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

After all, every picture is a history of love and hate
when read from the appropriate angle.
–Leopoldo Salas-Nicanor, Espejo de las artes, 1731

I’ve been spending time lately with an interesting book — drinking in one chapter at a time some nights just before turning in for sleep.

Reading Pictures by Alberto Manguel explores the various ways human beings “read” images and breaks the viewing process (“seeing”) into a series of imaginative permutations. Although I wonder if these categories could be applied to most if not all visual imagery, Manguel limits his analysis to the fine arts — specifically painting, photography, sculpture, and architecture.

I’m not saying I agree with Manguel’s subdivisions, nor do I mean to suggest that alternative ways of reading/seeing images are not possible. I am interested, however, in trying to determine if Manguel’s rubric can be applied to fractal art — which, naturally, I consider a bona fide fine art.

I’ve chosen my own work to illustrate this first post — because, well, I’m most familiar with it — but, if I continue to post on Manguel’s categorizations, I’ll mix in work by other fractal artists as well.

Here, then, according to Manguel, are the first two options for seeing and reading (and thus interpreting?) any image.

~/~

The Image as Story

Every good story is of course both a picture and an idea, and the more they are interfused the better the problem is solved.
—Henry James, Guy de Maupassant

Flower Girl (2007)

Trouble with the Tanning Bed (2003)

Images are most frequently seen placed within a narrative framework. Not surprisingly, many viewers are driven to “make sense” of what they see — even if the image is highly abstract. The question then isn’t what is it? — but what’s happening here? The answer often comes in the form of a story provided by the viewer — created out of individual experience or pieced together in the imagination. By casting images into narratives, people make pictures meaningful. Fractal artists who make more “representational” art might have an edge here. Manguel notes such story conversion is the most frequent method for “reading” images, and he describes such interpreters as “common viewers.” The example Manguel uses to illustrate this method is Van Gogh’s Shipping Boats on the Beach at Saintes-Maries.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why some viewers strongly dislike modern art. The abstractions “don’t look like anything.” There’s no nature to mirror and — critical to Manguel — no story to spin.

But wait. Whose story is being told? The artist’s? Or, more likely, the viewer’s? After all, it is he or she who fills in the plot’s missing gaps and supplies the rising and falling action?

And, more disconcerting, can we trust the artist to truthfully tell “a story”? We know novelists sometimes revert to unreliable narrators (like Huck Finn). Film, too, can cause us to distrust the storyteller — as in The Usual Suspects and Memento. How can we be sure the artist is not just messing with us, stringing us along, even mocking us? I’m reminded of Hamlet teasing foolish Polonius over the shape of a cloud:

Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that is almost in the shape of a camel?
Polonius: By th’ Mass, and ’tis like a camel indeed.
Hamlet: Me thinks it’s like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale.
Polonius: Very like a whale.
–Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2

Of course, Polonius thinks Hamlet is mad. But what is our excuse if an artist decides we need to be put in our places with ironic jokes at our own expense?

Even if an artist is straightforward, can we always believe our eyes and be certain our concocted stories are not self-deception? Are we seeing only the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave? Can we “mis-read” an image? And why, even when we’ve studied the same work, are our separate narratives often so noticeably different? Consider this exchange from Woody Allen’s Manhattan when Isaac and Tracy run into Yale and Mary at the Museum of Modern Art:

Mary: Really, you liked the plexiglass, huh?
Isaac: You didn’t like the plexiglass sculpture either?
Mary: Uh, that’s interesting. No, er, …
Isaac: It was a hell of a lot better than that steel cube. Did you see the steel cube?
Mary: Now that was brilliant to me, absolutely brilliant.
Isaac: The steel cube was brilliant?
Mary: Yes. To me, it was very textural, you know what I mean? It was perfectly integrated, and it had a marvelous kind of negative capability.

Apparently, not all our stories get straight — however much we (artists? viewers?) try.

Manguel notes that “storytelling exists in time, pictures in space.” A text is not contained within the boundaries of book covers. We can cite individual lines of Emily Dickinson and summarize whole novels in a paragraph. Here’s Kafka’s The Metamorphosis in one sentence: “A man turns into a bug and his family and his boss get pissed.” But, in contrast, an image is perceived instantaneously and is confined within the parameters of its frame.

What is “the story” of the flower girl in the image above? Is the scene a wedding or a rehearsal or merely playacting? What is her mood? Scared? Nervous? Bored? Or is it inscrutable? Why the big eyes? Where’s the background? Do I see wings? Are the flowers still fresh? Hey. Choose Your Own Adventure.

And what exactly is the trouble with the tanning bed? Did it malfunction turning someone inside out resulting in mass melanoma (and giving new meaning to someone being “toast”). Could it be (cue sinister Cold War music) sabotage??? Or is the image a projection of the future? A suggestion of exaggerated things to come? Or just the horrific sunburn of the living dead?

