patent abstract ideas?  Or claim equations as intellectual property?

The U.S. Supreme Court will likely make a decision in the near future concerning the constitutional scope of patents.  The decision could have profound implications pertaining to the legality of free software — and possibly have ramifications for fractal software, fractal programmers, and fractal artists.

David Bollier, writing in OntheCommons.org, lays out the dimensions of the court case:

At the heart of the case known as Bilski v. Kappos is a “business method patent” application that sought to obtain a patent for a method of managing the risk of bad weather through commodities trading. Bilski did not build any invention or device, as traditional patents have required; he came up with a method of doing business that orchestrates human knowledge and interactions, for which he believes he deserves a patent.

But this is the passage (and question) that caught my eye and caused me to reflect on possible ripple effects in the fractal art community:

But should the government be in the business of granting legally protecting monopolies on abstract ideas such as “business methods” and mathematical algorithms? The outcome of the case is being watched closely by the free software community because it could negatively affect the future of collaboratively developed code.

Can algorithms be privately owned?  Maybe — at least that is what some legal precedents seem to suggest.  Bollier clarifies:

Patents are given out so freely by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that companies have the legal rights to all sorts of abstract ideas, some of which may be embedded in software. “One-click shopping” was one of the earliest, most infamous business method patents granted. “If you’re selling online, at the most recent count there are 4,319 patents you could be violating,” said David E. Martin, chief executive of M-Cam Inc., an Arlington, Va.-based risk-management firm specializing in patents.

A key issue in the Bilski case is the appropriateness of granting patents for software and other sorts of collaboratively produced Internet works. It once made sense to grant patent monopolies over inventions developed by individuals or companies, but now that the Internet makes online collaboration so powerful and efficient, should anyone be allowed to privatize collectively generated knowledge and then charge premiums for it?

I predict a massive mess in Fractaldom if the court ruling codifies algorithms as deserving of patentability.  Imagine the chaos (no pun intended) if Ultra Fractal‘s poobah-programmers decided to patent their formulas, or even parts of them.  UF, which relies heavily on user-based formulas and openly encourages tweaking, not to mention its ability to combine lots of soon-to-be patentable private property into layers, might become nearly unusable since any image made with UF could be stuffed with patent violations.

In fact, in a worse case scenario, the creative forces behind Ultra Fractal, who did a bit of liberal borrowing when initially creating the program, might find themselves facing some retroactive monetary compensation to some of these folks:

We gave freely of ourselves so that UF’s author and select courtesans could prosper.

[Image seen on AliceKelley.com.]

Currently, “pure knowledge” like algorithms is not patentable. However, if the high court rules in favor of more stringent patent restrictions, the result could be especially devastating for open source programming.  Would innovation still occur when some aggregated components suddenly become patented?

And, artists, what about all of “your” images made with free fractal software?  If the author of such software can soon own many of the formulas you used, will you have to pay a kind of licensing fee to display those images — or else be forced to remove them from any public sphere?

For whatever it’s worth, according to court reporters, the SCOTUS justices generally did not warm to the idea of broadening the scope of patents.  According to The Prior Art:

Across the board, the justices indicated a deep skepticism toward the invention described in the patent application at issue.

[...]

Some of the justices went even further — expressing both a fair amount of disdain for the idea of granting broad “method” patents and a concern that ruling in favor of the petitioners would lead to patent grants on fundamental ways of conducting business or organizing human behavior.

Still, even if the U.S. high court rules against such an amplified view of patents, courts elsewhere in the world might begin to weigh in on such matters.

I sense this case could have far-flung knottiness for most of us, but I admit my own shortcomings here.  I am not an attorney, nor am I well versed in legal matters.  Subsequently, I’d welcome hearing from any of OT’s readers who might be able to shed more light on what is and is not at stake here.

~/~

If you’re interested, you can view an admittedly subjective thirty-minute video discussing the origins of software patents and their detrimental effects.  It is entitled Patently Absurd: How Software Patents Broke the System.  It was made by filmmaker Luca Lucarini and financed by the Free Software Foundation.

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, digital art, bilski vs kappos, privately owned algorithms, patent law, all your par files are ours, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Detail of Tuna by Chris Jordan

I thought it might be fitting to once again examine pushing fractal art into its second phase.  Tim laid the initial groundwork for a Phase Two approach to our discipline, and I’ve presented several examples of what a Phase Two fractal art exhibition might look like. One facet of Phase Two reflectivity is to think outside the boundaries of software.  Instead, Phase Two manifests fractal art as a general movement expressed broadly in any fine art genre, rather than being shrunk down to the limited box of whatever UF or Apo images happen to be selected (by, say, the two respective program authors) for the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest.

One artist who is clearly using fractal attributes in a wider fine art context is Chris Jordan — especially in his series entitled Running the Numbers  II.  Jordan notes that the series “looks at mass phenomena on a global scale” and observes that each image “portrays a specific quantity of something” — like the estimated number of tigers still in existence or (as in the image detail above) the average  number of tuna fished from oceans every fifteen minutes.  Jordan’s series uses self-similarity to striking effect.  In Tuna, the staggering number of fish netted is demonstrated by many replicated shadow forms.  In Tiger, the 3200 remaining tigers form a border at the edges, but the bulk of the piece is blank and black.  The superb use of absence represents what has been lost, since the middle space would hold 40,000 more tigers — the global population of the animal in 1970.

