I don’t want to hear about why art competitions should be run professionally using fair play to promote excellence and diversity rather than favoring a select group. I’d much rather be openly exploited and cynically scammed.

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan….
–The Beatles, “Revolution”

Guess what’s new on the 2009 Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest front?

Nothing.

Is that what you expected? It’s what I expected.

If you thought Garth Thornton’s resignation from the 2009 BMFAC selection panel, or, better yet, his ethical example and thoughtful public account of what prompted his action would make any difference, well, then you just haven’t been paying attention for years.

If you haven’t done so yet, I urge you to read Thornton’s public post announcing his resignation. You can clearly see who he is and what he believes. His post also provides a contrasting window into some of the BMFAC judges revealing who they are not and what they do not believe.

If the director and his friends who serve as BMFAC judges could be shamed, they would have been from the start. The competition is, as Tim and I have long argued, all about them. It’s always been a publicity stunt to garner personal gain and to further their professional careers. From the beginning, it should have been an invitational exhibition for the director and his circle, a showcase for the particular Ultra Fractal school of fractal art they’ve all been pushing for years, but that would have looked more insular than prestigious. So, a “contest” was concocted — a contest that would allow them to place their work inside what would appear to outsiders to be a juried, international art competition. The catch, of course, is that they were the jury who ended up selecting themselves for nearly half of the previous two exhibitions.

And how could they insure that this international show “that represents our art form to a world that largely does not know it” would really be about the kind of art they actively promote? And, furthermore, how could they also advance the profile and sales of Ultra Fractal, the fractal software many of them either author, sell, teach, code, or otherwise push? One shrewd way would be to set the submission requirements for entries at a large scale that only Ultra Fractal could easily reach. After all, an art contest can only draw from the entries it receives, just as it can be consciously designed to choose judges and make rules to ensure that it gets only the kind of entries it wants.

But, of course, this is a new year, and the contest has made at least one ethics-friendly change. Probably. The rules make clear that the judges’ work will not be included in the 2009 contest, although some readers have pointed out the rules explicitly say nothing about the judges’ art ending up in the exhibition. Semantics — or loophole? Time will tell. The “contest” is the web page, listing winners, alternates, and honorable mentions. The exhibition is another matter entirely, as demonstrated by the 2007 BMFAC where no information about the physical show was ever included on the “contest” web page.

And if the previous contests weren’t slanted enough towards openly fostering UF, what with primarily UF judges picking primarily UF winners, this year’s contest actually includes Ultra Fractal’s author as a judge. Given BMFAC’s history of overt UF bias, this is such an arrogant, in-your-face move that it surely cannot escape notice as a gross conflict of interest, especially after another author-judge of commercial software did the right thing and resigned.

But mum’s the word, and the director isn’t commenting — on anything. Not on the many conflicts of interest tied to the judging panel. Not on the rules ambiguity that could once again slip the judges into the exhibition. Not on why smaller entry sizes would somehow mar the exhibition. Not even on a prominent judge’s resignation and possible replacement. Apparently, the less all of us know, the better.

Not that anyone much cares, though. Obviously, the sponsors don’t care that the contest isn’t managed with the customary professional protocols, especially if they are as hands-on as past sponsors who insisted work by judges be included to insure against the exhibition’s “insufficient quality.” Obviously, some of the judges don’t care that the whole thing is UF-friendly and that they face visible conflicts of interest leading to their own financial and/or personal gain. If the sponsors cared about how the contest was run, they’d intervene. But they haven’t. If the judges in question worried about having conflicts of interest, they’d resign — especially after reading Garth’s recent post and witnessing his moral example. But they haven’t.

And what about you? I have to assume you’ve noticed how BMFAC is run and realize its operation is suspicious. So, I have to assume that many of you probably don’t care either. A crooked contest is better than none, you will tell me, and BMFAC is the only game in town. I’ll put up with shady doings, you’ll say, because participating is the only chance to promote myself in the hope of getting to join the privileged, piffling group literally running the whole show. You OT guys can keep your idealistic revolution for inclusion of all fractal artists and schools, you’ll say, because I want BMFAC judge status and privilege for myself, so then I, too, can lord it over others– just like they do. After all, you’ll tell me, their immoral example is the surest path to success in fractal art marketing: tie everything to your own self-promotion — even to the point of creating callous publicity stunts and calling yourself a “prestigious fractal artist”.

When all is said and done, I predict the 2009 Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest will be considered a success. It will have more participants than ever, perhaps even handing out up to 100 meaningless Honorable Mentions this year. Blogs will cite it as a representative sampling of the most important fractal artists in the world, instead of mostly and merely a narrow UF school that features masking and layering. The competition’s judges will profit both personally and financially, as a certain software sells and online classes on how to use that software fill up. The director will be hailed as a noble philanthropist, instead of a career-boosting manipulator.

