Dear Diary,<\/p>\n
I’ve been thinking recently about the creative explosion of Mandelbulbs and Mandelboxes. Sometimes, I think they represent the latest new wave in fractal art. Other times, I wonder if they are just the latest it iteration. After a few thousand bulbs and boxes replete the gallery coffers of Fractalbook<\/a>, will these once novel forms be yesterday’s quats and flames?<\/p>\n I do enjoy looking at them though.<\/p>\n Your Penpal<\/p>\n ~\/~<\/p>\n Dear Diary,<\/p>\n I’m not surprised that folks gave up trying to talk sense to Chris Oldfield (milleniumsentry<\/a>) about his production<\/a> of (I guess) pure fractals in their "native environment" of Ultra Fractal. Oldfield, like those unknown sources<\/a> in the Bush Administration, prefers to "create his own reality." If Oldfield thinks something, that thought is immediately reified as truth. If Oldfield believes that permission must be obtained to use one of his images, then it must be definitively so. No amount of time spent pointing out that Fair Use exceptions in copyright law allow such reproduction for the purposes of reviews or satire will change his closed mind. He’d rather have you believe that Tim and I are rude for displaying images while writing a blog of fractal art criticism.<\/p>\n Likewise, Oldfield has drunk the UF kool-aid from a Big Gulp<\/a> cup. UF’s greatest achievement, I think, was winning the propaganda war — that is, building graphic processing features into their software while simultaneously convincing UF users they are not really doing any graphics processing at all. See, it’s that unique "native environment" that allows UF users to layer fractals like Pringles and import static media like a photograph but still churn out a bona fide<\/em> "fractal" — even if, technically, the result is now a collage — an algorithmic mash-up. <\/p>\n And I still occasionally see this proud disclaimer on Fractalbook: "Made with UF. 100(+) layers. No post-processing."<\/p>\n Let’s see if I understand the dynamic here. Because Oldfield used the Photoshop-Lite features built into UF, his "fractal" is pure as the driven pixel? But, if I use Photoshop, whose filters also run using algorithms, I’m creating a kind of bastardized, non-fractal, digital-like art?<\/p>\n Not even UF enthusiast Damien M. Jones believes<\/a> that hype. <\/p>\n Personally, I agree with Terry W. Gintz’s observation<\/a>:<\/p>\n It is pointless to continue to argue that rendering layers of fractals is some kind of advanced or superior approach to fractal generation, or that one program is all you need to create great fractals. It is a great selling point for the benefit of fractal novices, and to eliminate the excess fractal programmer population, but it does nothing to advance the science of fractal imaging.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n By the way, I wrote this part of my blog post directly in Dreamweaver. 389 words. No post-processing.<\/p>\n Your Penpal<\/p>\n ~\/~<\/p>\n Dear Diary,<\/p>\n I’m a little dismayed that at least one of the Bulbers-Boxers reverted to some very old wave thinking in an OT comment<\/a>. Ker2x, responding to an image by Oldfield, notes:<\/p>\n Btw… it still look nice, but i have no interest in this kind of artwork. To paraphrase: My fractal is purer than yours — even if you’ve just spent considerable time arguing how pure yours is. Mine is 100% algorithmic-mathematical-fractal. Yours is a "derivative." Mine is right and true and good. Yours is "this kind of artwork."<\/p>\n I have little patience for such braggadocio elitism. It sticks in my craw when the UF cultists pull this stunt. It’s just as unbecoming when it surfaces in the Boxer-Bulber crowd. <\/p>\n You made an aesthetic choice, dude, revolving around the extent of your use of graphics processing. That choice doesn’t make you somehow nobler than the rest of us who’ve consciously made a different choice than yours. <\/p>\n Your Penpal<\/p>\n ~\/~<\/p>\n Dear Diary,<\/p>\n What Oldfield probably doesn’t realize is that I’m actually on his side. If he wants to produce fractal stratum, whether purely or impurely, I say go for it. Supercollide your fractals to pulp, for all I care. My thinking has always been to do whatever’s necessary to get the art you want. My maxim: More talk about art. Less talk about purity.