But Jordan’s most fascinating use of fractal characteristics is found in Gyre.  OT’s readers were first exposed to the Gyre, or Great Pacific Garbage Patch, in a guest post last October by Guido Cavalcante.  RTSea Blog describes the GPGP as

an area in the mid-Pacific where the clockwise circulation of currents slowly works discarded plastics into a central area (about twice the size of Texas!).

Here is Jordan’s depiction of the phenomenon:

Gyre by Chris Jordan

Riffing on Katsushika Hokusai‘s The Great Wave (aka The Breaking Wave Off Kanagawa), probably Japan’s most famous woodblock print, Jordan’s re-contextualization shifts the menace away from the original suggestion of a tsunami.  The danger comes not from the power of the wave itself — but rather from the millions of plastic particles contained within it.

Jordan, in describing how he made the artwork, says that Gyre

depicts 2.4 million pieces of plastic, equal to the estimated number of pounds of plastic pollution that enter the world’s oceans every hour. All of the plastic in this image was collected from the Pacific Ocean.

From a distance, the millions of self-similar plastic bits and debris are impressionistically arranged to mirror Hokusai’s iconic wave.  But the most striking fractal dimension of Jordan’s Gyre is the ability to zoom into it.  First, look at Jordan’s image above and focus on the snow-capped mountain in the background.  Now — Zoom!

Increasing detail of Gyre by Chris Jordan

In a recent interview with Benoit Mandelbrot on Big Think, the mathematician makes a passing reference to “fractal nightclubs,” which he says he “hasn’t been there” but can “guess what it was.”  Here is a portion of the interview.  Mandelbrot addresses chaos theory and the origin of the word fractal, but the reference to fractal nightclubs occurs at about the 6:00 point:

Mandelbrot is referring to the use of carefully choreographed fractal art slideshows for raves and similar venues.  I am of two minds about this development.  A well-orchestrated rave can be a highly moving, even artistic experience.  I see tangible benefits if fractal art can contribute to the overall enjoyment of such events, as well as becoming a more recognizable art form to a general public.  Then again, I’d like to see fractal art progress beyond the Grateful Dead backdrops of more than forty years past.  If fractals are nothing more than trippy effluvia, the jump from Ecstasy-enhanced flitting eyecandy to bona fide fine art form is not likely to be forthcoming.

That’s why Jordan’s Phase Two, fractal (based) art is so encouraging.  It’s socially relevant and politically tinged — not designed to be just another decorative projection on a scrim.  Jordan understands, as I’ve argued before, that fractal art must be more than beautiful to be viable.

~/~

Sheep’s Eyes (2001) by Rose Rushbrooke

And speaking of Phase Two, let’s not forget expressions made in the fiber arts.  I’ve long admired the fractal art quilts designed and created by Rose Rushbrooke.  I would love to see one in person, for they must be amazingly tactile.  Moreover, the process, as Rushbrooke describes here, sounds painstaking.  Still, the end result is obviously very gratifying and highly thought-provoking.  Rushbrooke notes that

Sometimes there is a barrier of diffidence when approaching a piece of art. We are not always sure what we are looking at. Fractal art quilts go a long way to breaking down that first moment of uncertainty. The strange, complex images combined with the sensuous substance of a quilt are very compelling. The urge to touch draws us into the work, creating an immediate connection between the artist and ourselves.

River Fish (2001) by Rose Rushbrooke

Rushbrooke’s work is unique and exquisite.  Please visit her web site to see additional art quilts, artist’s statements, photographs of exhibitions, tutorials, and other informational articles.

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal nightclubs, fractal quilts, chris jordan, rose rushbrooke, benoit mandelbrot, running the numbers 2, gyre, great pacific garbage patch, hey i like trippy effluvia, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Subtext by EssG

This is the conclusion of a series that began with a review of an article on deviantART entitled “People who’s [sic] Fractals SUCKED!!!”  The series focuses on responding to criticisms raised by some of the DA fractal art “masters” to my initial review and hones in on some poor rhetorical strategies of specific rebuttals.  For background, please refer to my original review, “Fractals That Suck,” as well on the two follow-up posts in the series, “Fractals That Suck Redux — Part One” that addressed the issue of the “fair use” clause in copyright law and its understanding that copyrighted images can be used in the context of a review or critique, and  “Fractals That Suck Redux — Part Two” that covered the various ad hominem reactions from some DA “masters” — reactions that failed to address nearly all the points I’d originally made.

~/~

Part Three: Text vs. Subtext

I’ve pretty much said what I have to say on this whole DA “masters” and their suck/rock fractals, especially on the many emotional responses kicked about, but there are a few loose ends to tie up before this topic is discarded like a worn out sneaker.