And, maybe — maybe after a cycle about as long as the Fractal Universe Calendar‘s existence — maybe as the same people and styles of fractal art benefit from a deliberately devised system of inbred favoritism year after year after year — maybe after a fourth or fifth go-around of winding up as the 99th HM — maybe then whispers of a revolution will start to be heard in every Fractalbook forum and journal and chat room.

And, maybe then, you will remember. You once saw the plan.

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal contest, art contest ethics, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, nothing new in the benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, we all want to see the plan after a transparent publicity stunt, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
–Mark Twain

Image seen on afgc.org.

I wanted to pop on briefly and second what Tim said in his last post. I’ve known Garth Thornton since I helped test early versions of Xenodream years ago. I always found him to be thoughtful and straightforward. I’ve long admired his art, and he continues to create stunning work — like this piece seen recently on Fractal-World:

The Google Search Engine by Garth Thornton

In short, I’ve long had respect for Garth — but never more than I had this week. He is the only judge of the competition to ever address Orbit Trap’s objections as to how the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest is run, and, certainly, the only one to act based on his scruples after reflecting on how his actions might appear to others. Moreover, he could have resigned silently — out of the public eye. Instead, he made his conscience an open book — even going so far as to post his reasoning for resigning on a public forum. By his actions, he has shown himself to be estimable.

Would that some of the other BMFAC judges faced with financial conflicts of interests do some similar soul-searching. If they don’t want to listen to me, perhaps they should listen to Garth:

[T]he whole point of conflict of interest issues is not to rely on integrity. For a contest, anyone of questionable integrity or clearly lacking in credibility should not be a judge anyway. More generally, whether the context is awarding financial contracts or judging contests, a series of questions may be asked. First, people are expected to declare any personal conflicts of interest. Then there may be consideration given to whether the interests have a material or other effect on the outcome, and whether the person should participate or be party to any discussions, and whether or not they should have a vote. The exact approach depends on the kind of organization. In many contexts it is standard for the person to step aside from the entire process. Both objective and perceived conflicts of interest have to be considered.

Would that the competition be run without such a heavy blanket of secrecy. If Garth had not posted his rationale to the FractalForum but had simply sent a private email, would anyone have even noticed that he stepped down? As it was, how many of the other judges learned of Garth’s resignation by reading it on Orbit Trap? A high profile art competition does not have to operate like the CIA, nor should fractal artists have to scour the Web for months probing for any word about BMFAC’s exhibition — which is exactly what happened in the last contest. Even today, there is not one photo — not even one sentence — about the details of that exhibition on its own web site.

Would that the director relax the massive size restrictions for entering the contest — restrictions that privilege Ultra Fractal and its users while impeding or excluding other programs and artists. BMFAC should be a showcase for all schools of fractal art. If the majority of the judging panel is composed of UF artists, teachers, web hosts, code writers, advocates, and even the software’s author, then please rename the competition and just call it what it is: The Benoit Mandelbrot Ultra Fractal Art Contest. Truth in advertising is preferable to a smoke screen most of us can easily see through anyway.

Would that BMFAC’s sponsors rouse themselves from their slumbers and get the right thing done. Do the competition’s sponsors — Fundación Vodafone España, Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, ICM 2010 (International Congress of Mathematicians) — approve of how the contest is being managed? Does their silence mean they have no moral qualms — even in the face of a prominent judge’s resignation? Past BMFAC sponsors have not always been so hesitant to assert their influence on the competition’s day-to-day operations. Previously, according to the contest’s director, BMFAC’s sponsors insisted the judges be included in the exhibition, as this memorable passage from Orbit Trap’s archives recounts:

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 [my emphasis]; it is, after all, their money at risk.

Would that some of the other BMFAC judges facing conflict of interest issues of both financial and personal gain voluntarily review the facts and search their consciences as selflessly and honorably as Garth Thornton did. Or, if such acts of moral courage were forthcoming, would they have already taken place? Perhaps the sponsors need to take action again this year. But instead of ushering some judges into the exhibition through the back door, maybe the sponsors should do the right thing and usher some of judges off the selection panel and out the front door.

Maybe instead of a hedge against insufficient quality, the sponsors should consider another hedge — a hedge against insufficient integrity.

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest 2009, will the benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest do the right thing, fundación vodafone españa, universidad del país vasco/euskal herriko unibertsitatea, icm 2010 (international congress of mathematicians), art contest ethics, conflicts of interest, garth thornton, ultra fractal, hedges and how to trim them, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Don’t you trust us?