You tell me. You’re the one “reading” it. What’s your story?

~/~

The Image as Absence

To restore silence is the role of objects.
—Samuel Beckett, Molloy

Birdbath (2001)

The Butcher Shop (2000)

Sometimes what is unseen is what one is supposed to see. The convenient linearity of the well-made play doesn’t apply here. What is missing is what is meaningful.

Life’s most intense emotional events — like death or divorce — can often be shown better by what is absent: the empty chair at the table, the indentation on one side of the bed, the closet filled with unworn clothes.

How does one see the unseen? Is some art so…I’m searching for the right word here…so…confused…that the very imposition of making a reading undercuts what one is trying to comprehend?

Manguel gives the example of writer Severo Sarduy who wrote about a traveling film projectionist who tried to show a documentary on new agricultural techniques in a remote village in Cuba. The villagers had never seen a film before, and they sat politely on rows of wooden benches and quietly watched the swirling light. Apparently, they recognized a chicken when it suddenly appeared in the lower left corner of the screen — but comprehended little else. They had no way to “read” a film — to decipher its codes of quick cuts and tracking shots. Sarduy sensed the villagers saw the film as a jumble of shadows and light. In short, it was a mess.

Some people had a similar response to the paintings of Jackson Pollock. Just drips. What a mess. I could do that. But at the very moment when the culture was moving away from digesting words (radio) and racing to a constant stream of imagery (TV), Pollock produced paintings that shunned any attempt at narration — either in words or through pictures — and seemed to disdain all control for either the artist or the viewer. Manguel claims that Pollock’s work “seemed to exist in a constant present, as if the explosion of paint on the canvas were always at the point of occurring” (Manguel 24). Maybe that’s why one critic complained that Pollock’s paintings had no beginning or end. Pollock’s reply: “He didn’t mean it as a compliment, but it was. It was a fine compliment” (Manguel 24).

Although Manguel devotes plenty of copy to Pollock in this chapter, he uses Joan Mitchell’s Two Pianos to show work that exhibits absence.

It’s hard to talk about this. Words are one problem here — as Beckett discovered. The more he tried to write about nothingness, the more he had to name it and thus codify it. Colors present a similar paradox. Since every color is named — either individually (“blue”) or in groups (“blue-green”) or in its own subdivisions (turqoise, aquamarine) — Manguel says that no color is “innocent.” Moreover, he observes that colors are not known for their absence — but, instead, for their contrasts. Thus, black is not a vacant void. Rather, it is “not white.” And so on.

So what is absence to the fractal artist? Not a blank canvas. A monitor in sleep mode? The dead space in your generator before you fill it with a fractal? Parameter files riddled with black holes?

Or are those the obvious examples? Elvis Costello once sang: “There are some words they don’t allow to be spoken.” Are there also things we can’t show?

Or do I mean that we can’t know? How much information do we need to properly “read” an image? The artist’s biography? The socio-political context? The deconstruction of all signifiers? An exhaustive itinerary of all materials used? Every trend, movement, and change that impacted the world during the artist’s lifetime? There’s a kind of Howard Hughes obsessiveness creeping in here. I can never wash my hands enough to be completely and perfectly clean. Just as I can never know enough about any given work of art to truly — to perfectly — “read” it. Something will always remain behind a veil.

Balzac wrote about the painter Frenhofer who spent many years fussing over one female nude. The work was to be his masterpiece. He said he wanted to capture that which cannot be captured. “Look,” he said, “there on the cheek, under the eyes, there’s a faint dimness which, if observed in nature, would seem untranslatable to you. Ha! Don’t you think it cost me unspeakable pains to reproduce it?” (Manguel 35-36).

But we’ll never know, will we? Like the Cuban villagers seeing their first movie, Frenhofer shows us something we cannot see because we have neither the language (since it’s untranslatable) nor the context (because it’s unexplainable if seen in nature).

In short, we can never see or read any image in its contextual entirety. Some absence is always going to be a given. Perhaps this is what Beckett meant in Molloy when he said that “there could be no things but nameless things, no names but thingless names.”

As I was putting the finishing touches on Birdbath above, my daughter, age 13 at the time, walked up behind me and squinted at the monitor. She had a grimace on her face, as if the image had a putrid smell, and the following conversation ensued:

Her: What do you call this?
Me: Birdbath.
Pause.
Her: Where’s the bird?
Me: That’s not the question that bothers me.
Her: What bugs you then?
Pause.
Me: Where’s the birdbath?

The Butcher Shop above looks more like a Christmas card. It has no PETA points to underscore. There’s no cleavers or wooden blocks — no spattered aprons — no blood pools. But something is unseen.