One aspect of this whole business that left me shaking my head was the extreme literalness of the commentary from some “masters” at DA, especially from Fiery-Fire (Iwona Fido) who authored the DA article I initially reviewed.  Ms. Fire, in a comment longer than my OT post, first went out of her way to explain the intent of her article and notes that

you [meaning me, "Mr. Animal"] misplaced the meaning of the News and also you lack of the inside knowledge of events preceding it’s publication.

and later, on DA, went on to inform me that

You also “trashed” the article, which was meant for the internal community on DA – and you assumed things from it, which are so far away from truth and it’s intention.

when, in fact, I  fully understood the article’s design.  On the surface, it showed the contrast in the level of skill between the early fractal work and more recent fractal work of 50+ DA members Ms. Fire labeled as “fractal art masters and wizards.”  That was the text.  But I saw more.  Under the surface, there was a subtext to the DA article — one that embodied  many of the fractal art community’s ills, as well as the prevailing mindset of Fractalbook itself.  I outlined this subtext in a post on the Fractal Forum:

What I objected to in my article is a prevailing aesthetic in our community that equates being technically proficient with fractal software to making exciting acts of creative self-expression.  Such cart-before-the-horse thinking is why so much of the work at art communities like deviantART all looks the same.  Everyone is copying off the same master palette, as it were, and then turning around and congratulating themselves for being artistic “masters.”  But all they have mastered is a certain level of technical accomplishment with their software, and, ironically, their earlier images often seem to make better use of artistic principles and design elements.  In short, their later work may be better crafted but could be becoming less engaging as art.

Why?  Because they’ve all embraced a cookie-cutter rubric of what constitutes good fractal art.  You see it everywhere — the BMFAC winners, the late Fractal Universe calendar, and in the latter-day images of DA’s self-proclaimed “masters.”  It’s an UF/Apo-based slick and baroque look that is busy in the extreme and highly ornamental but little else.  It’s my view that nearly all of these works may be regarded as adequately crafted eyecandy but very few engage viewers as compelling art.

The problem is that as long as this type of imagery is widely regarded as the “best fractal art possible”  — the art rewarded with prizes in contests and touted as the style any good “master” should strive to make — you will continue to see what I see at places like DA:  depressing conformity.  Replicating en masse buffed-to-a-sheen decorative craft over individualistic, engaging art seems backwards to me.  But, then again, I don’t make art to rack up back-slapping comment threads or to socialize with countless virtual friends who consider themselves “masters” of fractal art because they’ve been tinkering with fractal toys for a few years.

What’s the crux here?  I could see both the text and an additional subtext in Ms. Fire’s article.  But I wonder if she and other DA “masters” could see my text at all.

Ms. Fire then went on to give me a lesson in Fractal Rendering 101

In Apophysis Fractal Flame Generator (this is the accurate name for the program), when you open the application – the software loads a selected number of random flames, which contain completely random and accidental combinations of functions (called variations) chosen by the code. Most of the works which are in “before” section come from that batch, unfortunately this diminishes the artistic input from the author – as exciting or experimental as they may seem, they lack the intentional design, have poor quality output and even the coloring gradient is selected automatically at random.

even through I’ve helped beta-test ten different fractal programs.  Again, I understood the content of her article, but did she and others understand that I felt the article was an unflattering mirror that encapsulated what’s wrong with Fractalbook’s environment and crystallized the prevailing haughty attitudes of much of the fractal art scene?

I do know how both Apophysis and Ultra Fractal work.  What probably mystifies the many DA “masters” who overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, use these two programs is that I’ve deliberately made a choice not to use them.  And that brings me to…

Bonus: “Who Really Uses Shoddy Tools?”

Several DA “masters” responded to my initial post by attacking my art rather than by addressing my argument.  Mikahil Borodin, for example, observes my work is heavily processed in Photoshop and remarks that

It’s actually quite sad that some fractalists can’t tell the difference between fractals and photoshop.

and I think I understand why.  Much of what currently passes for fractal art is extensively graphically processed  — especially if it’s made using either Ultra Fractal or Apophysis, the software twins of choice for nearly all the DA “masters.”

I don’t want to rehash the whole post-processing argument (again) — seeing that I’ve already given my opinion on this topic and previously addressed the very bias Borodin exhibits when I explained that

Apparently, if you believe the poobahs, using your fractal generator, no matter how extensive its built-in manipulation functions, is cool. You are still and always will be a legit fractal artist. But export your fractal to another graphics program and begin flailing away, well, you’ve somehow cheated. Or, worse, you’re ignorant. You failed to read the rule book and follow the universally understood (even if arbitrary) limitations.

And how convenient is it that the most expensive fractal software also has the most post-processing capabilities? No wonder I used to see something like this tagged to posted images at on-line fractal communities: Made with UF. 100 layers. No post-processing. Who are you kidding? You bludgeoned that thing within an inch of its pixels! But you’ve manipulated nothing because you’ve miraculously remained within the (self-imposed) limitations and kept your extensive collaging activities strictly inside UF?

and even BMFAC director and UF advocate Damien M. Jones agrees that processing is processing, whether it takes place inside or outside of a fractal generator, and says

Terry is completely on the mark that all fractal images are “post-processed” in some fashion. We color them, or we layer them. Even if we choose “not” to color them, we are in fact making a choice (for black and white) because those reflect a property of the mathematics. Everything we do in creating fractal imagery is interpretation, a visualization of massive amounts of numbers, distilled into a form that we can make sense of quickly. So to say some algorithms for doing this are acceptable while others are not is rather pointless. To even suggest that some software can be used while other software cannot is also pointless; I can code almost anything in Ultra Fractal, so the choice not to use Photoshop is really just a personal preference and not one dictated by the art.

so here’s the deal.  If you’re doing layering and masking work in UF, or working with hacks and plugs in Apo, you’re engaging in unquestionable graphics processing not unlike that done in Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Painter, PhotoPaint, and so on.  So, please, spare me your holding-your-nose disdain about filters.  Since Photoshop filters also work using algorithms, there’s no discernible difference between using them and using Popcorn or other similar derivative formulas in UF.  And are you using UF5 to import photographs (bitmaps) or other static media into your “fractals”?  If so, you’re now working in mixed media — not fractal art.