I am starting this post with a premise. Either the organizers and sponsors of the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest know absolutely nothing about how to run an art contest, or they have chosen to deliberately disregard established safeguards and universally accepted standards and practices.

I continue to be surprised by how many of Orbit Trap’s antagonists seem to believe that Tim and I are just making up contest regulations out of whole cloth, or are trying to impose our own eccentric guidelines on the beleaguered BMFAC. Take, for example, this recent remark by Ken Childress on his blog (find link via Google):

I didn’t really object to anyone on the panel having images included in the exhibition. Yes, this event is a contest. No, it’s not the kind of contest OT wants to lead everyone to believe must be run.

But it’s not just OT who believes that art competitions should be run using established and agreed upon protocols; it’s nearly everyone else — ranging from federal/state/college art associations to international symposiums on ethics in fine arts and cultural activities. I’m afraid it’s BMFAC’s director and sponsors who either don’t know about instituting methods to shield art contests from abuses, or they have intentionally not implemented such safeguards in order to not be bound by them.

The BMFAC director, in an exchange last week on the Fractint Mailing List, said my previous OT post was “written by someone who knows next to nothing about the contest.” Actually, I’m very familiar with contests in quite a few artistic genres. I served for six years as an Associate Dean in a College of Fine Arts in a moderately-sized (13,000 students) public university. Part of my job responsibilities included overseeing an artists in residence program and competitions in the disciplines of music, theater, film, creative writing, and visual art. One of the first things the college dean insisted I do was to draft conflict of interest policies for the competitions. So, I did some research — research the BMFAC organizers and sponsors either never bothered to do, or, more likely, don’t want any of you to do. Here’s what I found.

From the College Art Association’s “Statement of Conflict of Interest”:

A conflict of interest arises when an individual’s personal interest or bias compromises his or her ability to act in accordance with professional or public obligations. In situations where no public scrutiny or oversight is possible, the risk of a conflict of interest increases.

One way to understand a conflict of interest is to describe the situation as a conflict of roles. A person having two roles — like someone who sells commercial software and who is also judging an art contest that includes submissions made with that same software — may experience situations where his two roles conflict. The conflict can be denied or possibly extenuated, but it nonetheless exists. Playing two roles is not necessarily wrong, but the contrasting roles definitely provide an increased incentive for inappropriate acts in some circumstances.

Furthermore, the idea that BMFAC has any public scrutiny or oversight is laughable. The organizers have been consistently secretive, even to the point that the 2007 BMFAC site contains no information at all about the 2007 exhibition — no announcement, no location, no dates, no photographs, no reviews, no nothing. It took Orbit Trap seven months to discover whether the exhibition had even taken place.

One would have to be blindfolded on a deserted island not to see that BMFAC has a discernable and overriding bias. Over its three years, the majority of the judges have been UF users, teachers, web hosts, code writers, and advocates. The majority of the winning entries shown in the two previous exhibitions were made with UF. The judges’ back-door submissions to the previous two exhibitions — almost without exception — were made with UF. The majority of alternates and honorable mentions were awarded to UF users. Several current or past students, enrolled in UF classes taught by two BMFAC judges, won or placed in previous competitions. The enormous file sizes required to enter the contest heavily favor UF, the most easily scalable software — even to the point where some non-UF using fractal artists cannot render images large enough to participate in this contest designed to showcase, as the 2009 BMFAC rules page states, “art that represents our art form.”

And, in case anyone still has the slightest doubt about what kind of fractal art this competition privileges, this year one of the judges is the author and owner of Ultra Fractal. So, if what I’ve outlined hasn’t convinced you of BMFAC’s overt UF bias yet, maybe you need to back up and re-read Tim’s last post.

Barbara T. Hoffman, in a chapter entitled “Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts,” which appears in the seminal book Ethics in the Visual Arts, cites the definition of conflict of interest used by the International Council of Museums “Code of Ethics for Museums.” It states a conflict of interest is:

The existence of a personal or private interest which gives rise to a clash of principle in a work situation, thus restricting, or having the appearance of restricting, the objectivity of decision making.

Responsible Conduct Research, based at Columbia University, provides the following account of what constitutes conflicts of interest:

A conflict of interest involves the abuse — actual, apparent, or potential — of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity.

But the clearest and most detailed discussion about conflicts of interest in the arts comes from a comprehensive study done by the International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies. Their report is entitled “Conflict of Interest Policies in Arts and Culture Funding Agencies” (linked here in a .pdf file) and says:

Conflicts of interest arise when a person making a decision is faced with more than one interest against which to judge their best course of action. The conflict typically of most concern is that between a person’s personal interests and their professional interests.

