April 10, 2008

Avalanche Publishing, Inc.
P.O. Box 55
Delafield , WI 53018

Attention: Publishing Team for the Fractal Universe Calendar

Dear Publishing Team:

I am writing you out of concern for the protocols used to solicit materials for your annual Fractal Universe Calendar.

I co-edit Orbit Trap, a blog devoted to fractals and fractal art. My partner, Tim Hodkinson, and I have become increasing concerned about the manner in which several major fractal art competitions are run, including the Fractal Universe Calendar. There appear to some serious questions of propriety in these competitions over issues of professional standards and conflicts of interest.

We have not only published our inquiries on our blog, but I have also taken the time to personally contact this year’s editor, Panny Brawley, to see if she might speak to our questions. The FAQ page of the Fractal Forum site clearly states that any questions not covered in the FAQ will try to be addressed and added to the FAQ page — or, if not, the publisher will be contacted. Here is the relevant passage:

We hope you will find that your questions have already been anticipated and answered. If not, please contact us. We will try to answer you personally, and add your question with it’s answer to this page — here. Where necessary, we will contact the publisher on your behalf for clarification.

I have now waited several weeks for a reply from Ms. Brawley, but I have heard nothing. I also have to assume that no one at Avalanche was contacted by her either, or I (or Orbit Trap) probably would have received some correspondence. Consequently, because of this lack of response, I have decided to write you directly in order to pose our questions.

One of our main concerns is why Avalanche Publishing solicits selections for the Fractal Universe Calendar using a competitive scenario. Although the web site claims “this is *not* a contest,” it certainly has the trappings of one. Your editor is actually more of a screener who whittles down the bulk of open submissions to a more manageable number. These finalists who have survived the initial cut are then sent to “the publishing team” who function as judges to make the final selection of thirteen images. This competitive framework is our major concern.

Such a competitive configuration seems to run counter to your usual selection methods. Under the heading of “Does Avalanche accept art submissions,” your own FAQ page on the Avalanche web site notes the following:

Due to the increasing amount of unsolicited materials we have been receiving each year, we no longer accept unsolicited submissions of transparencies and artwork. Avalanche editors will contact specific artists and photographers for submissions.

But all submissions for the Fractal Universe Calendar are unsolicited — at least by your definition. None of the open submissions for the contest result from direct contact with individual artists. Or, on the contrary, are specific artists sometimes approached? Later, in the contest FAQ, the following appears:

“Q: Will artwork, other than that submitted to you via this website, be considered for inclusion for the calendar?
A: Yes — possibly. In the past, Avalanche Publishing has requested specific fractals or fractal types. Special requests of individual artists may be made by approaching them directly.”

So content for the calendar is and is not solicited? If that is the case, why not just scrap the competition and have editors contact specific artists in the first place? Why not hire an editor who is a fractal artist, like Ms. Brawley, pay her a stipend, have her keep an eye on various fractal sites and art communities for a year, and then allow her to contact specific artists to submit works that fit with the calendar’s aesthetics? This would seem to be more in line with your usual practices. Moreover, by removing the competitive structure from the submission process, the questions about professionalism and conflicts of interest will vanish. As long as the Fractal Universe Calendar selection process is competitive, and the current practices are in place, questions of propriety will continue to arise. Here are a few that Orbit Trap has raised:

How are the Fractal Universe Calendar editors compensated for their services? We have heard mixed reports. One former editor noted that payment was strictly the inclusion of one image in the calendar. Another suggested that some monetary payment was also included — either for doing the editing or for having an image published. We have also heard that editors are free to include their own work into what is selected for the initial cut. Is this true? Is there a limit on the number of his or her own work an editor can include to the 200 images sent to the publishing team? What is that limit?

We feel that including an editor’s work — under any circumstances — into material that she or he is editing should raise questions about professionalism. But doing so in a competitive format is even more egregious and increases the likelihood that conflicts of interest might occur. This is not fanciful thinking either. By our calculations, just over 40% of the images published in the Fractal Universe Calendar from 2004 to 2008 were the work of just four people — all of whom were present or past editors.

Do you consider this ratio to be fair? Is this the reason the editors for previous years are not listed on the Fractal Universe Calendar web site?

Other questions:

–What protocols are in place to help prevent potential conflicts of interest — like editors or even “the publishing team” recognizing the submitted work of friends or family? Blind judging is apparently not strictly used, since the Fractal Universe Calendar FAQ notes that signatures are allowed on submissions.

— The same FAQ also states that the list of the final 200 images will not be made public. What is the reasoning for keeping this information private? There is no privacy issue involved, since artists willingly submitted their work for public show. Moreover, if given attribution, artists who made the cut might have added incentive to submit again the following year. Why not say who made the cut — and even list the number of images by a given artist that were passed on to the publisher?

–Who exactly are the we mentioned throughout the text of the Fractal Universe Calendar web site — especially since only one editor is listed? Is the reference to “the publishing team”? The only other person mentioned is someone who maintains the website. Is this person part of the us? And how is the site’s web designer compensated for her services?

I hope you do not misunderstand us. We are not questioning your right to publish a calendar and to use whatever material you wish. We are just questioning why you are using a competitive framework. By doing so, and by using the current practices, you run an increased risk of raising questions about impropriety — particularly in regard to standards of professionalism and to possible ethical shortcomings. If, instead, you managed the Fractal Universe Calendar selection process as a more conventional publishing venture — hiring and paying an editor to solicit work directly from artists — I would not be writing you in the first place.

I hope you will be able to answer our questions. I thank you for your time and effort, and I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest possible convenience.

Sincerely,

Terry Wright

Orbit Trap
http://orbittrap.blogspot.com

Email:
orbittrap(AT)ambaka,com
cruelanimal(AT)hotmail.com

Snail Mail:
Cruel Animal Productions
P.O. Box 25901
Little Rock , AR 72221-5901

We have written about the Fractal Universe Calendar on Orbit Trap on and off for several years now. Here are links to several recent posts:

Facelift:
http://orbittrap.blogspot.com/2008/03/facelift.html

Incoming:
http://orbittrap.blogspot.com/2008/03/incoming.html

This letter has also been posted on our blog.

~/~

I mailed this letter today to Avalanche Publishing — and I also sent the letter via the email contact on their web site. If I receive any reply from the publisher, I will publish it here on Orbit Trap. I certainly hope the publishers will be more responsive than this year’s Fractal Universe Calendar editor has been so far.

Tags: fractals, fractal art, fractal art contests, avalanche publishing, fractal universe calendar, panny brawley, ours is to question why, orbit trap

Hyperbolic coral forms by Christine Werthiem and Margaret Wertheim. Photo by Alyssa Gorelick.

From the “Goings on about Town” section of The New Yorker, 4-7-08:

Crocheting the Coral Reef: The Institute for Figuring, a Los Angeles based organization dedicated to bringing fractals, hyperbolic space and other high-flying mathematical and scientific concepts down to earth, has embarked upon an unusual project that’s inspired by the plight of the Great Barrier Reef. It is promoting the creation of woolen models of a coral reef, using techniques of hyperbolic crochet that were discovered by the mathematician Daina Taimina.

More on the project from the New York Times, 4-4-08:

This environmental version of the AIDS quilt is meant to draw attention to how rising temperatures and pollution are destroying the reef, the world’s largest natural wonder, said Margaret Wertheim, an organizer of the project, who was in Manhattan last weekend to lecture, offer crocheting workshops and gather recruits. The reef is scheduled to arrive in New York City next month.

[…]

Ms. Wertheim, a science writer, and her twin sister, Christine, who teaches at the California Institute for the Arts, came up with the idea of creating a woolly homage to the reef about two and a half years ago. The Wertheims, 49, grew up in Queensland in Australia, where the approximately 135,000-square-mile reef — and the billions of tiny organisms that it comprises — is located. But the Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef is much more than a warning about global warming. It marks the intersection of the Wertheims’ various passions: science, mathematics, art, feminism, handicrafts and social activism.

So what’s the back story on hyperbolic crochet anyway? We turn to the Institute on Figuring for the real skinny:

Hyperbolic crochet was itself the outgrowth of an unexpected branch of geometry. For two thousand years mathematicians attempted to prove that the only possible geometries were the flat, or Euclidean, plane, and the sphere. Great minds expended themselves on the effort, only to discover in the nineteenth century that a third option was logically necessitated. The discovery of this new “hyperbolic space” ushered in the field of non-Euclidean geometry, the mathematics underpinning general relativity, which aims to describe the shape of the cosmos. Mathematicians’ skepticism about hyperbolic space had been based in part on their inability to imagine how it would look, for they had no way to model it physically. Most were thus astounded when, in 1997, Dr. Daina Taimina, a Latvian émigré at Cornell University, presented a hyperbolic structure made with crochet.

Nature, meanwhile, had discovered the form in the Silurian age. Lettuces and kales — the crenellated vegetables — are manifestations of nearly hyperbolic surfaces, while in the oceans, corals, kelps, sponges, nudibranchs and flatworms all exhibit hyperbolic anatomical features. And so a woolly manifestation of a reef is not as unlikely as may first be supposed. Through the lens of crochet we may thus discern a hitherto unsuspected line connecting Euclid to sea slugs. Ways of constructing once perceived as “merely” women’s craft, and dismissed from the cannon of scientific practice, now emerge as revelatory forms of a more complex, embodied way of thinking about the world both mathematically and physically.

Now you know, fractalists. Ditch those mice and tablets. Pick up your needles and hooks instead.

~/~

And this information popped up in my Inbox this week. From the New York Times, 4-6-08, “In the Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Until They Drop“:

To be sure, there is no official diagnosis of death by blogging, and the premature demise of two people obviously does not qualify as an epidemic. There is also no certainty that the stress of the work contributed to their deaths. But friends and family of the deceased, and fellow information workers, say those deaths have them thinking about the dangers of their work style.

This news will likely warm the dark hearts of some of OT’s adversaries. Isn’t this exactly what Tim and I deserve for our many blogging perfidies? The. Death. Penalty.

But wait. Haven’t some our most vocal troll-hecklers recently gone on to form their own blogs? Hmmmmm.

~/~

And now — an update on our attempts to get some direct answers from this year’s editor of the in-progress Fractal Universe Calendar contest, um, competition, uh, sorta-publishing-like activity. Here’s what we’ve heard so far:

That’s right. Absolutely nothing. No emails. No letters. No updates to the FAQ on the FUC web site. But you already knew the answer, didn’t you? And it’s what we expected, too. After all, our fractal emperors can’t spare the time to address the riff-raff and hoi polloi as their carriages pass through peasant villages. Better to turn a blind eye to such peon baseness. Why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?

And to think our adversaries say we are the cowards.

Besides, maybe if the BailOutters and UFractali and the most important fractal artists in the world* ignore us, we’ll just go away.

Except we won’t. We are here to stay and are committed to bringing fairness and professionalism to both the Fractal Universe Calendar and the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest.

And I’ve waited long enough for a reply from the FUC editor. Now, I’m going to write Avalanche — the publishing company that produces the Fractal Universe Calendar. Maybe someone in the publishing house will be more inclined to address at least some of my questions. Stay tuned.

~/~

*It appears the link to this ostentatious, self-proclamation made about (by?) the self-selected, judge-winners of the 2006 BMFAC is no longer working. I wonder why? Just to keep its collective memory fresh for our readers, here is the claim that was made:

It [the 2006 BMFAC exhibition] will examine quality works from the most important fractal artists in the world.

Modesty is a vastly overrated virtue.
—John Kenneth Galbraith

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, digital art, hyperbolic crocheting, coral reef in fiber, institute of figuring, death by blogging, fractal universe calendar, avalanche publishing, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, orbit trap, snorkeling in wool

Well, it’s an exciting neck and neck (sea)horse race over at the idreamincolor forum where the locals are busy buzzing and definitively storming the hive while answering this honey-dripping question: What Is the Best Fractal Art Ever Created?

Next week, rumor has it, members will reboot cerebrums to grok something less philosophically taxing…like: Which Is the One True Religion?

As one might imagine, there’s plenty of aesthetic wrangling and mucho diversity of opinion being displayed. So far, according to OT’s exclusive exit polls:

To everyone’s surprise, the forum moderator’s friends are doing extremely well in the balloting. So, too, and most unexpectedly, is the moderator himself.

Naturally, much of the “best” fractal art “ever created” is found exclusively at online think tanks art communities like Renderosity and DeviantArt. If you aren’t a member, well, sad to report your museum experience has suddenly gone dark, and the best fractal art ever created will remain unseen behind a shadowy scrim. Your only solution: register immediately, surf around billboard-blinking-gif undressed Poser babes, through software ads, over backslapping comment litanies, near parameter tweaking festivals, and, finally, settle and soak up all the self-similar greatness in a heavily commercialized and remediated environment.