Of course, nearly all fractal art today isn’t fractal art as folks like the Stone Soup Group understood it.  “Fractal art” is pretty much all graphics processing now — especially once you start pancaking multiple layers.  So when Chris “milleniumsentry” Oldfield chides me in a comment that

When you do start pushing that envelope, you will realize that some fractal software packages are indeed ‘toys’ and afford you very little artistic control beyond cropping and basic palette control.

You will never create a masterpiece with shoddy supplies, and broken tools. Anyone who takes art seriously can confirm this.

I sense he assumes I treat art as frivolity because his equipment is somehow superior to mine.  But, really, who is using the more limited tools?  If it’s all just graphics processing anyway, I’d rather have a Photoshop fully-stocked arsenal at my disposal rather than, say, UF’s watered-down Photoshop-lite bows and arrows.

And maybe that’s why I’ve complained that our community seems to consistently emphasize software over individual creative expression.  It’s back to the old tag line I still sometimes see on Fractalbook:  “Made in UF. 100 (200/300/400/500+) layers.  No post-processing.”  Translation: Look what I made UF make.

In such cases, the tools are clearly front-loaded at the expense of the artistic act.  Maybe that’s why so many entrants to the last BMFAC seemed unconcerned that both the UF and Apo authors actually served as two of the contest’s judges — in spite of having open-and-shut conflicts of interest.  Given the lopsided ratio of winners who just coincidentally used either UF or Apo, one might legitimately ask whether the competition was inherently set up all along to be more about software than about art.

So, I ask again, who’s really using shoddy tools?  Me?  When I finish a new work, I never say: Look what I made QuaSZ-Xenodream-Photoshop-Alien Skin-Flaming Pear-Power Retouche-Painter-PhotoPaint-PhotoImpact-Paint Shop Pro-GIMP-Bryce-etc. make.  I just think to myself: Look what I made.

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractalbook, fractals that suck, fractals that suck redux, fiery-fire, milleniumsentry, who really uses shoddy tools, look what i made uf make, cruelanimal, orbit trap

“I know you are but what am I?”

Photograph seen on SodaHead.

This is part of a continuing series that began with a review of an article on deviantART entitled “People who’s [sic] Fractals SUCKED!!!”  The series focuses on responding to criticisms raised by some of the DA fractal art “masters” to the review, and focuses on some specific rebuttals and the manner in which they were made.  For background, please refer to my original review, “Fractals That Suck,” as well on the first follow-up post in the series, “Fractals That Suck Redux — Part One” that addressed the issue of the “fair use” clause in copyright law and its understanding that copyrighted images can be used in the context of a review or critique.

~/~

Part Two: Kill the Messenger

Historically, delivering bad news has proved a risky business.  Omnipotent Wikipedia explains why:

In ancient times, messages were delivered in person by a human envoy. Sometimes, as in war, for example, the messenger was sent from the enemy camp. An easily-provoked combatant receiving such an overture could more easily vent anger (or otherwise retaliate) on the deliverer of the unpopular message than on its author, thus literally killing the messenger. In modern usage, the expression still refers to any kind of punishment meted out to the person bringing bad news, but has taken on an ironic dimension as well.

It brought me no joy to be the bearer of bad news about the fractal state of affairs at deviantART.  Still, in almost every case, DA members responded to my critique not by addressing the contentions I’d made, but by attacking me personally, and doing so from a number of fronts.

Front One: My art sucks, so where do I get off passing judgment on anybody else’s art.

Mikahil Borodin, for example, says

Before posting stuff like this, make sure your own art isn’t just a bunch of brushes, third-grade fractals and photoshop filters.

suggesting that because my own work more fittingly belongs in elementary school that I somehow forfeit my right to both have an opinion and to freely express it.

Borodin returns later in the same post to expand his critical assessment of my art

But then again, if I should do a critique of your works, i would say “Generic, eyesoring colours, low quality and messy” I would also add “Looks like something that has been HEAVILY filtered in photoshop.

that, to his credit, does elaborate a bit on the generalities suggested in his first critique. I’ll circle round to address his implied criticism of Photoshop filters later in this series.