[…]

Indeed, as many of the policies cited later in this report recognise, the mere perception that a conflict of interest might exist is enough to make such a conflict an issue for concern – whether or not it is ‘real’, or whether or not it tempts an individual to act inappropriately.

As you can see, there is an encompassing history of concern over the problem of conflict of interest in the area of the fine arts. This is not just a case of Tim and I wanting to impose “our way” of running contests or of Orbit Trap promoting “conspiracy theories,” as one of this year’s BMFAC judges said recently on the Ultra Fractal Mailing List.

In fact, it does not matter whether you and I think the BMFAC judges are honest and would never act inappropriately. What matters is the recognition that a conflict of interest exists. That perception alone is enough to contaminate BMFAC’s integrity and erode public trust.

The IFACCA survey goes on to say that conflicts of interest become especially troublesome when “people in the arts who are appointed to decision-making bodies” (like judges of an art contest) might gain financially or personally from rendering services and notes that

An obvious type of gain is financial, but other types of gain are equally relevant, such as the ability to gain prestige, wield power or advance a career.

Financial conflicts of interest permeate BMFAC’s selection panel. Two of the judges are authors and owners of commercial software, Ultra Fractal and Xenodream. It is inevitable that the competition will have entries made with these software programs. If entries created with both programs do well, it is reasonable to assume that both authors stand to benefit financially. Whether the authors make a pittance or a fortune is irrelevant because what matters here is the principle. Even if the two author-judges were to miraculously make no money, conflicts of interest, as we’ve seen above, are often about the mere appearance of impropriety. Therefore, I repeat the charge I made in my last post: the two judges who are authors of commercial software should immediately resign.

Another financial conflict of interest is self-evident. Two of the BMFAC judges are or have been on the faculty of the Visual Arts Academy where they are paid (by charging fees) to teach courses in the use of Ultra Fractal. Again, if entries made with UF win, it stands to reason that one or both instructors stand to benefit financially. Even in the unlikely event that enrollment doesn’t rise should UF submissions make another near-sweep of the exhibition, the improper demeanor is enough to be a conflict of interest. These instructor-judges should also resign, or, at the very least, should not be teaching classes in any year when the contest is being held.

I hope you can also see why Orbit Trap protested so vehemently over the inclusion of work by BMFAC’s judges in the last two exhibitions. It was not because, as some of our adversaries claim, that we are bitter whiners who hold grudges and produce bad art — or similar invective tossed at us as a smokescreen for failing to directly address our arguments.

No, we were upset because including the judges’ work was a glaring conflict of interest resulting in personal gain for those individuals. Rather than simply paying the judges, either directly via the sponsors or by charging an entry fee, BMFAC’s director and sponsors gave them a free pass to display in the “contest” exhibition. This action resulted in each of them (follow along with me from the quote above) gaining prestige, wielding power, and advancing their careers — even to the degree where they could anoint their heads with crowns and write their own ad copy declaring themselves to be “the most important fractal artists in the world.”

~/~

OT readers might find an ongoing dialogue I’ve been having about the contest with some locals over at the FractalForum of interest. Things really picked up when Garth Thornton, one of the two current judges who is an author of commercial software, showed up to address the conflict of interest issue. To date, Thornton is the only BMFAC judge to ever come forward and speak to OT’s allegations. You probably owe it to yourself to read the whole exchange, although you will have to join the forum to make comments.

This excerpt serves as the basis for what I said to him:

Your main points seem to be that you and Frederik [Slijkerman] are qualified to be judges because “we know the software’s weaknesses inside out,” any money made from selling software will be insignificant, and that including vendors as judges “will have a minor influence.” In short, although you admit that you might benefit financially, even if minimally, your claim is that your presence as a judge will have little overall effect, and that I should just trust you.

The way any competition earns trust is by being proactive and showing that it is aware of potential abuses by putting visible policies in place to keep any potential improprieties from occurring. These steps have become standard practice in art competitions. Any competition that deliberately foregoes such policies immediately arouses suspicion and appears less trustworthy.

And, for our more anxiety-inclined readers, this excerpt might make you excitable. It begins when Thornton says

I can confirm there is no form of remuneration for judging.

to which I say

I personally believe contest judges should be paid for their time and effort. One reason BMFAC is fishy is that it has no entry fee. Many artists, including me, generally despise such fees, but they are a necessary evil. Such fees are used to pay judges and screeners and to cover the administrative costs of running a contest (like publicity and printing images, for example.) Most significantly, entry fees do not create conflicts of interest; in fact, their presence makes abuses and inappropriate behavior less likely.