Despite pundit predictions, Ultra Fractal images are absolutely trashing competing programs. In fact, now that I think back, I don’t remember seeing any competing programs in the listings. According to poll workers, most of the voters appeared to be UF users as well. A coincidence, no doubt — and certainly one within the statistical margin of error.

Our correspondent live at campaign headquarters reports that the Fractal Universe editors and Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest judges are reaping major repeat lever pulls — apparently proving P. T. Barnum‘s observation that if you select yourself as one of “the most important fractal artists in the world,” there will always be suckers born every minute who will line up to proclaim you also produce the best fractal art ever created.

And this just in from the editorial desk. No doubt some of OT’s recent commenters will applaud this survey as a positive, blogging landmark in finely honed fractal art critiquing. They will argue, unquestionably, if nothing else, this symposium delivers on crucial epistemological criteria like insisting that suppositions should “spring from insight” and — more importantly for those exercising keen critical sensibilities — empirical evidence is invariably “presented in a way that will not be perceived as an attack on those at whom it is directed.”

In fact, I can feel the love all the way over here. Why it’s the penultimate Über Top Twenty OF ALL TIME!!!!

ANOTHER. MASTERPIECE. AND. ANOTHER. AND. MY. GOD. STILL. ANOTHER.

Yes
one
big
cosmic
karmic
*V*!!!!!!!

~/~

Sorry. I got a little carried away there. I had to take a short break to towel myself off on the fainting couch.

I was so pumped by all the excitement because I wanted to add my thoroughly uniterated two cents to this list of lists. But then I remembered that I could not participate since the moderator had banned me from the forum after just one post. Oh woe. If I understood what gnashing of teeth was, I’d do it.

But, fortunately, I am able to still post here at Orbit Trap — thanks to the Chinese communist overloads who allow Tim and I to front this blog as their propagandistic puppet-stooges when we aren’t kept busy in the OT sweatshop dabbing toxic paint on exported and easily breakable toys.

Even so, I present my suggestions with much sheepishness. I know my entries for the best fractal art ever created pale when compared to the dispassionately selected works being critically metastasized just around the cyber-block. Nonetheless, after considerable soul searching and generator-wringing, here are my top five picks:

#5

#4

#3

#2

#1

Galaxies

I know what you’re thinking. And you’re right. The Big Bang‘s parameter files and The Creator‘s iterations just cannot measure up.

If only they’d used Ultra Fractal instead…

~/~

Web sites for photo credits: broccoli, frost, clouds, trees, and galaxies.

Tags: fractal, fractal art, digital art, best fractal art ever created, pitiful natural fractal failures, ultra fractal, idreamincolor, orbit trap

Ah, back to blogging after some wandering in RL wilderness.

The holidays nearly did me in. Although anti-depressants are currently weathering a storm of debunkers, their alleged restorative process might be an appropriate metaphor. Getting through the Yuletide Ho Ho Ho-ing took some uptaking. But recovery from Christmassacre required serious re-uptaking.

Halloween. Now that’s my idea of an enjoyable, even religious holiday.

~/~

This post is just odds and ends. Fragments. Bits. Discontinuous. Blogging for the televisual throngs.

Best to type quickly until my internalized remote control begins to surf.

~/~

Some regular OT readers will no doubt be surprised to learn that I actually have some friends — and some of our frenetic regulars might even make for the fainting couch to hear that some OT readers really do send me messages that do not fall into the category of hate mail.

I know. There are those who won’t believe me until I’m interrogated point blank while wired up on The Moment of Truth.

~/~

I am a mathematician, and I’d like to stand on your roof…
—Ron Eglash greeting African families while researching fractal architecture

One friend sent me this link to a sixteen minute video featuring Dr. Ron Eglash, an ethno-mathematician, discussing how fractal patterns are featured prominently in African architecture and art — and even in board games and hair braiding. Eglash’s presentation is first-rate as he mixes geometry (and symbolic code) with humor while illustrating many of his observations directly from his laptop.

He certainly knows his stuff. He received a Fulbright to look at African locales and their structures up close and personal. I especially enjoyed his demonstration showing the noticeable fractal patterns in villages across the continent. He used schematic drawings and overhead photography to make a most convincing case. He further notes that fractal forms are not universally found in all indigenous groups but are unquestionably widely represented throughout African culture.

I think anyone who is fractal-addicted or fascinated with algorithmic art will enjoy this stimulating presentation.

If this topic sounds a little familiar, I wrote a post on fractals and African art in the early, mellower, kumbayaa days of Orbit Trap.

~/~

And now, as Monty Python liked to remind us, for something completely different.

Another friend sent me to look over this installation in order to flush out my artistic preconceptions. Such work should make all of us feel better the next time someone tells us our art looks like…well…like…

Cloaca (2000) by Wim Delvoye

[Photograph by Dirk Pauwels]

Cloaca (Detail)

[Photograph by Cristoph Neerman]

Artnet, in a post titled “A Human Masterpiece” by Els Fiers, fills in the gaps:

Cloaca, the latest work by the Belgian conceptualist Wim Delvoye (b. 1965), has just closed out its run at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MuHKA) in Antwerp. It was a room-sized installation of six glass containers connected to each other with wires, tubes and pumps. Every day, the machine received a certain amount of food.

Meat, fish, vegetables and pastries passed through a giant blender, were mixed with water, and poured into jars filled with acids and enzyme liquids. There they got the same treatment as the human stomach would supply. Electronic and mechanical units controlled the process, and after almost two days the food came out of a filtering unit as something close to genuine, human shit.

During the exhibition, the smelly assembly line caused quite some consternation. It seemed to bring an infernal message into the world. There is enough dung as it is. Why make more?

Worse, the installation was placed in a cold, clean space at the museum, where it was nourished by a first class chef who prepared two meals a day in an attached kitchen. The atmosphere suggested a hospital equipped for a strange experiment — the birth and care of a machine that eats and defecates — a mechanical baby. “Hi,” it seemed to say, “I’m almost like you.”

[…]

Delvoye has given a name to his harsh creature: Cloaca, referring to the ancient sewer in Rome. But while the cloaca maxima proved to be useful, this Cloaca goes beyond every purpose, except of course revealing of the meaning of art. So, too, the spending and earning of money is part of its purpose. The machine daily delivered turds that were signed and sold for $1,000 each.

Delvoye has since gone on to make new improved iterations of defecating machines. Version 8.0, Super Cloaca, consumes 300kg of food and produces 80kg of waste daily.

And you say you’re having trouble selling fractal prints? Perhaps the problem with your art is that it’s just not as tactile as Delvoye’s:

Delvoye also set himself the task to insert the products of Cloaca in the global economic system. The Casino Luxembourg had a special Wim shop where you could buy a Wim action figure but also a whole range of Cloaca products: Cloaca T-shirts, a 3D Viewmaster, Cloaca toilet paper, posters, etc. But that’s just a merchandising detail: the Cloaca machines are works of art which produce works of art. On show were dozens of vacuum-packed Cloaca eliminations made during the 5 first exhibits of the machine around the world. There’s apparently a waiting list of collectors eager to buy one of those, and the faeces made during the New York exhibition are the most sought-after.
–from “Wim Delvoye: Cloaca 2000-2007” on We Make Money Not Art

This project takes the museum guide‘s admonishment of please don’t touch the art to a new level.

In fact, metaphors expand almost exponentially here. Is this elevating the low or undercutting the high? Is the message that all modern and postmodern art is crap (literally!!) or is this analysis from absolutearts.com more in line with your thinking:

Cloaca brings together trends in contemporary art that are usually considered separately. At one extreme is a growing interest in how art and technology intersect, particularly with regard to where life begins and ends, and the impact of artificial intelligence, robotics, software, and bioengineering on cultural production. At the opposite end of the critical spectrum is the investigation of abjection as a fundamental part of the human condition. Cloaca addresses both of these areas of inquiry by drawing direct parallels between the contemplation of art, the contemplation of our body and its functions, and the degree to which each are effected by advances in medicine, gene mapping, and technology. In its imitation of human behavior, Cloaca even functions as a modern-day golem.

Maybe, in the (ahem) end, we should let the artist have the last word

When I was going to art school, all my family said I was wasting my time, and now I have made a work of art about waste.

~/~

Go for the Jugular (2008)

And speaking of art stuff that stinks…

Tim’s latest post on Anti-Fractals was definitely on target. A noticeable trend among some of the more prominent (through their own self-promotion) Ultra Fractal artists is to produce fractals that don’t look like fractals. In fact, these fractals (and Tim provided examples) seem to want to mirror conventional art — especially abstract expressionism resembling melted ice cream.

As Tim notes, UF’s upgrades have been deliberately designed to remove fractalness by adding Photoshop Jr. graphic manipulation tools. Now Xtreme layering and masking can be done in a “pure” fractal generator without suffering the heartbreak and guilt of “cheating” with Photoshop. Working in UF strictly in order to make large prints is a defensive rationale I often hear. But anyone with weightlifting processors and plenty of RAM oomph can post-process on a grand scale fairly easily in Photoshop. No, the real reason is probably an ailment found in royal blood — closer to a kind of disinterested, entitled snobbery.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to see fractal art look less stereotypically identifiable as such. I’ve been hitched to that wagon for many years.

But how ironic is it that some of these fractalists freely exploring the increasingly non-fractal, non-representational modern art event horizons are the very people who will insist other feudal fractal artists remain confined within safe, conventional, same-as-it-ever-was boundaries.

Let’s revisit the rules for acceptable entries in last year’s Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest:

We want to show artwork that is uniquely fractal; artwork that uses fractal tools to produce less-fractal imagery is not as desirable.

Why do I keep expecting to read some huckstering small print ad speak like:

Using Ultra Fractal not included. Limitations not applicable to contest panel members.

Look at the images Tim included in his post. No, the rules did not apply to BMFAC’s judges. They were free to be as progressively avant-garde as they wished. That way they can come off looking more cutting edge — more convention-smashing than the regular entrants they conveniently artistically hogtied.

And if you want to join the vanguard of these pioneers, you best follow their lead and imitate their style. Better yet, just clone their representations by enrolling in the Mississippi School of Anti-Fractal Art™.

But don’t expect apologies anytime soon from this bunch who profit out the eating end by self-selecting their own work and then profit again out the defecating end by hanging that same non-juried work into a juried exhibition they themselves have judged.

Do you smell something?

I do. Every one of the BMFAC judges should be ashamed.

But they aren’t. At all. On the contrary, they’re getting big time promotional exposure as heavily trafficked blogs like Boing Boing send websurfers scurrying to gawk at the contest pages.

This is mixed blessing, of course. The true exhibitors and winners — those who actually had to enter the competition, who played fair by the hypocritical rules limitations the judges imposed but were not bound by, and who were juried and selected — deserve every recognition. I hope the BMFAC site is swamped with people coming to see the real winners. This achievement spotlighting their talents should be widely seen.

But it’s a travesty that the judges who set up this promotional self-glorification to further their own careers are also openly reaping rewards. BMFAC is a rich “field of dreams” for them. Apparently, if you build an arrogant publicity stunt, they (sadly) will come.

Fractal artists everywhere should be outraged at such transparent ploys.

Instead, though, a few supporters of the BMFAC judges continue flamethrowing me emails insisting I apologize for pointing out our fractal emperors have no clothes.

~/~

Image made with Fractal ViZion. Post-processed until even vampires wouldn’t come near it.

Rooms with a View
Blog with a View

Tags: fractal, fractal art, digital art, computer art, ron eglash, vim delvoye, cloaca, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, art contests, ultra fractal, mississippi school of anti fractal art, orbit trap

Naysayer (2007)

The price of professionalism is no more costly than the mistakes of amateurs.
–Slogan for MonkeyIT

The fractal contest fracases refuse to “go gentle into that good night.”

After much sound and fury (signifying nothing?) in the OT comments, I finally posed this challenge seeking whether someone could:

explain to me why these contests make good ethical and professional models that reflect well on the fractal community…

To her credit, artist WelshWench made the attempt. I’d like to take the opportunity to address some of her points because they just might shed a bit more light on the problematic nature of both the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest and the Fractal Universe calendar competition. It is my hope that elaboration here will help to further clarify why both Tim and I have openly expressed concerns about how these competitions are being administered.

But first, I’d like to thank WelshWench for keeping her remarks civil — a trait lacking in some of our critics.

