As I often find in your blog, this is an interesting read, but I would venture to say the exact reverse, that the 'eye candy' is actually the only thing that is intrinsic to the content, and therefore the thing that truly matters. Thoughts and feelings differ according to who's viewing the work, and what it reminds them of. Granted, that can be a great source of wonder and enjoyment. However, these feelings aren't intrinsic to the painting – the painting only *indirectly* fires off those feelings.

So in truth, it's the patterns, subtlety of shades, use of colour, and indeed as you put it, the 'eye candy' that will stand the test of time, and for what the work should truly be rated for. Fractals have little of this 'meaning' thing, but they have the far deeper, more timeless/universal quality which doesn't have to rely on potentially fickle relations to someone's past experience.

You surely still like some fractals too no?

For those who enjoy shock art, if it doesn't make you heave it's time to leave!

It seems to me that anything can be the genesis of thoughts and feelings. Likewise, there is probably nothing that hasn't left someone cold, without thought or feeling. Given that, how does one distinguish between eye candy and art? Or is the distinction purely a matter of context, what the viewer brings to that particular piece, time, and place?