I do have a question, though. Could you clarify what you mean by “remuneration?” Are you saying BMFAC’s judges will receive no money? Or are you saying all of the judges receive no compensation at all — compensation like having their own art work included in the 2009 exhibition? I’ve already said on OT that I’m taking on good faith that no BMFAC judges will have work hanging in this year’s show. But some of OT’s more paranoid readers have written to me pointing out that the 2009 rules only say the judges are excluded from participating in “the contest.” Nothing whatsoever is said about the judges not being a part of this year’s exhibition.

Moreover, one of those nervous emailers wonders why Rick Spix is on the UF Mailing List saying things like

“As to having work in the shows, it seems like a good way to pay those folks for a good many hours spent doing the judging thing.”

when the issue is presumably dead and the general assumption from the posted rules is that the BMFAC judges will not be recompensed by displaying their own art in this year’s exhibition?

You could quell these rumors by stating categorically that no art by a BMFAC judge will be displayed this go around. Better yet, to be more convincing, the director should come forward and make a public statement clarifying this matter.

I am curious to see what Thornton will say in response. I do not expect the contest director will see fit to issue a proclamation.

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal contest, art contests, conflict of interest, benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, 2009 benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, ethics in the visual arts, ken childress, garth thornton, frederik slijkerman, fractalforum, you can trust us, cruelanimal, orbit trap

What! Will these hands never be clean?

It’s baaaaack. The Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest returns for 2009 with freshly scrubbed rules.

Past co-director Damien M. Jones made the announcement last night on the Ultra Fractal Mailing List:

Good evening listfolk,

I would like to inform you that the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest 2009 is open and accepting submissions. This is a contest to select images for exhibition at ICM in 2010. The submissions period closes October 10, 2009.

For complete information, please visit the contest web site:

http://www.fractalartcontests.com/2009/

Thank you for your attention.

Damien Jones

So has the competition cleaned up its act, or is there still some dirt lingering under its fingernails? Well, no pun intended, you be the judge. Here are my initial impressions:

Have the Judges Been Taken Off the Wall?

It appears that the contest’s directors and sponsors took some of Orbit Trap’s past criticisms to heart. Previously, as we pointed out many times, the contest was tainted by including the judges’ artwork — even to the tune of 50% of the exhibition. To its credit, this year’s competition appears to have remedied this arrangement. From the rules page:

Eligibility: Anyone may submit their own artwork to the contest, except selection panel members and their immediate families.

That’s more like it. Giving credit where credit is due, I applaud this change which certainly makes considerable strides to promote fairness, reduce conflicts of interest, and remove the sense that the whole thing was deliberately undertaken to be little more than a self-serving publicity stunt for the judges.

But I know what the more paranoid among you might be thinking. The rules are clear about the judges being disallowed from the contest — but what about the exhibition? Are they also excluded from that venue? After all, since some of the judges are (self-described) “prestigious fractal artists,” should they not receive some compensation for donating their time so willingly? I agree that, compared to previous years, the formal details of the exhibition are more sketchy and could have been left vague to allow wiggle room for tweaking at a later date. However, on this front, I’m going to take the directors and sponsors at their word and assume they are operating on good faith. Unless I learn otherwise, I’ll presume that no asterisk clauses or extenuating circumstances will arise to allow any of the judges to display their own work in the 2010 exhibition. And, if the judges deserve compensation, I would hope the competition’s sponsors would pony up a fair monetary payment for services rendered rather than provide wall space beside the winning artists.

Follow the Money

But just as one conflict of interest disappears, another rises to take its place. Consider this year’s panel selection members:

Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Honorary Chairman
Javier Barrallo (Spain), The University of the Basque Country
Damien Jones (UK), fractal artist and programmer
Kerry Mitchell (USA), fractal artist and programmer
Janet Parke (USA), fractal artist
Juan Bautista Peiró (Spain), Polytechnique University of Valencia
Frederik Slijkerman (Netherlands), author of Ultra Fractal
Rajat Tandon (India), University of Hyderabad
Garth Thornton (New Zealand), author of XenoDream
Mark Townsend (Australia), author of Apophysis

What would be one of the most serious conflicts of interest for a judge in an art contest? Could it be the opportunity to make a business profit by serving as a judge?

Imagine this scenario. Imagine an art contest where some of the judges are in the business of selling art supplies — you know, like paints, brushes, canvases, frames, mattes, and so on. Imagine further that these judges would be certain to know that some artists entering the contest would be using their products. And not only would they be able to recognize their products in given artworks, but so would many of the other artists and viewers who would examine the prize-winning entries. It stands to reason that the more their products are associated with the winning entries, the more money they are likely to personally make.