WelshWench says:

I disagree that there is a conflict of interests when rules and conditions are clearly set out. No one who entered a fractal image for either the Calender or the BMFAC who had basic comprehension skills could have been under any misunderstanding whatsoever.

I disagree that they are conducted in an “unethical” manner for the same reason.

I have never argued the rules were not made public or were deceptive in any way. Instead, I have tried to point out that disclosure does not automatically make rules fair or ethical. Whether contestants agree to submission requirements also has no bearing on their justness. You seem to be arguing that contest organizers can set their own standards for propriety as long as they make a public, transparent disclosure of their intentions. Here are a couple of results from such open books: 40.3% of the images selected for the Fractal Universe calendars from 2005-2008 came from just four people — the two current editors and the two previous editors. This year, the BMFAC “rules” allowed the judges to claim 40% of the exhibition space. If, next year, the “rules” set out that BMFAC’s judges will claim 90% of the available walls, will you still have no problem with the rightness of such stipulations?

Basically, we have asked questions about these contests in two areas: professionalism and conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest occur when judges have personal interests that give them motives for accepting or rejecting entries for reasons other than perceived artistic merits. Wikipedia notes the following:

A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system.

Conflicts of interests in art competitions are acknowledged and have been widely addressed. For example, the College Art Association established guidelines in their “Statement of Conflict of Interest.” According to that text, one situation that “may present a potential conflict of interest” is the following:

The juror has a personal relationship with the nominee. Personal relationships that may create a conflict of interest include: family member, domestic or professional partner, research collaborator, teacher/mentor, student, dissertation advisor/advisee.

We have noted before and documented that current or former students of at least one judge were selected for the BMFAC exhibition. We asked if any safeguards were in effect to guard against such conflicts of interest — and have received no reply. Although WelshWench claims that the “rules and conditions have clearly been set out,” this is not true; neither competition specifies procedures for handling potential conflicts of interest, including personal relationships judges have with contestants.

We’ve also wondered about Ultra Fractal’s prominence in the BMFAC contest. The massive submission sizes could be seen as favoring UF over some other programs incapable of producing such large dimensions. Moreover, a high percentage of exhibited images have been made with UF — and most of the judges work primarily with that particular program. So what’s the problem? Another “potential conflict of interest” mentioned by the CAA is:

The juror could benefit from the decision financially.

Several of the judges receive payment for teaching courses on the use of Ultra Fractal. Would they not thus potentially have a stake in its promotion — more sales? more students? Again, what safeguards were in place to prevent any possibility of influence peddling? This is a legitimate question. After all, as we saw above, a conflict of interest can exist “even if no unethical or improper act results from it.” Several BMFAC winners admitted taking UF courses taught by a judge or judges.

One might further ask if there are other BMFAC ties to UF — especially since Jones, the contest director, hosts both the BMFAC site and the Ultra Fractal site on the same server— not to mention his personal galleries there, too. If nothing else, he likely benefits from considerable linked cross-traffic — and some of those surfers will stumble into his print pricing page.

WelshWench says:

You have a valid point that most competitions/contests do not include the judges work. But then most contests/competitions which are completely open charge fees for entries and quite a few I have seen which are solely for digital works also require the artists to stump up the cost of printing and framing, which is not the case for either of these.

The fees charged in many cases are, I would suggest, not only to cover the cost of the actual exhibition venue and associated publicity but also used to compensate the judges for their time. I would also suggest that having a single piece of one’s own work exhibited is minimal compensation for the time spent judging the submitted works.

Indeed, most contests in any of the fine arts do not include the work of judges. And why is that? I’d argue it’s because doing so instinctively raises wave-the-red-flag ethical questions and fuels concerns about an appropriate level of professionalism.

You’re right. Entry fees are common — used to cover the costs of displaying work, of publicity, and of paying judges. But you’ve left off something — something of critical importance for this discussion. Entry fees also commonly pay for screeners — individuals hired to prune down the large bulk of initial contest entries into a smaller, more manageable group of finalists who are then chosen for awards by (in most cases) a single judge or (sometimes) by a modest panel of judges.

And this is the stage where both fractal competitions go wrong. Why? Because they have turned their screeners into judges. Then, to make matters worse, they compensate them by allowing inclusion of their work to be displayed beside those they have juried. The result? The contests become flooded (at a rate of about 40%) with the screeners-now-judges’ works at the expense of the contestants. And how does this look to the outside? At best — it appears extremely unprofessional. At worst — it looks openly and unmistakably rigged.

Now, if these screeners were merely paid for their work and had none of their art in either competition, would I be asking questions about possible improprieties? No. If the panel members of BMFAC had winnowed the entries and passed on finalists only to Professor Mandelbrot for judging — and then included several fractals of his –would that process be acceptable? Yes. Even respectful — as a gesture of courtesy to a judge — one judge.

But 40% of the final product? In the case of the FU, which is a hybrid of a publishing venture mashed with a competition, the editors function as screeners, and then the bigwigs at the publishing house make the final call. Why not just pay the FU screeners strictly for their services — and hire even more screeners as insurance against potential conflicts of interest? Even if one accepts WelshWench’s view that including a “single work” is “minimal compensation,” it’s worth noting that inclusion in FU also comes with a paycheck — and editors can submit additional work of their own (beyond the one piece grandfathered in as “minimal” compensation) into the batch of “finalists” sent to the publishers. Obviously, it’s good to be a current or former editor at FU — as seen by the astronomical acceptance rate for that diminutive group of four individuals.

BMFAC is worse because it’s grounded in being first and foremost a publicity package for the judges. It was set up to front an invitational exhibition (of Jones’ buds) who then are given a blank check to mix their unjuried work with that of the judged-by-them “winners.” Thus, the judges’ art takes on a more prestigious glow as the distinction blurs between juried and self-selected pieces. WelshWench’s minimal compensation of one image per judge adds up quickly here — especially since these judges aren’t content with just being shown in the same space as the innumerable web-based “prizewinners.” No, BMFAC judges insist upon the resume-packing (and probably more profitable in the long run) wallop of inclusion in the gallery exhibit. With a ratio of 10 judges to 15 “winners,” the judges swallow up almost half the walls — and that’s before a single contest entry dribbles in. Talk about having your cake and eating it way beyond “minimal compensation.” The judges have front row, reserved seats that come with free backstage pass perks.

And, yes, it’s nice not to have shell out expenses to mat, frame, and ship a print to Spain — but a price is still being paid by the artists. They are giving up some artistic control over how their art will be presented. Jones says the printing and framing done for BMFAC is of the highest quality, and I have no reason to doubt him. Still, I’d always prefer my prints to be done by my own professional printer — who understands how to bring out the best in my work. I also prefer keeping control over what inks and papers and canvas and mats and glass and frames will be used when my work appears in public venues. You have to ask: will a free contest assure the same quality control as you would?

WelshWench says:

So here’s a serious, if hypothetical, question for you: would you prefer to see very many fractal artists excluded from entering competitions because they couldn’t afford the entry fee and/or the costs of printing and framing? What about a contest that attracted many times the number of final exhibits at $25 a pop? How much of a profit do the organisers have to make before that verges on unethical?

To answer your hypothetical question requires some context. Do I want to see fewer artists enter fractal contests because financial constraints leave artists unable to afford entry fees, framing fees, and shipping fees? Of course not. But compared to what? Compared to having contests where conflicts of interest are not fortified and judges get a back door bye allowing them to eat up nearly half the presentational space? Well, what’s the lesser of two evils? I’d rather have a fair but pricier contest than one blowing off professionalism and shrugging off improprieties. Free lunches usually come with some kind of consequences.

Would I like a fractal contest that price gouges artists in an attempt to blatantly line the organizer’s pockets? Absolutely not. Such competitions would be grossly unethical and should be vigorously condemned. If a fractal contest appears that conducts itself in such a fashion, I will be here on OT to speak out immediately against any such practices that border on extortion.

But there are no such fractal contests at the moment. There are only the two under discussion. Their practices are not hypothetical.

Besides, are these the only choices available — favoritism vs. profiteering? How about a fractal contest run like most of the art contests you alluded to earlier? One that keeps the professional distance between judges and contestants, charges a reasonable entry fee to pay organizational and screening/judging expenses, outlines guidelines guarding against conflicts of interest, and keeps entry requirements expansive enough to include as many programs (and thus styles) as possible? Perhaps the fractal community needs a guild or an organization to draft some generally agreed upon guidelines. There is a precedent. The Graphic Artists Guild composed and adopted such a document back in 1980.

WelshWench says:

I think there’s room for both sorts of contest. But from what I’ve seen, without the organisers of the Calendar competition and the BMFAC, there wouldn’t be any purely fractal competitions, let alone ones that people could enter at no cost to themselves.

I think there are really only two categories of art competitions: those run with a high degree of professionalism and those run with a low degree of professionalism. Personally, I’d rather face the prospect of having no purely fractal art competitions than continuing on with the status quo unchanged.

Why? I think we are all paying a very high cost for how these two contests are being handled. Ask yourself: how does it look to those outside of our small fractal fish tank when our competitions are nearly half-filled with the work of judges rather than contestants? Do we want fractal art taken seriously by the larger art world? Then we better begin appearing to art outsiders like we are professionals who care deeply about ethics and standards. Doing so means adhering to established practices designed to safeguard the integrity of our competitions — as well as being willing to make sacrifices other art professionals routinely endure to ensure competitions maintain integrity and evenhandedness. We should not be defending questionable practices as either business-as-usual or as better-than-nothing.

There’s always a price to pay for professionalism. I wonder if our community has evolved to the point where we are willing to pay it.

If not, then hunker down and get used to art establishment honchos viewing us as amateurs and hacks who seem all too willing to turn a blind eye to corruption and cronyism.

~/~

Technorati Tags: orbit trap, fractal, fractal art, digital art, fractal contest, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, fractal universe calendar, fractalus, damien m jones, art contests, professionalism

As an art lover, one thing I enjoy about the Internet is that I am always only a few mouse clicks away from a museum.

When Orbit Trap first began, I wrote a post called Morning Walk where I wandered into a few fractal galleries and reflected on what I saw. I’d like to take up that concept again on a semi-regular basis. There is so much good fractal (and fractal-based) art tucked away in the nooks of the Web. It seems to me that one of the obligations of this blog is to dig out fractal gold when one strikes a rich vein.

The advantage of an evening stroll over a morning walk is that hot coffee can be transubstantiated into Jack Daniels. Hopefully, the art we see tonight will burn as it goes all the way down.

No need to call a cab. We’re here.

Karen Jones uses minimalistic suggestion to create sumptuous, evocative images. Very few fractal artists can elicit sensuality as well as Jones. Anyone who’s worked much with fractals knows that occasionally anatomical surprises sometimes show up unexpectedly. But the result is usually not much more than a giggle. Jones’ mines fractals to bring out expressions of sexuality. Her images never result in sniggering. Instead, they are emotionally comforting — even awe-inspiring.

Jones divides her galleries into thematic blocks. All are worth exploring, but I find some more moving than others — especially when she walks on grander, more abstract territory. In the “Philosophy” section, for example, the green sweeping arcs of “Sermon” (I’d add links to referenced images, but Jones does not provide such a mechanism) and the fragmentation and use of open space in “Haunting” are both extremely effective. I also like parts of the “Nature” category, especially the stark forms of “Visions of the Moon” — which reminds me a little of the work of Susan Gardner, another superb fractal minimalist.

But it’s in the area of “Sexuality” that Jones excels. Images like “Sleeping Nude” and “Awakenings” are extremely tactile when examining fleshly desires. But there is nothing prurient or salacious about Jones’ art. Her ability to capture the tenderness and beauty of sexual activity is a remarkable achievement.

Next stop is Into the Mystic, the sprawling site of programmer/artist/photographer/poet Terry W. Gintz. Gintz might be best known for his considerable talents as a programmer (Fractal Zplot, QuaSZ, Fractal ViZion, Crocus, and many others), but today I’m hanging out in his “Poemscapes Gallery.” Having “defaced” (as I was once accused) a few fractals with text myself, I like this media mixing. Gintz has good instincts — using both photographs and fractals to complement his original poetry. The balance works well to create a synergy where neither the image nor the text subsumes but rather brings about a harmonious balance. Moreover, especially compared to some other fractalists who dabble in verse, Gintz is an excellent poet in his own right. His writings are always integrated seamlessly and thematically to his images. Nature (and its ongoing, encroaching loss) is one common theme — but Gintz also shares a deep affinity with the Beats — especially in how poets like Corso would blend elevated language with more common vernacular. “Rush Hour (Zero Emissions)” serves as a prime example of this tendency:

This seething beneath the surface
this impatience for action,
a matchbook of dreams
a flood of farthlings.