Meanwhile, the act of reviewing the reviewer thrives over at DA and arguably marks a milestone: the appearance of actual negative criticism of fractals on Fractalbook.  Fiery-Fire, aka Iwona Fido, author of the sucking/rocking DA article(s), says

They [Tim and I?] not really, that perceptive as artists neither, if you have a look at their own gallery [meaning mine, I think, since Tim and I don't share one] of ‘so called’ fractals – at first glance I felt pity …

but doesn’t supply concrete examples of pitifulness like Borodin does.  And there are other scattered potshots littered among the  DA comment threads.  So, given the barbs, how do I feel about these critiques of my work?  Well…

Well…I’ll have to suck it up, shrug my shoulders, and carry on.  If I can dish it out, I’d better be ready to take it.  Freedom of speech cuts both ways.

Now, do I enjoy having my work trashed?  Of course not.  Who among us truly prefers criticism to praise?  But I’m fairly comfortable in my own skin.  As I writer, I got used to receiving criticism early in life.  Rejection slips are unavoidable and toughened me up.  I just move on to the next image or poem or blog post or whatever.  I trust my instincts and hope my vision is true.  As for criticism, I’ll take it, if I feel it is valid.  If not, I try to let it drop away and not get in the way of creating new work.  As for praise, I’m grateful to receive it, pleased that people like what I did, but I’m sometimes wary of its motive and always aware of its appeal.  Compliments, nice as they can be, should not be allowed to get in the way of creative work either.  One should not need praise to feel a sense of accomplishment or as any kind of a motivator to begin work on a new/next piece.  And, frankly, I think a constant stream of compliments can be counterproductive — especially if praise become addictive, or should the number of compliments make it impossible to pick out friends from flatterers.

Besides, criticism has some benefits.  It can tone up your work.  When creative writing comes back rejected, that’s a good time to look it over, again, with new eyes.  Put it through a few more iterations to improve the concept or composition or other elements. In other words, revise.  Then send out again to the next editor.

The publishing process has the advantage of keeping earlier iterations of not-quite-polished creative writing in the hands of editors and not yet seen by the public.  This allows art to better season.  The disadvantage of Fractalbook is that everything falls instantly into the laps of clique members — who may feel in competition with you or have other ulterior motives.  Worse, there’s never any motivation to rethink or revise any given posted image.  Look at the length of that comment thread.  Listen to all those oohs and aahs and pats on the back.  Every piece arrives fully realized — perfect — just like all the others.  After all, not just anyone can be called a “master?”

*
Front Two: Name-Calling.

I once wrote an OT post about Fractalbook.  In it, I traced the origins of online art communities and observed:

Fractalbookers think Fractalbook has noble, even highbrow origins. Something like a quilting bee or a debating society. But even more cultured. Like maybe their own personal Louvre where each Fractalbooker can be both artist and patron. Master craftsman and astute critic. Philosopher-king and mountain mystic. Pablo Picasso and Robert Hughes.

But an Art Pantheon is not the blueprint for Fractalbook. It has roots in a much more familiar model.

High School.

But I may have set the social development bar too high. The level of discourse coming out from the DA “masters” is often more in the range of a third-grader (ironically, according to Borodin, the prime audience for appreciating my work).  Consequently, the rhetorical complexity of  most responses rarely rises above a third-grader’s well-known favorite counter-taunt: I know you are but what am I?

After all, if you can’t counter or refute someone’s contentions, just insult them or call them names.  Let’s go to the video tape:.

grinning as ever!, who later calls me a “thief,” says

Just a knit picking bore! I had loads of fun making fractals! So whats it to you..Mr lonely!

although, personally, I do not consider the pervasiveness of conformity at DA, seen in the replication of design and ornamentation of style in at least 70 DA “masters,” to be “knit-picking.”  I’d consider such a situation more like a viral outbreak of abidance.  And I’m sure you had fun making fractals.  I’m sure you enjoyed the praise each received, too.  I just suggested that one of those fractals might not necessarily rise to the level of being art.

And what’s one to make of the following paradox?  Borodin says I am “a complete douche” and then turns around and tells me to “have a nice night.”  I’m getting mixed messages here, so I figure it’s a toss up.  But there’s no mistaking how Georg Kiehne (Xyrus02) feels:

I’ve heard of your writings in the past but no article has disgusted me more than this. Why do you even read postings on deviantART if you hate it that much? Can it be that there is an attention-addict child on the other line craving for stuff it could rape by twisting others words like the medium-class spirals I see all over this place?

Maybe it’s good I can’t quite ferret out the meaning here.  Am I the “attention-addict child?” Or am I raping children?  Or just raping images?  Or maybe raping ideas?  At any rate, I hope this is all just a hyperbolic misfire.  If not, I find it offensive.

And the above is just what a few of the “masters” will say to your face in the home of your own blog.  Back in the lair of the “masters,” within the paper-thin cyber-walls of DA, here’s how IDeviant feels:

As for those wankstains trapped in their own pathetic little orbits, I wouldn’t give them the steam off my fucking piss, let alone the dignity of a reply to their lily-livered vitriol

I want to point out, just for the record, that no one here at Orbit Trap was seeking that particular item in the first place. Even so, the remark does seem more than a little…uncongenial.  You’d think Ms. Fire, who initiated the post, would want to take steps to turn down the heat a bit.  But you’d be wrong.  She replies that

Few people from DA ‘reads’ their blog and they commonly known as obsessive ‘trolls’ or attention whores, who are well known for being nasty and mean.