Something remains absent when both the butcher and the artist finish their work. Can you not see…

…not see the animals?

~/~

–Terry

Rooms with a View
Blog with a View

Technorati Tags: fractal, fractal art, digital art, art, reading pictures, alberto manguel, ways of seeing

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
–William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

I do like naming images. While it’s true that viewers will stubbornly resist an artist’s prompt and make their own meanings from images, I still enjoy suggesting places to start. Since many fractals are highly abstract, names can sometimes provide viewers with a kind of nudge to the forehead. Hopefully, this process is less obnoxious than those Head On commercials.

Names don’t have to be overly prescriptive. Viewers will still see whatever they prefer. Or, of course, they can categorically resist and deep six any title you’ve labored for hours to concoct.

But names can be like those mannequin torsos found in style shops. They at least provide a working semblance to hang up some preliminary but pricy rags of meanings that viewers might eventually buy.

Names also hint at an image’s “personality” — possibly providing a snapshot of its heuristic psyche.

And that’s where crucial artistic decisions come into play. These critical first impression snapshots often set the ground rules for an image’s tone and mood. Without such delicate pre-viewing preparation, a viewer’s response to your labor of love could be nothing more than a mumbled Huh?

Let’s carefully consider a couple of new images fresh off the pixel press via a brief multiple choice examination. One of the following titles is the actual name I gave the image. The others are title wannabes and currently undergoing a severe existential crisis. Ready?

As David Letterman says: Please. No wagering.

Who’s my daddy?

What is the “correct” name for the image above? Is it:

(a) _____ Avoid the Fried Mushrooms
(b) _____ Ballooning
(c) _____ 1169995.8846 #7
(d) _____ Freak Out at Captain D’s
(e) _____ NOTA (Your Snappier Title Here)

Makes a difference, huh? Yes, I suppose it depends on how much one wants to influence a viewer and what kind of feeling one hopes the image will project. The title candle sputters at both ends: sublime and ridiculous.

Since you’re home on a Friday night instead of out carousing on a date, let’s try another. You may open your test booklet now.

What’s my purpose?

What is the “proper” name for the image above? Survey says:

(a) _____ A Poor Choice of Plastic Surgeons
(b) _____ Someone Left the Play Dough Out in Rain and I Don’t Think That I Can Take It Cuz It Took So Long to Bake It and I’ll Never Have That Recipe Again OOOH NOOOOO
(c) _____ Bishop with Bad Thoughts
(d) _____ Fried Trannie
(e) _____ NOTA (Your Sappier Title Here)

Makes you feel sorry for Adam having to name those animals — and without even Eve being around yet to help. I’m sure all the great masters went through dark nights of the thesaurus wrestling with their inner designators as they suffered for (naming) their art.

Consider this classic case. What should this iconic painting really be called? Take a shot:

Are you ready for the country…?

(a) _____ The Nebraska Pitchfork Massacre
(b) _____ Proud Parents of an American Goth
(c) _____ Farmers Gone Wild!!!!!
(d) _____ Where’s the Children of the Corn When You Need Them?
(e) _____ NOTA (Your Snarkier Title Here)

See? That just fine tunes the whole aesthetic ambiance. Seems to me that any old picture blah blah blahblahblah no matter how totally pedestrian and campy bloggity narf zort bloggity blogblogblog or how completely cartoonish yadda yoda yiddish yucky yaddayadda could be used to both illustrate if not elucidate blitherblither bluto biclighter blatherblatherblather my puzzling nomenclature crisis hypothesis zzzzzap zzzzzap zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

While. Foolish. Blogger. Rambles. On. Insipidly. Zoltar. Will. Just. Quickly. Borrow. This. Small. Item. From. Blogger’s. Home.

…zzzzzzz zzzooorrrttt zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Go for it:

(a) _____ [Sung to the Quizno’s Jingle] Ack Ack Ack Ack … Good!
(b) _____ Still Life with Cranium
(c) _____ A Most Unexpected Aubade
(d) _____ Take Me to Your Viagra
(e) _____ NOTA (Your Zippier Title Here)

Well, that pretty much taps out my so-called thoughts and your endurance for one night. See you next time…unless…like… you know…you happen to actually… see my name under the post…before you start reading…or something…

[door slams]

[door opens]

Hi, Honey. I’m home. Man, what a tough night at the blog. I’m starv–

Uh, honey?

Sweetheart…?

~/~

Key: Image 1: b; Image 2: c; Image 3: e; Image 4: Oh Who Cares.

Image 1 was made with Vchira. Image 2 was made with QuaSZ. Both were post-processed in various graphics program.

Terry

Rooms with a View
Blog with a View

~/~

Technorati Tags: photoblog, fractal, fractal art, digital art, computer art, art, title