Art Gallery
Faye Williams
http://prime-fe2.lvcablemodem.com/arkangel/
Thanks,
Faye
Brian Baker
this the wrong way but Fractals are not art, they are
merely visual representations of mathematical equations
with your color selection added, they are no more artistic
than most graphs or charts.
If I were to post colorized algebra equation graphs would
that be considered art? no I think not.
The reasoning behind this is simply that they are generated
by a machine with little input from the user, whereas art
is generally a human interpretation of human experience or
emotion. Als anyone with the right app can make 'em by the
hard drive full.
What oyu have done is simply played with the variuables of
the equation until something "neat" was produced without a
specific intent for your creation.
this is not to say that such imagery cannot be incorporated
into some highly impactful artwork (as I have seenm some
outstanding work which incorporated them but with a
specific intent or meaning beghind them), but fractals
simply don't stand on their own as artwork.
Sorry!
-Brian
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Toonman
Brian but...
Everybody has an opinion on what defines art. Those that express that
definition in such finite terms as does Brian here in this group fall short
of realizing the true nature and spirit of art.
Faye writes at the opening of her fractal art gallery, "Are fractals art? I
truly believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I submit to you
that if Brian had read and taken to heart what Faye wrote perhaps he would
be a FRACTION of the artist that Faye is. Yes, "beauty is in the eye of the
beholder" is an old saying... and we're still saying it today because it is
UNDENIABLY the truth!
The minute we try to encapsulate art into a defining sentence or idea we
limit the boundries of artists. True artists are those individuals that see
no boundries Art shouldn't be defined, it should be felt.
Long ago as a college freshman my drawing class took a break for a moment so
an older art student could come in and complete an art assignment for his
graduate studies. The whole class was pretty taken aback when the graduate
student came in wearing some strange mummy/robot outfit and carrying a bunch
of objects like a bike wheel, spring, and a ball, etc. The graduate student
never said a word. He stacked up some of his objects... looked at them,
then rearranged them, looked at all of us in the class then rearranged the
objects again. Then he took his ball and started rolling it to members of
my class. My class members rolled it back. Then the graduate student
walked out of the room and was done. The class was sort of shell shocked
and blank faced about the whole scene. Our teacher explained to us that the
graduate student was doing interactive art and that had the class not rolled
his ball back to him he would have reacted differently based on our
reaction. Members of my drawing class where pretty shell shocked and blank
faced about the whole thing. I thought to myself how could that graduate
student, my teacher, and a whole college art department call that art! My
greatest lesson in art was realizing they didn't tell me it wasn't!
Art is what art is to you!
There's my bucks worth.
Toonman
Brian Baker
that art is an expressioon of human experience or ideas.
Fractals are merely graphical representaitons of a
mathematical equation the user has absolutely no idea what
they are trying to achieve other than to find
something "neat" in it, it's more like show and tell rather
than art, I can "find" interesting things out in nature but
if I catch a rabbit scan in a detailed image of some of
it;s hair and present it as art, it simply isn't.
Go back and look at those fractals and tell me you
seriously beleive they have any shelf life in a museum.
Allen
--
==========================
Allen Harkleroad
==========================
Toonman <too...@toonman.com> wrote in message
news:52Mb3.261$LF2.8...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net...
DLFrost
Fractal art is indeed art, fitting into the category of what we
call "found art" (and what the French called "objet trouve"). Although,
since fractal artists usually select the colors, viewport and rendering
mode for fractal images, they are actually more involved in crafting the
final image. Many also engage in adjusting, blending, warping, and
other such creative alterations.