<\/em> <\/p>\n I’ve already outlined my thoughts about the aesthetic choices one can make while navigating the sliding scale between algorithmic art and graphically processed art in this exchange with Tim<\/a>. No need to rehash here.<\/p>\n I have no beef with fractalists who want to mask and layer and process until the seahorses come home. My gripe is with those who insist their tools are somehow special and thus elevate them to a higher plane where the air is more rarefied than the processed smog we derivative losers are forced to breathe. <\/p>\n Your Penpal<\/p>\n ~\/~<\/p>\n Dear Diary, <\/p>\n I’ve been thinking about this post<\/a> (nearly two years ago now) by Tim where he worries that Ultra Fractal is increasingly becoming a program "for engineers only." Tim observes that<\/p>\n A lot of work has gone into Ultra Fractal, and from the looks of Ultra Fractal 5, a lot of work is continuing to go into it. But what I question is whether that work is making Ultra Fractal a better tool for the average user to make fractal art or is simply making a better tool for the developers and beta testers to play with and “oooh” and “aaah” over. Ultra Fractal 5 strikes me as the fractal programmer’s fractal program.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I wonder how many of UF’s users lost their bearings in the move from v4 to v5? How many of those users lack the programming mindset and instead make fractal art by an instinctive process using serendipity? Are they now cast overboard — left to drown unless they quickly enroll in a Visual Arts Academy<\/a> UF course in order to re-learn the basic operating procedures for their tools? <\/p>\n This sounds like a deliberate marketing strategy to me. Here’s betting that UF v6 will need the coursework for an advanced degree to decode its inner workings.<\/p>\n Or is there just no place for serendipity in fractal art anymore? If not, then let’s see no more work by artists, please. The work of the makers of brushes and paints and canvases will be satisfactory enough, thank you.<\/p>\n Your Penpal<\/p>\n ~\/~<\/p>\n Dear Diary,<\/p>\n I worry that Fractalbookers think I dislike them. I don’t. Mostly. But I really dislike the environmental trappings of Fractalbook.<\/p>\n Fractalbook is fine for social interaction — for getting artistic tips and advice — for having your ego massaged daily — for self-declaring yourself a master. But it’s lousy place to showcase your art.<\/p>\n Especially to outsiders. As a virtual museum, Fractalbook is far too muddled — mostly extolling social networking accouterments and oodles of self-promotion. Take deviantART (please!). How’s your art look against that puce background and officious busyness exploding from every available pixel? At least Renderosity has the good sense to use a black background. Now, if only those vampy sorceresses and seductive Indian princesses in their underwear weren’t enticing visitors from the borders of nearly every frame. <\/p>\n I see good art on these places all the time, but I’m reluctant to send OT’s readers into these cluttered lairs of virtual ass-kissing and unfettered commercialism. Is this really how you want people (and your virtual friends swooning over your every render don’t count) to see your work? You do have a web site or a blog, right? A safe and quiet haven where the public can reflect on your work without virtual saturation barrage fire, yes?<\/p>\n No? Then I suggest you’re more interested in hanging out with your laudatory friends than having art lovers hang out with your work.<\/p>\n Your Penpal<\/p>\n ~\/~ <\/p>\n Tags<\/strong>: fractal<\/a> fractals<\/a> fractal art<\/a> fractal blog<\/a> fractalbook<\/a> diaries<\/a> chris oldfield<\/a> ker2x<\/a> terry w gintz<\/a> purity is overestimated<\/a> cruelanimal<\/a> orbit trap<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dear Diary, I’ve been thinking recently about the creative explosion of Mandelbulbs and Mandelboxes. Sometimes, I think they represent the latest new wave in fractal art. Other times, I wonder if they are just the latest it iteration. After a few thousand bulbs and boxes replete the gallery coffers of Fractalbook, will these once novel … Continue reading \n
\n
\n i like the beauty we can (surprisingly) find in mathematic and chaos.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n