That should definitely help to put out the torches and put down the pitchforks.  And, now that I’m cognizant of being an attention whore, let me call attention to how she concludes her remarks

Maybe it’s true, guys with ‘flashy-sporty cars’ do make-up for other things they don’t have in the traps case is ‘talent’

because it brings me to the next category which is

*
Front Three: Call in the Shrink

If you can’t refute someone’s argument, but can’t bring yourself to stoop to name-calling, then just play armchair psychiatrist.  Since I disagree with you “masters,” I obviously must be insane, neurotic/psychotic, or somehow psychologically traumatized.  In Ms. Fire’s analogy above, it’s clear that the OT bloggers are mentally scarred by having noxious attributes and a truckload of personality defects.  We “drive” a hotshot blog because (down deep) we know we are hacks as artists.  In other words, we overcompensate for ever-so-obvious moral or physical shortcomings. Well, I think I can see what DA’s Junior Freudians are implying

Yeah .  Ha .  And I bet “Mr. Animal” has a tiny dick, too .  Ha Ha .

which, I guess, is pretty funny — if you’re a third-grader.

Unless, of course, you prefer a much more infant-based, pre-verbal humor like that of grinning as ever! who, as a clinically-based comedian but unskilled typist, conjectures:

gdzsjkvirnsvjxnh kdfojvzx/locji z kiasdfuvhylsa,cjkhzkudrfhzdfvj ghskobx.n

But, make no mistake, there’s no shortage of possible psychiatric profiles.  Another favorite, and one long preferred by OT’s detractors, is the “sour grapes” diagnosis — in which OT’s bloggers are either bitter for not winning BMFAC, or in a rage for not placing in the Fractal Universe Calendar, or are too moody and socially stunted to fit into DA’s social scene and so lash out at their betters, or some other scenario I’d never consider ever wanting in the first place. Here’s a textbook example from rocamiadesign who says

OGM! I just read the blog, critiqueing your articles and then followed your link to the blogger’s “art”. Ewwwwwww! I think that he’s just spewing vitriol because he’s jealous of artists whose work actually sells.

meaning, for those of you keeping score at home, that I’m a loser — both as an artist and as an entrepreneur. Since I now assume rocamiadesign’s work, in contrast to mine, sells, why don’t we take a look at it:

Precious by rocamiadesigns

No!!! She outflanked me with the cute kitty maneuver. And public taste being what it is, and given the prevailing aesthetics of mass culture, I cannot recover.  I yield the field to a superior enterpriser.

Sometimes, two of the “masters,” highly trained headshrinkers, surely with advanced degrees in neuroscience, consult and come to a consensual assessment, as Dr. Borodin reports what he and his distinguished colleague have concluded:

Reading your articles (not that me or Iwona or anyone else wants revenge or anything like that….)we have concluded that you are not writing an review about the fractal community, you are boosting your own pitiful little ego of yours.

You know, Doc, calling me “a complete douche” is not exactly helping my self-esteem issues.  So, I think I’ll get a second opinion.

Other times, for the more gifted wannabe analysts, the psychological insights can rival those of Dr. Phil.  Like Dr.IDeviant, who, putting aside his urinary tract temperature for the moment, offers this extended prognosis without even the benefit of sitting in numerous talking cure sessions with me:

My ‘shrooms! And I just couldn’t resist a little tirade against the OT crew. I suspect a background in weak political activism or some such, the psychology is so obvious and repetitive, like precocious adolescents revelling in their new-found pseudo-intellectualism whilst simultaneously shit-stirring at the fringe of the community they just cannot join due to their own misanthropy. A serious critic would never adopt that tone without first having been personally humiliated at the hands of the target

So I’m a product of my environment, huh.  Too much social concern and education?  That’s my problem?  So I act out by conducting guerilla raids on DA because I’m too much of a misanthropic sourpuss to actually fit in with the other DA kewl kidz as they call each other an artistic “master” and stroke one another’s egos in the hopes of having theirs stroked in return?

I think all those other egos, each calling themselves “a master,” are probably crying out for help more loudly than mine.  And listen, Dr ID.  After you write me up a scrip for Zoloft to mellow out my tone problem, do you think you could help out that guy above who thinks I’m a rapist before he does decide he actually wants some of that revenge Dr. Iwona and Dr. Borodin say does not interest them?  Thanks.  Much appreciated. Now…about the bill…

~/~

So, gentle readers, keep obsessively clicking your mouse like a TV remote and join us for our next exciting OT episode of Fractals That Suck Redux entitled: “Text vs Subtext” — plus, for your further enjoyment, a special bonus short called “Who Really Uses Shoddy Tools?”  Until then…

~/~

P.S. To be fair, I should add that not every critical response to my post was pitched to a third-grade level.  Comments made by Esin Turkakin and chiaraLinde, for example, were civil, thoughtful, and welcomed — even if I did not always completely agree with all of their points.

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractalbook, fractals that suck, fractals that suck redux, calling dr borodin, calling dr ideviant, kill the messenger, i’m rubber you’re glue, shrink this why dontcha, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Bad ol’ weviewer! You fwighten me! You make my widdle heart quiver!

Image by James Cauty.  Seen on Uncertain Times.