Does the above situation sound like a conflict of interest to you?

I would guess that the authors of various fractal software were included as judges in this year’s competition to give the appearance of greater balance. After all, there has been some previous criticism, from Orbit Trap and other parties, that past competitions seemed skewed to a particular software platform. Including the creators of Ultra Fractal, Xenodream, and Apophysis is probably designed to show that this year’s BMFAC has no prevailing bias.

And maybe it succeeds to that end. But it leaves a worse problem in its wake.

Two of the programs, Ultra Fractal and Xenodream, are for sale. Their authors have a clear financial investment in their respective software’s success or failure. The situation would be different if the software was freeware. But it’s not. There’s hard cash to potentially be made from product placement — and this competition provides a world stage for advertising fractal generators. The software that winds up in the winner’s circle will invariably be associated with artistic success — especially from an exhibition built to acquaint newcomers to the field of fractal art. In short, if Ultra Fractal and Xenodream images do end up in the exhibition, two of the panel selection members will most likely make a profit as a direct result. And that, gentle readers, is a classic example of a colossal conflict of interest.

Please understand that I’m not accusing anyone of doing anything unethical here. After all, no judging has yet taken place. Conflicts of interest are not so much about individual personalities as they are about compromising situations. Conflicts of interest establish an atmosphere that opens loopholes, create opportunities for preference and for gain, and, worst of all, allow abuses to more easily occur.

And some conflicts of interest are so visibly inherent as to be unmistakable. Would you think it fair if Olympic athletes were judged by their own coaches — or, more to the point, by the merchants who make sports equipment and apparel? Such coaches and merchants would surely stand to financially benefit if their protégées or products won a medal. But the Olympic community would deem such an arrangement to be outrageous and demand such shenanigans be rectified. So why should the fractal community sit still for a comparable state of affairs?

The bottom line? The two authors of for-sale software should resign from the judging panel immediately.

Additional Ca-Chinging

Another, perhaps lesser, conflict of interest, and one that Orbit Trap has noted in previous BMFACs, also involves making money and has not been washed clean. Two other judges could also make a profit — depending on what software dominates the contest and exhibition. Why? Because both do or have taught courses in using Ultra Fractal at the Visual Arts Academy. Again, if UF racks up the kudos in this year’s BMFAC, then Ultra Fractal will then be associated with internationally award-winning fractal art. UF, however, has one substantial drawback. I’ll let the instructor of the course “Working with Ultra Fractal” explain:

Ultra Fractal is a powerful, feature-rich, and extremely versatile fractal generator that allows the user to explore many types of fractals and to create amazing images. But it has, by nature, a very steep learning curve.

There’s the rub. You want to win those art prizes, but the prized program is designed for someone with an advanced engineering degree. Don’t worry though. One of the BMFAC judges will come to your aid — for a fee.

It stands to reason that the more exposure UF gets as a “winning” program, the more likely cyber-seats in UF classes will be filled.

These “faculty member” judges should also resign either their teaching job or their judging job, but I won’t get my hopes up. Even a dump truck of Lava won’t wash the pie off some hands.

Size Matters, or How Loaded Are Those Dice?

And is there much doubt what fractal software will once more prevail when the BMFAC smoke clears? Let’s do the math with a short assembly of the judges:

Frederik Slijkerman — author of Ultra Fractal.

Damien M. Jones — formerly hosted the UF web site for many years and has been considered such “an evangelist” (his phrase) for Ultra Fractal that he even wrote a lengthy apology to explain his expressed devotion to the program.

Janet Parke — teaches UF classes online.

Kerry Mitchell — has taught UF classes online.

Mark Townsend — created Apophysis, a program originally made for use with Ultra Fractal.

Given the above roster, I’d say things are looking good for UF users again this year. Hopefully, though, we won’t go so deeply into UF cult worship as to have a repeat of the 2007 contest where several students enrolled in judges’ UF classes picked up awards or honorable mentions. That coincidence left a bit of an unpleasant aftertaste.

And if the aesthetic proclivities don’t lean in a UF direction, the submission sizes certainly do. OT complained about the required plasma TV size dimensions in past contests. You’ll be glad to know they’ve gotten even more gigantic this go around:

Artwork that is selected must then be provided in high-resolution format, sized so that the largest dimension is 8000 pixels. If a high-resolution version of the artwork cannot be produced, it should not be entered. Some images may be selected for printing at even larger size (12000 pixels in the largest dimension) so entrants would do well to be aware of the size requirements. This is particularly important for certain types of fractals (e.g. flames) which are difficult to render at large sizes.