No use shooting for grouse
when the roasting pan eludes us.

Watch the fender, buddy!

The metaphors of fire, hunting, and flocking all combine to suggest the restless turbulence about to explode in a rush hour road rage. Other favorites of mine include the heavily post-processing and lush language of “Specialty of the House” (and a poem as sensual as Jones’ work) and an upset-the-9/11-oxcart piece called “Postscript to Atta’s Sunset Diary” with an ending sure to puzzle the irony-deprived. I hear that Gintz has wandered into areas other than programming and fractal art lately — and with his prodigious talents I guess that’s no surprise. But I always find new surprises in the recessed longitudes and latitudes of his “poemscapes.”

We’ve been plenty critical here at OT of this year’s Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest’s judges over the last few months. However, one thing they sometimes got right was the competition’s winning and alternate selections. I especially liked Susan Chambless’ luminescent “Shuttered Windows”, Liz Nixon’s radiant “Brushfire” (is it a heavily processed Apo image?), and Vivian Woods’ complex, dynamic “Merlin’s Quest.” It was also nice to find a few XenoDream images in the winner’s circle, including “Sunset Mood” — a striking piece from Stefan Vitanov. A quick surf over to his galleries is well worth your time.

There’s so much to see, it’s hard to know where to start. I wandered first into Vitanov’s “Ruins” room — where one finds a stunning assortment of Fractint works crumbling away like Roman antiquities. I dug the precision of “Architectural Study” and “Golden Temple” — quite a contrast to the chaotic, colorful collisions in his “Abstract” gallery like “Short Before Sunrise 3.”

But it’s the 3D art from XenoDream that really dazzles — like the image above from the “Shells” gallery or much of the art from “Dreamscapes.” Ornate cityscapes, like “Downtown (Part 2)” — this one complete with a fractal sky — rise up to tower in elaborate, telescopic detail. One of my favorites, and certainly among the most rarefied, is “House of Despair” — a monolith that reminded me (with a shudder) of the blown-away facade of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after the Oklahoma City bombing. Tolkien fans will have fun scrutinizing “Near the Mordor’s Gate.” Is that the Eye of Sauron I spy at the apex of the tallest pyramid? And I’ve only scratched the surface of Vitanov’s expansive site.

Well, it looks like the blog’s about to close for the night. I hope you enjoyed taking a jaunt with me. I plan to take more walks and strolls in the future. After all, there’s no shortage of inventive fractal artists in cyberspace.

~/~

BMFAC UPDATE–

And speaking of the contest-under-a-microscope, the discussion of the propriety of the 2007 Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest spilled over into the Xenodreamers YahooGroup last week (you’ll need to become a member in order to read postings). The contest director and I had a few short exchanges. The most interesting moment was when I asked:

Now that you and the panel members passed out a whopping 71 awards honoring quality this year, doesn’t that mean you can comfortably scrap including the judges’ work (40% of the exhibition, by the way) next year and keep the contest strictly for the contestants?

To which contest director, Damien M. Jones, said:

Actually, yes.

It will be interesting to see if he actually keeps his word. Or will, once more, the contest scapegoats sponsors again “insist” (weeks before being named and via telepathy) that the previous model of hanging (on the wall) judges be kept intact? Time will tell.

Of course, our critiques here at OT had absolutely nothing to do with this sudden, surprising reversal. Jones said the whole issue was “dead,” and I noted that our OT Inbox suggests the contest controversy is far from deceased. Jones retorted that the email he’s received notes Tim and I are “being ridiculous,” and I observed in turn that

It’s possible my circle of correspondence is not quite as closed as yours.

Jones, echoing the tired “sour grapes” refrain of other OT commenters, questioned my motivations by observing:

We made it much clearer right from the start that panel members’ artwork would also be included. Apparently you didn’t find the terms too objectionable, since you entered the contest yourself. Aren’t you just complaining because your work wasn’t selected?

I responded by saying:

I’ve never denied that you did not make your terms public. But open disclosure does not mean your guidelines are inherently ethical or fair. The question is really one of propriety.

You’ve accused me of “sour grapes” several times now. The fact that I entered the contest actually shows just the opposite.

I like to enter contests — at least once. You learn a lot about a contest by participating in it. You come to see how things are run and how you are treated as a contestant. In many writing contests, you cannot see or read the winning work unless you do enter. Once you’ve “experienced” a contest, then you’re better able to decide if further participation is in your best interest.

I’ve been writing for 32 years and making art for 11 years. I bet I’ve entered probably 200+ contests. I did not win or place in most of the competitions I entered. Yet, in all that time, I have only questioned the operation of two contests: yours and the Fractal Universe calendar. There’s a reason. You both have something in common — you mix the work of judges/editors with those they have judged/edited. Such a practice is widely regarded as an unprofessional conflict of interest.

If I was all eaten up with the bitterness of not being selected, wouldn’t I be firing off vinegary missives each time I lost? Yet, I’ve only raised questions about two contests in over thirty years.

It’s a matter of principle, Damien.

Stay tuned. As Yogi Berra liked to say: It ain’t over till it’s over.

~/~

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal contest, digital art, Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, orbit trap, gallery stroll, stefan vitanov, terry w gintz, karen jones

Mourning Becomes Fractalus

Act III

~/~

…with still more apologies to Eugene O’Neill.

Made with an early version of Comic Book Creator. Fractal images used are my own. Text is a mashup of my own writing collaged with comments made on this blog.

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal contest, fractal comics, digital art, Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, orbit trap, vodafone, fractalus

Mourning Becomes Fractalus

Act II

~/~

…with more apologies to Eugene O’Neill.

Made with an early version of Comic Book Creator. Fractal images used are my own. Text is a mashup of my own writing collaged with comments made on this blog.

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal contest, fractal comics, digital art, Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, orbit trap, vodafone, fractalus

Mourning Becomes Fractalus

Act I

~/~

…with apologies to Eugene O’Neill.

Made with an early version of Comic Book Creator. Fractal images used are my own. Text is a mashup of my own writing collaged with comments made on this blog.

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal contest, fractal comics, digital art, Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, orbit trap, vodafone, fractalus

Soma (2001)

It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame.
—Oscar Wilde

Why is it that people who question the improprieties of the BMFAC contest are repeatedly told they must “get over it.”

Yet, if Dzeni and other supporters are still able to comment, then why can’t I do the same?

Moreover, if any contributor posts here on Orbit Trap, our masthead makes it clear that his or her opinions can be “confronted and possibly disputed.” Dzeni confronted me. I can return the favor. Blogs, by definition, don’t have “get over it” clauses.

So, instead, let’s “get to it” by examining a few of her points:

I’d argue that “that” fractal contest can be seen as a win/win scenario.

It’s certainly that for the judges. They’ve set up the system, so they can never lose — plus they have the honor of both exhibiting and judging without being judged themselves. And their résumés get double the padding — one line for service as a judge, and another line for being in an exhibition. That’s what I call “win/win.”

A bunch of people put together an exhibition every year and invite submissions. They are clear on the criterion and the process.

Submissions are invited only after the judges have first gobbled up nearly half of the gallery space for themselves. Yes, they are clear — even brazen — about disclosing what they are doing. I’ve never argued otherwise. The question is whether their actions and guidelines are ethical and fair.

They don’t charge an entry fee.

I don’t like entry fees either. But part of what they are generally used for is to pay the judges for their services. Such compensation avoids the obvious conflicts of interest found in BMFAC. Of course, the organizers could probably make arrangements to have BMFAC’s judges paid rather than displayed, but they apparently find the current arrangement more cozy.

Even if I don’t win or get a special mention, I’m no worse off than I was before.

True, but the judges are certainly better off than you and the other participants. Without contestants, the judges have no show for themselves. Why do you think they handed out 55 ALTs and HMs (compare this to only 5 HMs at this year’s MOCA contest)? You (and 50+ others) almost made it. Try your luck again next year. The judges, of course, won’t need luck. All they need is people like you to enter.

Life’s not fair (get over it).

That cliché is sure true. But is a shrug the best response to life’s unjustness? One should be allowed to speak out against aspects of life that are not fair. I’d rather examine unfair things and the people who do them than just get over everything. And why do I think that getting over it (which you tell me to do four times in your post) really means drop it or shut up?

Life is too short to moan about “that” contest.

Life is also too short not to point out iniquities — like the contest’s improprities. I care about the fractal community as much as anyone. I have to “live” here, too. I’d prefer the neighbors in my fractal neck of the woods act professionally.

Go and create some great art.

I can blog about the contest and make art at the same time. I see you did.

Art is subjective. What the contest panel chose may not be what you would choose.

Very true. I think the winners are all superb artists and deserving of recognition. I have no issues with the contest’s winners. My writings have been strictly focused on the behaviors of the contest’s director, organizers, and judges — and on the fairness of the rules.

…it gives us all a great opportunity to evaluate our work, to see what others are doing and hopefully to become better artists.

There’s plenty to see everyday if one belongs to an art community like Renderosity or DeviantArt. Moreover, unlike the contest, these places provide far more evaluative interaction (like tutorials and critical feedback) with other artists.

The panel get to exhibit their work.

Do they ever — in a contest they have judged. That’s the whole problem. If, instead, their work was being displayed in an invitational art show, no one would be questioning the appropiateness of their actions.

They are probably not going to change their mind because two people disagree.

Don’t let the comments on these posts mislead you. Tim and I are not the only people who feel this contest needs closer scrutiny. But, I agree with you. Judging how the BMFAC judges have behaved, they probably cannot be reasoned with or shamed into having any epiphanies.

At the end of a day, you can choose to find a way where everyone wins or you can gripe and moan so that everyone loses.

This is a false dichotomy. I prefer a third choice — one that isn’t centered around winning and losing. At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself — so you do what you think is right.

~/~

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal contest, digital art, Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, ultra fractal, fractalus, vodafone

Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all.
–William Shakespeare, Hamlet

I know it is sometimes difficult to speak out. There can be consequences. One might be embarrassed — attacked — even punished. So far, only one person has spoken out directly to us here at Orbit Trap about our remarks on the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest.

And he wrote to call us cowards.

He feels we are cowardly because “you don’t address any points made to your posts.”

So I think I’ll make the time to show him he’s wrong. I hope, in the process, the blog’s readers come to better understand why Tim and I have raised our voices against some of the practices of the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest — and have questioned the motives of some of the people involved.

In my last post, I deliberately mentioned no names. But since Ken, a commenter who seems to want to play the role of our collective conscience, used names, then, for the sake of clarity, I will do the same.

Funny thing about a conscience, though. Sometimes, as Hamlet notes, it nags and aches and does cause one to fear and fall silent. But, other times, it sears then scorches until one feels compelled to speak out.

I have put this response up as a main post. I would not want to be accused of speaking while milling about in shadows. If Tim and I are cowards, we are not the kind who prefer to hide.

~/~

Ken,

You’ve written to us so much lately that Tim and I are ready to promote you from heckler-in-residence to contributor emeritus.

Unfortunately, I seem to be in a bit of a bind here, though.

First: Damien says, in a post earlier in the summer on Orbit Trap, that I “killed” OT “by driving off everyone” who had an opinion different from mine.

Then: you claim, in the comments for this OT post, that “you’re cowards because you…ignore direct questions.”

I think this is called a Catch-22. If I do respond, then I am a tyrant who quashes free speech. But if I do not respond, then I am a coward who hides from his critics.

So which is it? And what should I do?

Wasn’t it Orwell who said a picture of the future could be imagined as “a boot stamping on a human face forever”? I guess I’d rather be the boot than the face.

First, can we get a few big concepts straight? Then we’ll get down to some specifics.

You’re right. Contest organizers and directors can establish any ground rules they like. They are free to dictate restrictions on programs and image sizes and colors and styles and whatever. They can limit a contest to just fractal artists of Burmese heritage who live in the Arctic Circle. Totally their call. I never argued otherwise.

Countries can do the same. They can make their own rules. Rules like we’ll throw you in a gulag if you protest or we’ll bind your feet if you’re born a girl or we’ll torture you and call it “enhanced interrogation techniques” or whatever.

Here’s the catch. Just because contests and countries have the power to make rules, it does not follow that those rules will be inherently ethical or fair. If they are, in fact, unethical and unfair, then people (at least in free societies) have the right to say so. You agree?