Well, I certainly started a buzz with my last post.  I feel like I kicked a beehive after poking the queen bee in the eye with a white-hot branding iron.

I guess that’s what happens when the plastic bubble that encases Fractalbook is punctured and popped.  Here’s a recap.  I stumbled into an article on deviantART called “People who’s [sic] Fractals SUCKED!!!  The compiler, Fiery-Fire, who says she prefers I use her real name, Iwona Fido, and who is (anyone surprised?) a 2009 Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest winner, set out to show the difference in the skill level of images made early vs. recently in the “careers” of various DA members that she unironically dubbed fractal “masters or wizards.”  However, I reviewed what turned out to be only the first of three articles in a series (with a fourth surely in the works), and Ms. Fire, in a DA comment, was quick to point out how dull-witted OT was not to have noticed the article some months earlier

Well….it did take them [Orbit Trap] almost 8months to find the article So they not the brightest bunch

as if Tim and I stay on constant DEFCON 1, 24/7, scouring for the appearance of every new, neuron-strangling back-slap or kiss-up taking place in DA’s Fractal Clique Central.  The discovery of two additional Suck vs. Rock compilations means that my initial count of 21 “masters” was far too modest.  There are actually, according to Ms. Fire, 70 (and counting) fractal art “masters” — which I think is more than the number of artistic masters, in all other disciplines combined, listed in Heinrich Wolfflin’s Principles of Art History.

What I saw in that first article was a microcosm of most of the contemporary fractal scene’s ills — like (and try reading the rest of this paragraph quickly…like a pitchman’s rapid-fire delivery of disclaimers at the end of a TV commercial) valuing becoming proficient with software while noting nearly every “master” favors generating slick, baroque graphics- processing-heavy works preferred by users of either Ultra Fractal or Apophysis that results in a mass conformity certified by the replication of a deluge of self-same variants of fractal works seemingly made more to rack up popularity points in lengthy praise-dense comment threads and to place prominently in the next BMFAC contest rather than engaging in the making of fine art through embracing the spirit of inventive, experimental, individualistic acts of creative self-expression.

To illustrate my premise, I showed a number of images by Ms. Fire’s “masters” that displayed nearly interchangeable spiral formations, although, after seeing the continued ossification of the other previously unseen 49 other “masters,” I now realize I could have just as easily constructed several additional posts displaying previously unused images caught in the act of reduplicating forms other than spirals.  I concluded by noting that the highly buffed, overly fussy later works that supposedly rocked may be well crafted, but it was actually the more minimalistic earlier works that supposedly sucked that might be considered more artistic and often made more salutary use of design elements.

The review caused considerable emotional reflux round the bend at Fractalbook.  Some of the self-proclaimed “masters,”  accustomed to having every post of their work kissed and stroked and wrapped in a warm Snuggie stitched out of flattery, suddenly experienced the cold-water-to-the-face shock of an actual critical review.  In fact, the whole notion of an objective critique appears to be an alien concept to the Fractal Masters of deviantART (FMDA, Inc.).  When they placed their work in a public, online art community, how could they have ever imagined that the public might actually show up to view what they themselves openly displayed?  The only prospect imaginably worse would be if some members of the public might further have the gall to reflect on and then review their public, “masterly” fractal art in a fashion that does not involve gushing out yet another faving rave punctuated with cutesy, animated smilies.

If you haven’t read the review in question, surf back to it first and drink it in — and be sure to slowly sip rather than gulp the comments from the rankled DA “masters.”  I made a point to put up all comments emanating from Fractalbook — even those that were spiteful or juvenile or completely incoherent — because I felt the remarks provided insights into the Fractalbook mindset and environment.

While it would be time-consuming, not to mention time-wasting, to respond to each and every accusation hurled by DA’s “masters,” there are a few charges that get repeated enough to deserve a rebuttal in a series of upcoming OT posts I like to call: Fractals That Suck Redux.

~/~

Part One: The Theft of Copyright

I think the subsequent source of DA masterly ire that surprised me most was the repeated charge that I had somehow illegally and unethically “stolen” the images I used for illustration in my review.  It soon became clear to me that quite a few people at DA Fractals-R-Us Headquarters have considerable misconceptions about what can and what cannot be done, especially in the context of a critical review, with images posted online to an open, public site like deviantART.  Let’s go to the videotape…

Here’s a few remarks made on OT to my review:

dlr4553 says:

I wonder if the artists that you have “featured” in this post are aware that you have used their work. I find it hard to imagine that they would condone the use of their work as examples of what you feel is wrong with fractal art or to assist in your agenda to show art sites like deviantArt as a hotbed for mediocre and non-professional fractal art.

and grinning as ever! exclaims:

Ask if you want to use anything of mine in future..thief!

But the less restrained remarks come from the cold core of ground zero — the dark, quasi-alchemical lair of the fractal “masters” themselves — deviantART.  You can usually tell because of the presence of their many familiars that usually take the form of kitschy smilies:

Here’s dlr4553 again, at home:

What is bothering me is the nagging suspicion that he ["Mr. Animal"] did not obtain the permission of the artists whose copyrighted works he chose to “feature” in his post. I find it hard to believe that these artist are aware that their artwork is being used outside of dA to show examples of what this so called critic thinks is wrong with fractal art.