12000 pixels? What are you making? A mural?

Well, maybe yes, as it turns out. One of this year’s BMFAC judges is an expert on murals.

Sorry, Apo users. You’re screwed with those flames. Sorry, post-processors, you too — unless you have a system with a quadrillion gigs of RAM. And for users of stuff like Ferguson or Gintz software — you know, software authors who somehow didn’t make this year’s all-inclusive judging cut — well, you can render large but your graphic processing functions are somewhat limited. So, by design, that pretty much leaves an entry pool of UF and (to a lesser extent) Xenodream images — that is, the rare programs that can make works to massive scale but also heavily process them.

OT has argued before that there is absolutely no reason to insist that all fractal art must have gargantuan dimensions and be printed the size of a barn door to be artistically successful. No, this insistence that bigger is better is a precisely calculated, exclusionary provision contrived to limit the playing field rather than level it.

So, To Conclude

My initial impression of this year’s BMFAC is that it has only partially cleaned up its act. The judges have been handcuffed outside the gallery door, but the helping hands of BMFAC still need some conflicts of interest and agenda items scrubbed off with industrial, anti-bacterial soap.

And other questions remain for later discussion. For example, how will the judges handle mixed media collages made in UF5 that are submitted to this “fractal art contest”?

And what kind of overriding aesthetic about fractal art is being perpetuated with this contest? That question has crucial implications for all of us who engage in some form of fractal art. Jones makes clear in the rules that he wants to avoid all stereotypical “garish, 70’s style imagery.” I guess I’d sleep better if I didn’t wonder whether he’s replacing that tired trope with another stereotype of his own — a stereotype that, in its own way, is just as narrow and “garish” as those spirals that were once de rigueur for the now defunct Fractal Universe Calendar. Artwork that, in his words, is

uniquely fractal; artwork that uses fractal tools to produce less-fractal imagery is not as desirable (but is not disqualified). We want artwork that will look good when printed large (i.e. has lots of good, interesting fractal detail).

Admit it. You know what he wants. He wants it to be big. He wants it to have detail. He wants it to appeal to Janet Parke. And he wants it replicated over and over and over by her students until it becomes the only critically recognized expression of what fractal art can be.

He wants your multi-layered UF monstrosities.

~/~

Tags: fractal, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal contest, 2009 benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest, damien m jones, janet parke, kerry mitchell, ultra fractal, art contest ethics, has the 2009 benoit mandelbrot fractal art contest cleaned up its act, meet the new contest same as the old contest, prestigious fractal artists, cruelanimal, orbit trap

Slimazoids Visit Gnarlinspike Badlands by Garth Thornton.

One of the hardest parts of my job is figuring out what other people will think is funny. You’d think that would be easy, but my own sense of humor is far from the mainstream. I can’t assume others will laugh at the same things I find funny.
—Scott Adams, Dilbert cartoonist

Tap. Tap tap. Is this thing on?

Oh. Hi. Hey. Thanks for coming. Say. If you’re like me. Have you ever wondered…

What’s easier artistic material? Tragedy or comedy?

As a writer, I’ve always found comic themes more difficult to pull off than tragic ones. Maybe that’s because most of us are more likely to agree on what constitutes a tragedy. But evoking laughter in a reader — well, good luck.

And I wonder if amusing a viewer with a visual image isn’t twice as difficult. After all, the perceiver of the image generally has only visual cues for clues. Often, there’s no narrative set-up. No underlying context. No cathartic punch line.

Garth Thornton, one-half of the creative team behind Xenodream, walks the fence very effectively in the image above. The caption provides the context for appreciating the joke — that is, there is a deliberate, conscious attempt to steer viewers to see Thornton’s humorous point-of-view.

And, really, there’s nothing wrong with guiding viewers to intended interpretations. There have been discussions back in Orbit Trap’s salad days over whether images have inherent political content — or if such a subtext is created only by the act of titling. Some fractal artists insist on not titling images, or are prone to using only numerical titles. Such practices, they argue, do not pressure viewers into making assumptions about thematic content and allow the broadest latitude to form individual interpretations.

My response would be that viewers are always free to forage in images and come up with their own idiosyncratic, thematic angles. Titles and captions don’t contaminate interpretation; they merely suggest one possibility that occurred to the artist. And why shouldn’t artists provide viewers with possible road maps, especially if artists hope to imply political, social, technological, horrific, and, yes, even comic overtones.

But humor, because it is so inherently subjective, is extremely hit or miss. And all the more so if visual clues come off as vague or garbled when “read.”