Being informed of rules is not usually a problem either. Nearly every contest spells out its requirements and guidelines in very specific detail — ranging from deadlines to restrictions to oh-by-the-way-we’re-going-to-include-the-work-of-the-judges-who-judge-you to whatever. I never argued that the BMFAC contest was not clear or open in stating its rules.

Countries usually make their rules known, too. I recall seeing a photograph last year of two Alabama water fountains in the 1950s that said WHITES ONLY and COLOREDS ONLY. See? The rules were plain to everyone. Nothing was hidden.

But, again, just because a contest’s regulations are posted and public, it does not inherently follow that they are ethical and fair. Are you with me so far?

The contest’s origin and history were also explained — even outlined. True. But having a history doesn’t mean everything is above board. Enron had a history — but it was not above board. Bosnia has a history — part of which included ethnic cleansing. Maybe everything is and always will be shipshape. Or maybe a contest was set up well but has become corrupt over time. Or maybe it was rigged from the get go and now everyone just shrugs and glumly accepts the terms. But, again, having a history doesn’t give contests or countries an ethical pass. In fact, sometimes when digging into a contest’s history, one uncovers questions.

Sponsors of contests can, once again, dictate absolutely anything — especially since they hold the purse strings. They are, in truth, demi-gods of absolute power. All fractal artists must show up at the exhibition wearing thongs decrees one. All images must be created with an Etch-A-Sketch while submerged in tequila shouts another. As a contest director, you have to decide if you are willing to agree to the sponsor’s terms. If you agree, then you are bound to carry them out — even if they are absurd — or troubling — or patently unfair.

I hope this prologue deletes a few items from our mutual Inbox before we begin.

Now, Ken, you seem to really want some point by point rebutting. I’ll try to suppress my timidity and start:

You want the entries of the selection panel hidden.

No. I want them completed excluded. Banished totally. Outta there. No entries — period. They are the judges. They are not the contestants. Most people agree there is a big difference between the two.

BTW, where is this list of “universally accepted protocol[s]” that you like to mention?

Oh — just about everywhere. I’d argue no respectable, legitimate art contest mixes the judges’ work with the work of the judged. In the digital art field alone, there are contests by acronyms like MOCA, LACDA, ARTROM, MODA. The Art of Digital Show recently completed a major competition. None of these entities mix and match like BMFAC. Restrictions on conflicts of interest — like judging the works of students and friends — are also commonplace. I quoted one of these in my post, but I guess you missed it. But let’s throw the ball back in your court. Can you name any five art contests anywhere that do allow inclusion of the contest judges’ work. Well. Okay. You’re right. The Fractal Universe calendar. You can have a head start here. That one counts for your side — I suppose — adding a second sorry blot on the overall lack of professionalism in the fractal art community.

It is disingenuous to keep raising this as an ethical issue when it was clearly the decision of the sponsors.

Maybe last year. Maybe. But the sponsor this year (Fundación España Vodafone) must be telepathic, since the contest rules were announced many weeks before any sponsor was even named. No, I’m afraid the director and/or the judges are most likely responsible. Besides, even if past or present sponsors insisted on such guidelines, no one had an automatic weapon to the heads of the director and the “panel members” to insist they comply.

You want to force the organizers/sponsors of the contest to conform to the rules you want, rather than the rules they choose.

Nope. I’m just pointing out that the rules are highly unconventional, biased to help a specific program and its artists, and give the judges a one way free ticket to paradise. Ally ally in free.

Since you can’t affect the rules for this contest, you want to raise bogus ethical issues about it. That is why I say create your own contest or exhibition and run it by the rules you think an exhibition should be run.

Yes — to the second part of the first sentence — minus the “bogus” part. I explained why I shouldn’t have to make my own contest in a previous comment. Remember? I used an analogy to not wanting to write my own laws either. Apparently, you’ve forgotten. And I can certainly appreciate all the expense and effort involved. I really can. I just appreciate ethics and fairness more.

You see, back in that “written record” that you feel already explained everything, Damien said the following:

So I have a choice: I can either run a contest completely how I would like, and pay for it myself, or I can accept money from a sponsor that comes with conditions. What you’re saying is that you find the strings unacceptable. I’m saying that, given the choice between no exhibition and one with some preconditions, I’d prefer to have the exhibition. At least I’m doing *something* Years from now, when fractal art is more recognized and easier to get funding for, others will have the privilege of refusing money that has strings attached. At the moment, I don’t have that option.

Yes. He’s doing something, all right. Something ethically questionable. He argues he’s on the frontier, so he can bend the rules. There’s no law or justice out on fringes of civilization, so Damien is forced to become judge, jury, and exhibitioner. Later on, when fractal artists have their own cable channel, others can run things “without preconditions” (that is, fairly). Well, that’s swell. Or maybe what happens instead is that a “history” is put in motion, and the contest is never again run using customary ethical safeguards. Damien says he didn’t have “that option.” But he did have a choice and he made it — and he now enjoys its benefits — like having his own unjuried art worked into the contest he oversees every year. Some of his friends/panel members made choices, too, and soon hopped aboard without giving much thought to the “preconditions” either. They, presumably, also didn’t have “that option” but do receive similar compensation.

Even the director knows the rules are being bent. He’s fine with that. So are you, Ken. But I’m not.

You don’t like Ultra Fractal.

I’ve never said any such thing. It’s a great tool and capable of producing amazing work in the right hands. What I don’t like is making submission size restrictions that favor UF over other programs — and loading up the judging panel with nearly all UF artists — and then winding up with the majority of the contest’s exhibited images being rendered in UF. Could it all just be a coincidence? I’m just asking…

You think images are excluded because have not been generated by Ultra Fractal.

I think that’s a real possibility, yes. UF can go huge. That’s one of its advantages. Not every generator can easily render images to the mammoth size required by the contest. The director knows this, too — otherwise he wouldn’t have made a joke in the contest announcements that Apo users should Start now if they are planning to enter. More than just fractal programs are affected by the size mandate. People who post-process to a considerable extent are also going to be less likely to enter.

You don’t like artists works who use Ultra Fractal.

Certainly not true. I have featured many UF artists and artworks in the guest galleries on my web site. Would I have done so if I didn’t like the artists and their work? I’d put up a link to show you these galleries, but, unfortunately, they are now offline because I had to unexpectedly move to a new web host and procure a new domain.

A better question to ask is how many people submitted images that were not made with Ultra Fractal. And, if the number is small, ask yourself why.

Hmmm. I never thought to do that. But it is a good question. Here’s a possibility. Maybe many non-UF artists’ programs couldn’t render large enough images to meet the near-mural size restrictions. Could that be why the number is likely smaller? Thanks for the insight.

You think Damien is a dictator.

I never said any such thing. Besides, everyone already knows what Damien actually is.

You don’t like having to produce a large image.

You’ve obviously never watched me make my art. I always work in large sizes. That’s how I’m able to sell prints. I had no trouble rendering entries for the contest — and two of my submissions were highly post-processed. But I’m fortunate to have plenty of RAM and lots of computer firepower. So, I don’t need UF to scale up. I’m guessing many fractal artists are not so fortunate in the equipment they have at their disposal. Thus, the immense image sizes are indeed a hindrance for some.

You don’t like artists taking classes from other artists and participating in a contest.

That doesn’t bother me at all. What I said was I think teachers judging the work of their students is a clear conflict of interest. I linked to two examples in my post. I also asked what safeguards were in effect to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

But, since you know the circumstances behind the exhibition (no matter how much you pretend to be ignorant), this really is just nonsense.

You lost me here. Are you saying it’s foolish to worry about students being judged by their instructors? I think it’s highly unprofessional. Or, are you telling me the contest guidelines addressed this issue? Where in the BMFAC rules did it say: Teachers judging the work of those they taught? Sweet. Well, if you already have judges exhibiting their own work with those they’ve judged, I guess anything goes.

You would like to have anyone who ever took a class from any of the judges to be excluded from entering because you think the judges are so shallow that the mere fact that a current, or former, student entered an image in the contest is going to sway their decision.

I guess you have more faith in human nature than I do. I’d prefer judges not to judge the work of their students — or their friends either. Why not simply remove such potential conflicts of interest? Again, it’s a basic question of professionalism — even if one believes the judges are fine people who would not be swayed in any way.

I suppose it is possible that one or more of the judges may have recognized an image and knew who created it. But, for this contest, do you really believe that this is significant, or an ethical concern?

Definitely. Always. Any judge who recognized the work of a friend or a student should have immediately recused him or herself from voting. Moreover, this action (that so-and-so was a friend/student of Judge X) should have been kept from the other judges. Adding to this problem was that the judging could not have been completely blind because the images of three of the fifteen winners contained signatures. Do you want an impartial contest or not, Ken?

You don’t like people show appreciation to someone else for writing a particular formula.

This is not what I said. Slap backs all day. I said I worried that since many of the winners are trading the same formulas, one runs an increased risk of presenting a show of similarly styled artworks.

You think there is a grand, universal conspiracy by Ultra Fractal and/or those who use it to take over the world and prevent any one who uses other tools or methods to create fractal…

No, I don’t. But I’m pretty sure Paul does. He calls this secret cabal The Fractali. I assume he took the name from the Illuminati. Personally, I think Paul is a smart guy. He could be right.

You continue to imply that there are ethical issues with Damien and the panel of judges by the questions you raise when you know how and why they were selected.

Exactly. You’re finally starting to get it. They basically selected themselves, set themselves apart from being juried, judged others, and then hung their work beside the winners.

How can the contest be a publicity stunt by Damien and the judges when they were approached by the organizers and asked to participate?

As I noted earlier, the rules this year were set long before the organizers had a sponsor. Here is how Damien explained several months ago in the “written record” (to your satisfaction) why the contest judges had to be included in the exhibition:

I am well aware that people were not happy about judges’ work appearing in the ICM exhibition alongside contest entries, but we made it clear from the outset that contest entries would not be the only art shown. This year is no different. The sponsors require this as a hedge against insufficient quality being submitted.

Glad to know I’m not the only unhappy camper. Again, if this is true, Damien signed on to the terms. But who held his feet to the fire? And why was “this year” (2007) no different — especially when a sponsor wasn’t listed until weeks after the rules had been made public? Sounds like everything just got carried over. However, at least in the current contest, there’s a whole battalion —55, count ’em –of exceptional “alternates” and “honorable mentions.” What good fortune — especially since most art contests only manage to scare up about 5 to 10 HMs. But Damien is now lucky to have excellence to burn — surely more than enough to take up the slack for all those sponsors’ fears of “insufficient quality.” So, it looks like next year the director and the judges can finally breathe a sigh of relief and not be coerced by preconditions into displaying their own work. Right?

Did they conspire to take over the contest and mold it to a form so that they could make an exhibition to flaunt their own art?

Looks like it. Absolutely. Down to the last detail. Give yourself a Gatorade shower. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Other complaints you raise are emotional and ill-reasoned. I would expect better of you and Tim.

And, well, if pressed, we pretty much feel the same way about your comments.

But, your complaints must be objective to have any merit.

I think we’ve tried to look at the contest and honestly report what we found. And are complaints the same as opinions? If so, then they are probably, like art, subjective.

If I’ve made any factual errors, anyone is more than welcome to correct me.

Well, I’ve tried my best. As for errors in logic, I admit there were more than I could get to.

It would also be interesting to see perspectives from other people, pro or con.

Finally — something we agree on. I, too, would enjoy hearing what others have to say about the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest.

I’d like to think Hamlet might have been wrong. Conscience only makes some of us cowards.

~/~

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal contest, digital art, Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, ultra fractal, fractalus, vodafone

What follows is a complete transcription of a series of email exchanges between Damien M. Jones and myself discussing topics recently posted to Orbit Trap.

The correspondence begins on Sunday, July 8th, 2007, and ends on Wednesday, July 11th, 1007.

The only editing I have done is to remove all email addresses, street addresses, and private server links.

I swear this is an accurate and complete transcription of the correspondence between us on the dates listed above. I will take additional steps to testify to the accuracy of this transcription, if necessary.

If Damien feels the transcription is in any way doctored or dishonest, he is free to post his own transcription of our email exchanges as well.

I want it specifically noted that Damien M. Jones granted me explicit permission to post these private emails. I also agreed to post my own private emails.

Readers can backtrack through recent Orbit Trap posts and comment threads for additional background information and to read exactly what has been written since Saturday, June 23rd, 2007.