I don’t know if you have let these artists know about this honor he bestowed upon them, but I certainly intend to send them a note to inform them. I know that I would want to be aware of any unauthorized usage of my artwork, especially when it is being cast in a negative light.

LoonyL has this thought:

I’ve read that post on the Orbit Trap blog. I should probably leave a comment there (at least for pointing out the unauthorized use of my work) but I’ve decided that I really don’t care.

To which silwenka replies:

I was thinking about it either.. but I am pretty sure this person ["Mr. Animal" again, I'd guess] doesn’t care.

In the end, though, and without a doubt, it is Ms. Fire (writing as Iwona Fido) who frets and struts the most over inappropriate appropriation of images.  Here she is on OT — adding a postscript in a comment post that is considerably longer than my initial review:

PS.
Universal rule and courtesy, I hope you obtained the Authors permission to post the thumbnails of their artwork in your article (most Artists on devart, do have copyright protection on their images and that includes blogging, without authorizing the thumbnail of the image, will be posted outside the desired site).

But she really gets her mojo working on this subject after she tracks me down “hiding” in plain sight on my formerly empty DA home page:

Finally – what should I tell my friends, who’s images you posted and names you used in your article – “that I gave you the permission or knew about it” …I don’t think so….

Please DON’T do this again !!!

None of us care for your blog and none us, wishes to be featured by you in any way at any point

When I respond that DA is a public forum, and art that is posted in such places can be critiqued, and that copyright law has clauses allowing for images to be used for review purposes, she rises from her throne, pounds her scepter on the virtual podium, and threatens me with banishment:

I had my images blogged outside without my written permission
and I did ask for them to be deleted – ALL of my artworks are
copyrighted by ME – and you have no say in where and when you
gonna display them.

Read under the deviations you ‘stole’:
©2010 *LoonyL
©2009-2010 `JoelFaber
~depaz
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
©2008-2010 ~grinagog
©2009-2010 *milleniumsentry
©2010 =Jimpan1973

Those are not public licenses – they bound by law.

I would not be surprised, if you get banned for it, when the devart moderators find out Happened before – since the same excuse was used by people copying and reposting images on ‘wallpaper’ site – DA is not a public domain.

Notice, if you will, that she has confused the distinction between a public web site (like deviantART) and the concept of public domain.

So, in response, I posted the following reply to her.  It’s worth including in its entirety here as an open rebuttal to everyone immediately above who thinks I’m engaging in some kind of despicable thievery:

Notice that the license says “some rights reserved” — not all rights. I am not denying the images are copyrighted, nor am I using them in any commercial manner. I’m not stealing them and claiming they are mine, as perhaps the wallpaper site you mention may have done. In fact, in my post, I clearly identify the artists and provide a link to each of their galleries, which, I suspect, likely brings more traffic to DA.

I did not lift all of your article, nor did I put up all of the images used in the article. Even the few images I used were not posted at full size.

Orbit Trap writes reviews of fractal art. I reviewed your article and reproduced selected works of art that appeared in the article. Such action is legal and explicitly spelled out under the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, which allows copyrighted material to be reproduced for the purposes of critiques and reviews.

This is no different than quoting an excerpt from a book when writing a book review. Have you ever watched a movie review program where a clip from a film being reviewed is played? The film is copyrighted, but “fair use” maintains the clip can be used because such use is in the context of a review. What I have done is similar and certainly a common practice among people who write art criticism.

It seems clear why the law makes an exception in cases involving “fair use.” Without the protection of the fair use clause, all artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers could keep anyone from ever reviewing their work — whether the critiques were good or bad. The law recognizes that such an arrangement is not in the public interest.

Of course, you could have looked all of this up yourself, Iwona, instead of immediately jumping to conclusions and accusing me of theft. If the DA mods want to talk with me calmly and rationally about “fair use” and how it pertains to external reviews of art posted on a public site like this one, I would be happy to speak with them.

By the way, for the record, Orbit Trap is the only independent blog currently dedicated to reviews of fractal art. I have, in the past, also favorably reviewed (and linked to) a number of images housed on both DA and Renderosity.

~/~

This concludes the first part of “Fractals That Suck Redux.”  But don’t change that blogging dial, gentle readers   I’ll be back quicker than you can say self-similarity with yet another fun-filled episode with limited commercial interruptions and once more starring that wacky family of dysfunctional fractal art “masters and wizards” from your favorite Fractalbook mini-series.

So program your DVR to record Part Two entitled: Kill the Messenger.  Now, to tide you over, here’s a scene from our next exciting episode — in which dizzy dlr4553 quips:

Okay, I read that Orbit “Crap” post and I am just seething , but not for the obvious reasons.

And to which zany Iwona retorts:

They didn’t notify anybody about anything nor they asked anybody about their image rights, that part upsets me as well They used ‘copy image location’ and decided DA is a public domain and they allowed to do this

That’s right, kids.  And it’s all only on (cue reverb-heavy circa Space Angel announcer) OOORRRbit Trappp…

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractalbook, fractals that suck, deviantart, fiery-fire, iwona fido, dlr4553, mr animal goes to town, do you suck or do you rock, cruelanimal, orbit trap