I’m certainly not the first artist to dwell on this subject. From “‘Snot Funny: Humor and Art” by Kate Alexander:

It is difficult to think of humor and intellect as going hand-in-hand: just like the divisions of mind and body, humor is considered base, and mutually exclusive to higher cognition. After all, humor is very corporeal: laughter is the physical response to something funny. If you have any doubts of this, just consider these questions: did Jesus laugh? Can you imagine Muhammad telling a joke? Or Buddha, mid-meditation, passing gas and giggling?

This very issue has repercussions in art as well. The function of art has, for several centuries now, been expected to fulfill some philosophical purpose. Art is supposed to make us think. This especially overwhelmed art in the wake of the Conceptual Art movement, as artistic skill was thrown out the window, and the “idea” reigned supreme. It is thus that we separate the high arts from the low arts: art that is “funny” is not respectable.

[…]

But, some might say, if the separation of high art and low art did not exist, art would be indistinguishable from mere “entertainment:” a Peanuts comic strip would be as aesthetically valuable as a Bruce Nauman; Will Ferrell would be more of a mover-and-shaker than Sol LeWitt; Andy Samberg’s crude SNL digital shorts would be as artistically legitimate as a Jean-Luc Godard film. I myself try to fight the elitist reputation of art historians, but all I have to say is: yikes.

The profiling couldn’t be any clearer. Tragedy is high art. Comedy is lowbrow. The plank to the back of the head in Laurel and Hardy. The poke in the eyes by Moe Howard. The snickering you try to stifle when a friend clumsily misses the last stair step. These are the pulled fingers of low culture. The true intelligentsia prefers a more royal approach: We are not amused.

Yes, it’s far easier to show angst and anger in one’s art — or just title an image with some ominous, obtuse phrase to ensure maximum heaviness. Like Nascar Bazaar. Or throw out reason entirely and just make shit up on the spot like Janet Parke. How about: Tressione. Or: Asundriana. Well, are you laughing — or bowled over by the ponderous connotations — or just beginning to feel the first flushes of weepiness?

It’s far easier to imply something serious than it is to venture into comedy’s minefield. After all, exactly what kind of a reaction do you intend? Which of the following do you hope your freshly minted comic image brings forth: mild amusement, a touch of mirth, extreme rib-tickling, presidential smirking, ironic elbowing of shared insights, sarcasm leading to furious fist-pumping, slapsticky pratfall guffawing, parody or insult or blunder or pranking? Look at all the wrong exits your poor viewer can take. Maybe that’s why titles or captions can sometimes serve as a kind of pre-set, interpretive GPS system.

Still, it’s so easy to get lost in the comedy forest:

Pretty funny, huh? Or, is it? It depends, I suppose, whether you feel the lion is:
1) sleepy, and has a groggy, foggy look that suggests a bit of whimsy, or
2) startled, and thus p’unked upon awakening to find you inexplicably hanging about the lair, or
3) hungry, making you potential and available cat food and the whole situation definitely not funny.

Or, how about this — an image that shares some stylistic attributes with the previous one, yet does not necessarily lead to the same responses:

Is this funny? I guess it’s your own call. Poelker’s image always makes me smile, but I’d be hard pressed to explain in depth why I think it’s funny. Something about its mix of implied chaos, a frenzy found in that captured moment, and the abstract, contorted body desperately trying to squeeze into clothing. Maybe you find all of this too familiar and therefore depressing. I don’t know. Can’t you see I’ve wandered into dangerous waters here? I mean: if you have to explain the joke, then…

Finally, mixing math and humor tacks on another grievous level that can result in blank looks rather than laughter. After all, “fractal humor” is probably a sub-genre of the broader “scientist humor” field. Often, such jokes rely on a rudimentary understanding of some genre-specific jargon and arcane knowledge. Here’s a case in point. First, study the image, which appeared in the “Fractal Humor” section of the FractalForum message board:

Malformed Child by Dave Makin.

Posted to Fractalforums.com.

Now, follow along carefully as Makin lays out the joke for you:

This is z^2+c where z and c are a 3D system i.e. not fully 4D.

It looks like the malformed offspring of a quaternionic Mandy and a hypercomplex Mandy [smiley].

Well, kids, isn’t that funny? Isn’t it? Or, as they say, did you have to be there?

Tags: fractal, fractals, fractal art, fractal blog, fractal humor, infinite jest, with apologies to david foster wallace, garth thornton, maria k lemming, elenyte paulauskas-poelker, dave makin, comedy vs tragedy, laugh like a programmer, cruelanimal, orbit trap