The email exchanges follow sequentially by date:

~/~

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:07:59 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Orbit Trap

Terry,

I’m writing to you privately because I want to clarify something you said in a comment on Orbit Trap, in response to Keith Mackay’s comment on “Take It to the Limitations”. You said:

“…I questioned who stood to gain by keeping these limitations in place and suggested that the rules are possibly designed to privilege certain artists, programs, and styles. … I complained that some contests are not honest in their promotion and marketing. There are two types of contests that compel me to challenge the truth of their broad and subjective pronouncements.”

And then you specifically linked to the ICM 2006 promotional page. So I want to be clear: are you accusing the organizers of the contest of skewing the contest in favor of their preferred artists? Of making factually incorrect statements? Because that would be a pretty serious charge.

I must tell you that I find the increasingly hostile atmosphere at Orbit Trap distinctly unwelcoming, and I am not the only one to so observe (even though I may be the only one to point it out to you directly). That PNL gleefully promoted this discussion to various other fractal newsgroups and discussion lists should tell you something.

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Damien,

I agree that discussions can sometimes get heated on blogs — and maybe even hostile. A case in point: your recent replies to Tim. However, I defend the right of Orbit Trap contributors and commenters to be passionate about expressing their beliefs.

My view about contests is drawn from my experiences in the publishing world. There, any competition that winds up including work by judges or editors is immediately regarded as unethical and compromised. In fact, judges and editors are expected to be so aware of the possibility of bias they must recuse themselves from even considering the work of friends or students should that work happen to be recognized. Competitions have been overturned when these regulations were not strictly followed. Where is a similar commitment to the appearance of fairness and objectivity in fractal art contests?

I have no ties whatsoever with Paul. I don’t care what he does.

It has never been my intention to create a hostile atmosphere. Discussion implies there are at least two ways of viewing any issue. Contrary points of view are sometimes controversial.

Best,

Terry

~/~

Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:18:07 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Terry,

As I have explained elsewhere on the net, the appearance of judges’ work in the ICM 2006 exhibition was at the request of the sponsors, and the judges were not informed of this prior to the close of submissions. Furthermore, nobody was paid for their participation in the contest, nor was there an entry fee (both of which are common in other art contests). If you wish to express an opinion it is best to know the facts, and you only need ask me.

As to the hostile atmosphere, there is nothing wrong with being passionate, but when people start hinting, and then outright accusing, of improper bias and unethical behavior, you should not be surprised when the responses get a little heated. Honestly, half the time I think Tim is being deliberately provocative just to get a response, and if there’s one thing I do not like, it is being manipulated. So I’m telling you, as a friend, that I have been extremely reserved in my responses even though I’m exceptionally pissed off.

I believe in free speech, but in the US there are limits placed on free speech to prevent its abuse damaging another person. Even aside from legal limits, there are good taste limits, and OT is rapidly getting to the point where those limits are being crossed. I don’t care to participate in such “discussion” and I am not alone. Nothing will relegate OT to insignificance faster than shouting down an opposing voice to the point where they decline to continue the conversation. Keith’s calling you to account for questioning his ethics is right on the mark; you did question it, just as you questioned mine, and for us not to take it personally is for us to ignore what you said. If you stand behind your words, then I must assume that you meant exactly what you said, which is that Keith (acting as calendar editor) and me (as judge for the ICM contest and exhibition) acted improperly. That’s as personal as it comes.

I have a reply to you and a reply to Tim that are sitting, waiting for me to “cool down” before I respond. Experience has shown me that posting with a hot temper is rarely beneficial.

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Damien,

If you carefully read what I have written, I hope you’ll see that I am not alleging that anything improper has occurred. However, based on how your contest and the “Fractal Universe” have been run, it should not surprise you that some questions about fairness might be raised. I assure you, I am not the only one concerned about this issue.

I am just the messenger. No need to kill me. There are alternatives to the practices that have been used by both contests. No one will ask uncomfortable questions about objectivity and ethics, if the judges are not mingled with the judged — whatever the reasons for this arrangement. If both contests are run using commonly accepted professional standards, then questions about the appearance of impropriety will not be raised. That is all I am saying.

Best,

Terry

~/~

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:01:55 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Terry,

I had hoped to hear from you again before posting my reply. I’ll be doing that later today.

I neglected to follow up on one thing you said:

– I have no ties whatsoever with Paul. I don’t care what he does.

My point in mentioning it–since I know neither you nor I particularly care for him–was that if he is encouraging people to view the discussion, there is something in it he enjoys. He has never, to my knowledge, ever before promoted OT. The reasonable conclusion is that he either enjoys the UF-bashing (since he shares some of Tim’s views on it) or he likes watching you and I argue about bias in fractal art, or both. His delight in watching us argue probably comes more from who the participants are than from the topic; not only do we not care for him, but I believe the feeling is mutual.

I’m a bit cooler this morning, but I’m going to have to address allegations of impropriety rather directly. As a director and organizer of both the 2006 and 2007 contests, that’s my (unpaid) job. You are leaving me with few options.

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Surbject: Re: Orbit Trap

Damien,

I debated whether to send you a private note. I’m reluctant to share personal feelings in email ever since Sean Dean burned me years ago. But I’m taking a chance here:

I do not wish to argue with you. I never did. I certainly don’t want to give PNL any joy. Trust me on that.

I have no control over what Tim writes. He alone is responsible and issues with him should be taken up directly with him.

I am also holding back. I don’t feel I’ve shouted anyone down. I do feel I have been personally attacked for trying to raise a general issue. And, like you, yes, I’m pissed off, too.

But, believe it or not, I am your friend. I do respect you. You are a leader in our community. Some would say you are *the* leader. But it’s like the Spiderman saying. Your position comes with great responsibility.

I’m not trying to tell you what to do — just show you how things might look to others. As a leading figure, like it or not, people will scrutinize you. Any contest you oversee, people will expect to be run with the highest professionalism. It should be made as open as possible to include as many artists, programs, and styles as you can — OR it should clearly identify its specialty or sub-genre in promotion and marketing. The judging should be done as blindly as can be arranged, and the judges always kept separate from contestants and winners. Please at least consider adopting these widely-used practices. If you do, questions about the appearance of impropriety will disappear and never re-surface.

Whether they tell you directly, many people have made judgments about how this appears and have questions of their own. Appearances, yes, can be deceptive, and nothing fishy is probably going on. But it doesn’t help when Keith gets on a public blog and talks about what he is buying with his winnings from a contest he edited where his own work made up 1/4th of the published material. That can’t be spun to look good. Surely you can see that.

You can certainly use OT to explain the circumstances and facts of what has gone on with your contest. That will help clarify, but only up to a point. If yours or any contest continues running without using conventional practices and safeguards, then it’s a safe bet questions about how the whole thing looks will keep coming up.

With respect,

Terry

~/~

[No Time Stamp]
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Terry,

Your last email was… unexpected. I had already resigned myself to a particular course of action, but now I am reconsidering. I’ve included my original note below, so you can see what I was thinking, in the hope that perhaps we can improve our communication. I understand that you’ve been burned on email before (Sean Dean does not have integrity, IMO) so I’m going to go out on a limb a little bit and share perhaps enough for you to burn me.

My issues with Tim I’ll take up with Tim, but since you and he started this blog together, it’s not completely unreasonable to think you’re of relatively similar views on many things. I apologize for lumping you in with him.

I am well aware that people were not happy about judges’ work appearing in the ICM exhibition alongside contest entries, but we made it clear from the outset that contest entries would not be the only art shown. This year is no different. The sponsors require this as a hedge against insufficient quality being submitted; it is, after all, their money at risk. I estimate at least 20,000 euros to do something like this, and that is if everything is done as economically as possible. If I were a sponsor, I think I’d make damn sure I could get my money’s worth. Had I the money to fund my own exhibition on my own terms, I think I would. But in that case I wouldn’t hold a contest, I’d just invite people.

– It should be made as open as possible to include as many artists, programs, and styles as you can — OR it should clearly identify its specialty or sub-genre in promotion and marketing.

You honestly expect us to completely spell out exactly what we mean by “fractal art” in the promotion and marketing material? When there isn’t even a widely-accepted definition of exactly what fractal art IS? What kind of insane world do you live in? And, aside from that, did you even look at what was selected last year? (Rhetorical question.)

– The judging should be done as blindly as can be arranged

You’re speaking out of your ass on this one. The judges never see the names of the artists until after the selections are made, unless the artists include signatures on their submissions (in clear contradiction to the rules).

– and the judges always kept separate from contestants and winners

As I’ve indicated, this is a direct request from the sponsors. Frankly, since our judges aren’t paid, this seems a reasonable way to compensate them for the time they spend reviewing entries, especially since they can’t enter the contest anyway.

– Please at least consider adopting these widely-used practices. If you do, questions about the appearance of impropriety will disappear and never re-surface.

If I were just running a contest, for the fun of running a contest, I would completely agree with you. But the 2006 and 2007 contests were unique opportunities, with funding, to make fractal art available to a much wider audience, including a huge portion of the public of Madrid. (The Conde Duque site rarely draws in so many visitors! It was amazing!) But the money required to organize such an event comes with strings attached. We’ve been open about those strings. Nobody is forcing you to enter. If you think it’s skewed or rigged, don’t enter.

So I have a choice: I can either run a contest completely how I would like, and pay for it myself, or I can accept money from a sponsor that comes with conditions. What you’re saying is that you find the strings unacceptable. I’m saying that, given the choice between no exhibition and one with some preconditions, I’d prefer to have the exhibition. At least I’m doing *something*. Years from now, when fractal art is more recognized and easier to get funding for, others will have the privilege of refusing money that has strings attached. At the moment, I don’t have that option.

As for Keith: there is nothing deceptive in what he did. You keep using words like “contest” and “won” but it’s not a contest. Let it go. By the agreement they have with their publisher, each editor is guaranteed one image in the calendar. Naturally they submitted more than one, to give the publisher a choice of which image. If the publisher chose more than one of theirs, in preference to the other hundred or so they sent, is that really the editors’ fault? Furthermore, they are not judges: they are editors, performing a work for which they were compensated. Their responsibility is to satisfy the publisher, not the submitters.

As I said, I’ve included my original email below, so you’ll understand where I was at this morning. I’m not now this pissed off, so in a way it’s here for entertainment value. I’ve included as well the blog post I was going to submit at the same time as the email. Now I’m going to revise it.

–Damien

—–8<—– [original email]

Terry,

– If you carefully read what I have written, I hope you’ll see that I am not alleging that anything improper has occurred.

On the contrary, a plain reading of what you wrote indicates that you did exactly that:

– Instead, I questioned who stood to gain by keeping these limitations in place and suggested that the rules are possibly designed to privilege certain artists, programs, and styles.

That is, certain rules are engineered to favor certain people. That’s an outright claim that some contests are “rigged”. General rule stated; then you move on to state another rule, and give two specifics. Strictly speaking, you don’t connect the two specific instances with your first complaint, yet given the rest of your discussion and mentions of various rules from either of those two specific instances, you strongly imply that your first complaint applies to them as well.

Your second complaint:

– I complained that some contests are not honest in their promotion and marketing. There are two types of contests that compel me to challenge the truth of their broad and subjective pronouncements.

Read that one to yourself again. “Truth of their subjective pronouncements.” They’re subjective, Terry. There is no truth in a subjective pronouncement. You mention the ICM contest specifically, here:

-Type one is the contest that claims to showcase the genre’s finest artists. As an example, this contest openly trumpets “it will exhibit high quality works by the most important fractal artists in the world.”

Quality, which I personally verified was quite high. “Most important” is purely subjective. One might even suggest that by being included in an exhibition at a major international mathematical conference, and a joint exhibition at a major cultural center in Madrid, that the included artists *become* important, but that would be sophistry. How would you factually define “important”? Important to you? Important to me? Or maybe… important to the contest and exhibition organizers and sponsors?

Then you bitch about the Avalanche calendar:

-In the FAQ section of the calendar’s Fractal Forum, the editors state they try to “produce a calendar that is representative of the current state of our art.”

I ask you: if the editors try, based on the material submitted to them, but the publisher elects to go with their proven money-making formula, did the editors fail? Did they not do what they said they would do(try)?

Furthermore, you keep referring to the calendar as a “contest”. If you want to stretch the definition that far, when the editors clearly state that it’s not a contest, but a publishing submission contest, then I have a few other scenarios that you’d better be prepared to call contests:

1. Grades, for any teacher who grades on a curve. Grading on a curve means you not only have to do well, but better than your classmates. That clearly means your classmates set the bar, rather than the instructor.

2. Magazine publication, for any magazine which accepts contributions from the general public. Each magazine has limited space, and submitters vie with each other for that space. Oh, and they’re also competing with the in-house writers, and the winners often get paid for their content.

Are these contests? Or merely competitive events?

But here’s the final clincher, the point where you pretty much bluntly state that you think Keith (editor) and I (judge) acted unethically:

– Good luck with your new camera lens. Maybe you can use it to focus on an examination of the ethics of editors and judges whose own work is somehow included in the fractal publications and exhibitions they are assigned to objectively oversee.

So don’t tell me you never accused me or Keith. You damn well did.

– However, based on how your contest and the “Fractal Universe” have been run, it should not surprise you that some questions about fairness might be raised.

There are always questions. And no, I’m not surprised; I know that many were not expecting to see judges’ images included in the exhibition, even though at the beginning of the contest, in the rules, we did state that there would be more images in the exhibition than just contest winners, that the winners would be “included” in the exhibition. Our original plan was to invite artists to contribute specific images, but our sponsors (ICM and FECyT) instead asked that each panel member provide one image. Since we disclosed in advance to contest participants that other images would be included, and the choice of whose extra images would be included was determined by someone other than the judges, there is no conflict here.

– I assure you, I am not the only one concerned about this issue.

– I am just the messenger. No need to kill me.

Well that’s just the problem. “Don’t kill the messenger” usually applies when the messenger doesn’t know the content of their message and is merely delivering it (i.e. a paid courier) but that’s not true in this case. You could have emailed me and asked me about it privately before making public declarations that somebody must be benefitting from the “bias”. Instead, you chose–chose–to announce it publicly on your blog *first*, raise a ruckus, be a bit of a demagogue, and then try to claim you never made an accusation. What a crock.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to deliver the message. You’re no prophet regurgitated from the belly of a fish, forced to deliver a message of impending doom. You’re Terry Wright, and you chose your message and method of delivery. I had assumed you were a friend, but this is not how friends fix their problems.

Since your allegations are public, I will respond to them publicly. It will probably be my last OT post. Your tactics leave little room for real discussion.

–Damien

[Note: Damien then includes an early draft of his post “A Forum for Accusations.” Although much of the phrasing is identical to his post, there are some differences. I include the draft to show the complete email that was sent to me.]

I’ve been watching and participating in the increasingly hostile discussion here over the past two weeks. I don’t mind a little friendly discussion, but I don’t like to see misinformation propogated (about UF), so I lost my temper once (and then apologized). But in the discussion following Terry’s “Take It to the Limitations” thread, Terry wrote a few things which I feel need to be addressed directly:

Instead, I questioned who stood to gain by keeping these limitations in place and suggested that the rules are possibly designed to privilege certain artists, programs, and styles.
…

I complained that some contests are not honest in their promotion and marketing. There are two types of contests that compel me to challenge the truth of their broad and subjective pronouncements. Type one is the contest that claims to showcase the genre’s finest artists. As an example, this contest openly trumpets “iit will exhibit high quality works by the most important fractal artists in the world.”
…

Good luck with your new camera lens. Maybe you can use it to focus on an examination of the ethics of editors and judges whose own work is somehow included in the fractal publications and exhibitions they are assigned to objectively oversee.

Now maybe you don’t see that as an outright accusation of bias or improper behavior, but it seems fairly clear to me that Terry is accusing both Keith (the editor in the last paragraph) and me (the judge in the last paragraph) of being unethical, because Keith’s and Panny’s artwork appears in the calendar, and because my and other contest panel judges’ artwork appeared in the exhibition.

I believe Terry’s accusation is without merit and, frankly, in poor taste. As Keith has already explained, Avalanche’s agreement with the editors is that each of them is guaranteed one image in the calendar, in exchange for doing the work of sifting through all of the entries and providing a “first cut” to the publisher. This detail of the agreement is in fact documented in the very same FAQ that Terry linked to with his other complaint, so he should have been well aware of this when he made his accusation. Not only that, but this is the same arrangement Avalanche has had through all the years I’ve been aware of their calendar–all the way back to when Rollo Silver was the editor and first opened up the calendar to submissions (prior to that, Rollo was the only artist to appear in the calendar).

As to the contest which Terry refers to, we quite clearly stated in the rules, right there in the preface:

Other artwork to be included in the exhibition will be from invited artists. These rules do not cover the invitation process, only the contest.

The decision to use judges’ artwork as the invited artists was not made by the judges, and the judges were not told of this until late in the selection process. For this year’s contest, we know in advance that judges’ artwork is to be included, so we have made the disclosure more explicit. I don’t know how we can be rightly accused of unethical behavior when we have been frank about this inclusion.

Each reader will form their own opinions, but I believe from this it is clear that these accusations have no place in rational discourse and serve no purpose.

~/~

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Damien,

Thanks for getting back with me.

Your email is rather lengthy. I will look it over and respond privately sometime tonight.

If you feel the need to post what you’ve written or reply in some other fashion on OT before then, you should do whatever you feel is right.

Best,

Terry

~/~

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Damien,

I think we have to agree to disagree. Despite your justifications, I am not swayed to your point of view.

I guess the next move is yours.

Best,

Terry

~/~

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:27 -0400
From Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Terry,

– I think we have to agree to disagree. Despite your justifications, I am not swayed to your point of view.

So that I do not misunderstand you, then, you disagree with ALL of these statements:

1. That you accused both Keith Mackay and myself of behaving unethically in our participation in the calendar and contest, respectively;

2. That such an accusation, made in a public place first rather than trying to resolve the issue privately, was inappropriate;

3. That Keith and I in fact acted ethically;

4. That in fact, juried art shows typically compensate the jurors, and that when such compensation is not directly by payment, it is by automatic inclusion in the show;

5. That the calendar is not a contest, but an editing/pre-screening service provided by Keith and Panny, for which they are compensated.

If, in fact, you agree with any of these statements, please let me know.

However, your statement that you disagree was not qualified, so I must assume it refers to all of the above, as they are all points under discussion. I know we disagree on many other things, and those things do not bother me, but these five are key points in this issue and I want to be clear that I am not misrepresenting your position when I respond to it.

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Damien,

Just so YOU do not have any misunderstandings.

I only said I was not swayed by what you wrote in a previous and supposedly private email. And that was all I said. What I believe is what I have posted to the blog. If you truly do not wish to misrepresent me, you should confine any public remarks to those posted writings.

Why do you even care whether I agree or disagree with your point by point analysis of your own justifications? I have never made ANY of the five statements you list in your last email. Each one is nothing more than your own speculation or assumption.

This is the last “private” email I am exchanging with you on this matter.

Terry

~/~

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:54:45 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright|
Subject: Re: Orbit Trap

Terry,

– I only said I was not swayed by what you wrote in a previous and supposedly private email. And that was all I said. What I believe is what I have posted to the blog. If you truly do not wish to misrepresent me, you should confine any public remarks to those posted writings.

As you wish.

– Why do you even care whether I agree or disagree with your point by point analysis of your own justifications? I have never made ANY of the five statements you list in your last email. Each one is nothing more than your own speculation or assumption.

I was attempting to make sure I understood clearly what you meant by “disagree”. I’m sorry that you didn’t understand the point of communication.

– This is the last “private” email I am exchanging with you on this matter.

So, you do not need to respond to this email.

I’m not going to publicly post your private emails, Terry. I was never going to. But I’m really quite sad that you saw what I wrote as “justifications” (meaning that you still believe I did something wrong, and was trying to excuse it). That’s what you wrote, it’s crystal clear it’s what you believe, you stand behind what you wrote publicly (which is an outright accusation), and you still can’t see it.

Orbit Trap is dead, and you killed it by driving off everyone who had an opinion different from yours, with your politics and your rantings. So much for promoting discussion.

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Subject: Eclectasy Hosting

Damien,

I received a call from Lynn this afternoon. She tells me you contacted her because you said you were unable to contact me.

You must have somehow misread my last email to you. I only said that I would not exchange any further emails with you about the current topic being discussed on Orbit Trap. Otherwise, you should feel free to write me whenever you like.

Lynn said that you mentioned something about removing Eclectasy from the Fractalus server.

As Eclectasy’s web host, you have always had such a prerogative.

For the record, Lynn knows nothing about what has transpired on Orbit Trap, nor is she responsible in any way for what I do or say.

If you wish to stop hosting all of Eclectasy, you may do so at any time. However, as a courtesy, it would be nice if you’d first make sure that all members of the consortium have back-ups of their web sites before cutting off their access and deleting their material from your server. I do have back-ups of my site. As the only person who has been paying for Eclectasy to be hosted, I will expect a refund for the balance of days that have been paid for but were not hosted.

If you wish to remove only my site from your server, then you should contact Lynn to discuss terms and payment in order for her to remain hosted by you. Again, I will expect a refund for any remaining days I paid for but for which I am not hosted.

Either way, if you elect to stop hosting my site, I will expect you, as a professional, to completely remove everything of mine from your server — and to keep nothing of my original material in your possession.

Best,

Terry

~/~

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:55:11 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Re: Eclectasy Hosting

Terry,

I wrote Lynne earlier today to let her know that I would no longer be able to provide you with access to my server. She is the owner of the eclectasy.com domain. I know that she is not responsible for your actions; however, I knew that I would not be granting you further access (except as necessary to download a copy of your content) and that would likely mean eclectasy.com would need to be moved.

I fully expected her to transfer the eclectasy.com domain to another host, and I stated I was (and am) willing to help you all find an inexpensive host, and to assist in making the transfer as smooth as possible. She called me to further discuss the matter, and I informed her that hosting with more storage and transfer capacity than I offer is now available for a quarter of what you have been paying. I suggest GoDaddy, Yahoo, or Network Solutions; all offer inexpensive hosting.

She did ask why I had taken this step, and I indicated that your recent Orbit Trap postings have destroyed a lot of the trust I had with you. She declined to make a formal decision at that point, but instead called you. She called me back a few minutes later and said she was going to consider her options and possibly speak with you again tomorrow.

As the domain owner of record, it is Lynne’s call as to where eclectasy.com is hosted. Wherever she chooses, I will not continue to host your content longer than August 15, 2007, or sooner if you request it. Once I remove your content, I will be quite scrupulous in removing it completely, even from the archiving system that logs all prior file versions. Your content will be totally expunged, as you request. Should there be any remaining balance on your account at that time, I will return a pro-rated portion to you. I had never contemplated anything less.

My professionalism, as far as I’m concerned, was never in question.

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
CC: Lynne Edel
Subject: Re: Eclectasy Hosting

Damien,

Your professionalism is most certainly in question.

Upon trying to access my web site on Fractalus, I have discovered you have blocked my access with password protection — contrary to the terms you offered in your last email.

You have, in effect, voided our arrangement as of this moment, since I no longer have a fully operational web site, although I have paid you in good faith to provide such service.

As far as I am concerned, your action immediately terminates any business arrangement we had concerning my web site, regardless of who is the domain owner. I paid the bill. I get the refund.

I will not pay you another dime, and I insist upon a pro-rated refund as of today, Wednesday, July 11th, 2007. I have paid through July 31st, 2007.

Thanks for the professional courtesy of allowing me to retrieve any overlooked back-ups from my web site. And thanks, too, for apparently knowingly overcharging me for all these years.

Terry

P.S. I have cced Lynne a copy of this email that includes all of our correspondence on this matter. She deserves to know what really happened, instead of receiving a cut and paste version.

~/~

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:25:55 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
CC: Lynne Edel
Subject: Re: Eclectasy Hosting

Terry,

– Your professionalism is most certainly in question.

Hardly. Given your temper tantrum, and the fact that you have developed a motive for causing damage, a prudent suspension (not elimination) of your access in order to protect the other hosted content on my server was appropriate. If you knew anything about web hosting you would know that, but you don’t, so again you’re making accusations that are unwarranted.

– Upon trying to access my web site on Fractalus, I have discovered you have blocked my access with password protection contrary to the terms you offered in your last email.

What I said was that I would help you transfer content. Since I’ve suspended your access for administrative purposes, pending a final decision from Lynne as to what to do with eclectasy.com, what I was going to do was ZIP your content to allow you to make a single (far more efficient) web download. Another common practice.

– You have, in effect, voided our arrangement as of this moment, since I no longer have a fully operational web site, although I have paid you in good faith to provide such service.

I have already indicated that I would refund your money. It will go out tomorrow, if you could please provide a current address to send it to. (Yes, I can dig this out of my records if I have to, but since they’re in storage it will take longer.)

– As far as I am concerned, your action immediately terminates any business arrangement we had concerning my web site, regardless of who is the domain owner. I paid the bill. I get the refund.

I never indicated anyone else would get the refund. I only indicated that Lynne, as the domain owner, decides what happens with the domain name.

– I will not pay you another dime, and I insist upon a pro-rated refund as of today, Wednesday, July 11th, 2007. I have paid through July 31st, 2007.

This works out to be a refund of $27.10.

– Thanks for the professional courtesy of allowing me to retrieve any overlooked back-ups from my web site. And thanks, too, for apparently knowingly overcharging me for all these years.

Actually, I didn’t knowingly overcharge you. Since I don’t pay even remotely the same for my hosting as you do, I didn’t comparison shop for your class of service until today. You have the ability to host your web site with most low-cost hosts, but I don’t; I offer too many customized services and I require a co-located server, with hardware that I own. Never mind that I offered to host you for free in the beginning, but you all insisted on paying for service. (You forgot that part, didn’t you?)

– P.S. I have cced Lynne a copy of this email that includes all of our correspondence on this matter. She deserves to know what really happened, instead of receiving a cut and paste version.

Did you forward her a copy of all your private emails to me earlier this week? So that she gets the full story?

Damien M. Jones

~/~

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terry Wright
To: Damien M. Jones
Re: Eclectasy Hosting

Damien,

Please send the refund to:

**STREET ADDRESS EDITED**

Out of concern for your privacy, I did not send anyone, including Lynne, either your private email rants or my responses. If you wish to send your emails to Lynne, that is strictly your business.

Your dropping hosting of Eclectasy was Lynne’s business — as you pointed out — since she owns the domain name. Our private discussions about current writings on Orbit Trap only involve you and I.

Terry

~/~

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:01:02 -0400
From: Damien M. Jones
To: Terry Wright
Subject: Re: Eclectasy Hosting

Terry,

As promised, a full set of your content, should you wish to download it, is available here:

**SERVER LINK EDITED**

I will keep this file online through August 15, 2007 or until you tell me to remove it.

Damien M. Jones

~/~ ~/~ ~/~

This concludes the transcript of private email exchanged between Damien M. Jones and myself.

I was really glad to read Damien’s recent entry. I completely agree with him that all fractal artists post-process and that no one fractal tool is proprietary. He is absolutely right. It makes no difference whether I knock my fractal around with masking and layering in Ultra Fractal or import my fractal into Photoshop and put it through similar paces. And I also concur that no one definition of fractal art can be definitive. It’s not surprising I’d see eye to eye with each of these statements. I’ve been saying all of these things for almost ten years.

It’s probably true people might see my work as digital rather than fractal unless told otherwise. But I believe the same could be said of much of the more creative, experimental work that many cutting edge fractal artists have produced in the last few years. I did not mean to pull up old corpses — only to show the difference between then and now. It’s getting tough these days to separate what’s fractal and what’s digital. It’s likely the judges of the 1999 contest I referenced would not recognize most work coming out of UF and other programs today as fractal. That’s because everyone is indeed post-processing — and doing so more and more with every generator upgrade.

So, given that the fractal/digital divide is fuzzy, and knowing that we now live in a new golden age of fractal tolerance and latitude, why are limitations still being placed on artists? Oh, I know sponsors of contests can set their own rules. As a writer, I learned early on not to submit a free verse poem about baboons to a formal poetry contest about kangaroos. However, at least the literary contests will always specify the guiding parameters when reporting the winners: best rhyming poems about kangaroos. By contrast, some major fractal competitions strongly suggest that the winners represent the best fractal artists in the world. In truth, what these contests really showcase is only someone’s idea of what a fractal ought to look like. I wonder whether the public ever comes to see that the selected art represents only a substratum of our multi-faceted, rapidly mutating genre. How ironic is it that these limitations are still being put in place at the very time fractal art is relishing blowing up its boundaries.

Maybe this is all just one big technical vs. visual practicality dichotomy. Or maybe fractal artists should be considering less theoretical and more practical questions. Like: Should a contest’s incomplete snapshot of fractal art be presented as broadly representational to the public? Who stands to gain by using limitations to set the agenda for what the public sees as legitimized fractal art? Damien, I think, said it best: “So really, who gets to decide what is and is not fractal art?”

My last blog post wasn’t just about post-processing. It was also a plea for fractal artists to insist on having artistic freedom without limits. The stakes here could not be higher. If we, as fractal artists, continue to believe that our art must be a particular something to be accepted — whether to “look fractal” or conventionally spiral away over the days of each month — then we shun rather than follow our Muses. Even worse, I fear for the future of our genre. We risk getting stuck in permanent craft mode and never breaking into the blossom of becoming a broadly recognized and established artistic movement.

Yes. I’m returning to rant again on my favorite pet peeve: the never-say-die stink surrounding post-processing. I know some of you feel this is a dead issue. We all get along now…

…except we don’t. The old biases just keep cropping up.

From “Recent Evolution in Fractal Art” from Ken Keller’s site:

I consider the definition of Fractal Art to mean images that are originally produced with a computer program that is dedicated to fractal image generation. It is also assumed that minimal post processing is applied to the final, presented image. Layered fractal images are categorized as Fractal Art, but not images that are collage type images using other than fractal image elements (such as ‘put a pretty girl in front of a fractal’ ). Layered fractals are produced by many fractal generation programs and each layer is indeed a genuine fractal.

Keller might “assume” such limitations, but I refuse them. It’s big of him to give a program like Ultra Fractal a thumbs up allowing hundreds of collaged layers the benefit of still being minimally post-processed. Each layer, he claims, is still a fractal — even if the final composite is smushed together like hash and stacked like mashed-up pancakes. Anything goes, apparently, as long as the manipulation properly occurs inside the fractal software. Export your fractal out — and, well, you’re out — or out of control. Moreover, it doesn’t matter how much filtering firepower is built directly into one’s fractal software. Ultra Fractal can do animations. XenoDream can do lighting effects similar to software by Flaming Pear. Filters come standard in both Fractal Explorer and Fractal Forge. Do each of these onboard adjustments still use only “fractal image elements”?

And let’s hear from Chasm — described by Joseph Trotsky as “the master of artistic post-processing”:

It is my opinion that fractal pp will remain fractal art, as long as the pp has not ruined the original fractal patterns. Chasm has described it in a most beautiful and clear way: “I was pleased insofar that I’ve managed to preserve the original fractal contour and much of the coloring, and not ruin the image in a filter-frenzy.”

Trotsky and Chasm are much more radical than Keller. They actually believe the fractal artist can wander outside of the (ahem) parameters of the fractal-generating software. But don’t stray too far from home. That way a filter-frenzied madness lies — even if Photoshop filters do run by using algorithms. Trotsky calls extensive post-processing “fractal abuse” and “fractal vandalism.” Only if the forms are preserved can the art remain “fractal” rather than catch-all “digital” — obviously an inferior iteration allowing infestations like “black smears” to cloud otherwise serious art. And, whatever else you do, don’t ever alter the original fractal forms. They are sacrosanct. Go too far, and you’ve crossed an artistic line drawn in the sand by those who’ve been touched by God (or math — a lower case god) to be gifted enough to discern such fine distinctions.

Even the popular fractal art contests once run through Fractalus seemed to share a similar sensibility. Here is a bit of the “Post-Processing Statement” from the 1999 contest:

One of the limitations fractal artists accept is that the medium — visual representations of mathematical formulas — imposes some restrictions on the creative process. Producing beautiful images despite the restriction is part of the challenge and beauty of fractals.

If you choose to process your image, that is OK as far as the rules are concerned. But you should keep in mind that the more obviously you alter the image, the less pleasing it is likely to be to some of those who vote. The key word you should remember is enhance. We’re not really interested in who can apply the most complex filter combinations in Photoshop to produce something barely recognizable as a fractal. We’re interested in great fractal pictures.

One wonders, given the image manipulation features now pre-built into programs like UF and XenoDream, if the pictures produced today would have seemed “barely recognizable as a fractal” back then.

So, what’s my problem with all of the above?

For one, I don’t like limitations on making art — especially when the restrictions seem designed to benefit some fractal artists while punishing others.

For another, if everything above represents the current fractal art canon — and I believe it probably does — then I’ve been permanently banished outside the castle walls.

Let’s get a couple of things straight.

Making a fractal is not the same as making art. Anyone can make a fractal. In fact, anyone can make about twenty in less than a minute using a program like Fractal ViZion. Does that make one an insta-artist? No. I can stand in my backyard with a digital camera, spin in circles, and snap the shutter randomly. I may be taking pictures. I am not, however, making art. Fractal art is not exempt from the longstanding characteristics that define visual art: composition, depth, perspective, texture, and so on. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that quickie render you just slapped up on Renderosity might not really be a masterpiece. Fractals have to be made with more than math and craft to become art. If not, they are just fractals — just empty snapshots of the backyard.

Furthermore, every fractal artist post-processes. No exceptions. If you’ve changed your fractal from its initial iteration and removed it from the generator, you’ve altered it. Use image compression? Unsharp mask that sucker? Add a signature or frame or watermark? Upload that baby to the web to float in HTML? You’re guilty of post-processing.

And even…did you layer upon layer that poor thing in UF? Guilty. Juan Luis Martinez explains why:

We say a fractal image has been post-processed when it has been imported into a graphics editor to adjust any of its original properties. That results in a modification of the master picture as it came out of the fractal generating software alone. This is a normal practice in digital graphics creation, but still divides the group of fractal artists in two camps: those who prefer to leave the fractal as is (keeping its natural form) and those that routinely enhance its appearance with the intent of improving or increasing the artistic output. Ultra Fractal helped to change that perception because most fractal artists are using it almost exclusively, unleashing its power to combine several layers into a single image. Since all adjustments are done inside the same application, some people think they’re not post-processing the picture, but the truth is that all those operations are altering the base image, equaling what will normally be post-processing.

So, the only questions about post-processing then are how and how much.

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 arbritary) 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? I bet I could export each of those layers into Paint Shop Pro, mush them together, and come up with something wildly close to what you did.

The limits thing? I understand that, I guess — up to a point. On my web site, I describe my own work as “fractal-based digital art.” But, frankly, I think that’s what UF makes, too. I’m wondering if these fine distinctions matter less to me than they do to others. I’m more interested in breaking out the art part of fractal art — not making bonds tighter. I’ll blow up the fractal forms if I like the effect. I’ll post-process a fractal to the point where code words like frenzy don’t begin to cut it. I’ll do whatever it takes to drag that fractal lake and dredge the art out of my fractals. In a variation of the Vietnam paradox about saving villages, sometimes I have to destroy the fractal in order to save it.

And, however much I atom-smash the stalks and spirals out of my images, when you strip away all the multiple layers and many adjustments, you end up with the original parameter file.

Just like that very first fractal made in UF way back when by somebody somewhere before everyone else decided to pile on.

~/~

Here’s a demonstration of my point.

Let’s roll some footage:

Here’s a fractal made in FraSZle. I tweaked it a bit in the generator (but I guess that’s okay). I used it as a base for this:

The Last Bee (2007)

I thrashed this one every which way possible — but the fractal forms are still relatively intact. Did I cheat? Or was I going about trying to make art from what I initially saw as a backyard picture?

Here’s lower right corner detail from the first render:

And here’s lower right corner detail from the finished image:

Did I go too far? Was I merely “revising”? Or just using the colors and textures to highlight the overall arrangement? In short, was I exercising artistic control? Or was I committing the sin of “post-processing”?

Here’s another case. I warn you though. Don’t stray far from the fainting couch. This one probably constitutes “fractal vandalism.”

Here is the base image from FraSZle

and it somehow became this:

Evolution Impulse (2007)

Uh-oh. Break out the smelling salts. Somebody colored outside the lines.

~/~

So what do I want?

I want these distinctions and limitations lifted. Given that so much manipulation can now be done in so many fractal programs, I want all post-processing bias put down for good. No more pulling the stake out of its heart so it can wander undead in the night and drain fractal artists of their freedom to punch through artificial boundaries. I’m tired of knocking at a fractal contest door and having it slammed in my face. I don’t like being told I’m not playing by rules I think are nonsense and that are deliberately designed to repress creativity and artistic freedom. And I’m fed up with people claiming their programs get a bye for fractal purity but mine do not — especially since both are now doing much the same thing in the same ways. And, finally, I’m tired of reading drivel like this — seen on a DeviantArt fractal contest held last year:

Post processing using an image editing program such as Photoshop, or Paint Shop Pro is allowed as long as the focus of the image is a fractal.

Oh yeah. We wouldn’t want the focus of an art contest to actually be on the art.

Didn’t you get the memo?

~/~

Rooms with a View
Blog with a View

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal programs, digital art, post processing, ultra fractal, xenodream, purity