Now, as to this "specific intent" business... Back in the 1870's the
leaders of the new Impressionist movement (Manet, Renoir, Cezanne,
Degas, Monet, and others) found themselves unable to get their works
displayed in any of the academies or galleries (a necessary prerequisite
to success at the time). The art establishment reviled their works
because they said they lacked intellectual content or meaning--they were
"mere impressions." This, of course, is exactly what the painters
intended: the beauty of a thing for its own sake, without the imposition
of "socially useful" messages or moralizing. The painters took from the
"mere impressions" scourge their movement's name, and they financed a
series of eight exhibitions starting in 1874. It was only _after_ the
public at large fell in love with the Impressionist's work that the
establishment accepted it as art.
What the art snobs of the 1870's were to Impressionism, you are to
fractal art. Give it some thought.
Doug Frost
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Toonman
Well, you missed my point and the concept behind it entirely, so it's
probably pointless to discuss this topic further. Happy art critiquing!
Toonman
Brian Baker <exe...@pscreations.com> wrote in message
news:9300623...@www.remarq.com...
gruhn
Allen wrote in message <93007696...@news.remarQ.com>...
>B R A V O ! Very well said.
>
>--
>
>
>==========================
>Allen Harkleroad
>==========================
>Toonman <too...@toonman.com> wrote in message
>news:52Mb3.261$LF2.8...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net...
>Hmm... of course theres no way you're NOT going to take this the wrong way
>Brian but...
[ entire quoted post snipped ]
>Toonman
gruhn
>limit the boundries of artists.
But then...
>True artists are those individuals that see no boundries
... you just put a boundary on Art. :-)
Toonman
True indeed....
Let's see...
Art should know no boundries.
Does that work? :-)
gruhn <gr...@hwb.com> wrote in message news:7kp7co$7rv$1...@news.neta.com...
gruhn
>
>Does that work? :-)
Dunno. I'll wrassle y' fer it!
Two out of three?
Brian Baker
generate thousands of 24 hours a day seven days a week
withpout any interference by me does not constitute art.
Art requires a specific intent. I.E. you intend to make an
impression of a vase or sunflower, or intend to make a
bubistic represantation of an object, or intend to
abstractly represent an emotion via color, motion etc.
With fractals you just play with the parameters and see
what happens, there can never be any specific intent
involved because you never know what the result is going to
be, all artforms that follow this pattern eventually fall
by the wayside.
Finally in response to some other comments, this is not a
personal attack on anyones art skills as these images are
not a result of skills or intent they are just a colored
graphical representation of a mathematical equation, so I
would appreciate not having my abilities attacked sight
unseen.
Actually the true art of these things is the mathematical
equation itself and not the graphical interpretation bu
thats an explanation for another newsgroup.
richard fox
Brian Baker wrote:
Well, you seem to be implying that if you don't have a goal or result you wish to
achieve, and if you are not afraid to play with chance and randomness, then you are
not creating "art". This debate was resolved 80 years ago by the DADA group and
others. I can nail my dirty underware to a wall and call it art, and it is. You may
not like it, but that is what it is. C'est la vie.
rfox
gruhn
IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION.
You COULD tell us what you think art is, but it would end up being circular
discussion. All we'd end up doing is saying that yes, in your eyes X is not
art. And we'd say what we think art is, and you'd say that the parts of what
we think art is that allow for stuff that you don't think is art shouldn't
be part of what art is, OR that art IS what we say it is, except for the
stuff that you don't like.
"What is art" is boring and old.
BCHockeyMa
>What the art snobs of the 1870's were to Impressionism, you are to
>fractal art. Give it some thought.
>
> Doug Frost
Well said!
bchockeymom.......life's short...play hockey.
BCHockeyMa
>Hmm... if course theres no way you;re NOT going to take
>this the wrong way but Fractals are not art,
I know I am knew here and you can take this any way you want. Who died and
apointed you the God of deciding what is and is not art??
bchockeymom.......life's short...play hockey.
Brian Baker
machine (you know one that smashes up boulders looking for
diamonds) if I grabbed every bit that looked interesting
that came out of the end and stuck it on the wall, it may
be interesting to look at but it;s not art! The computer
too is a machine and everything it spits out is not art.
here is one of the best Dictionary definitons of art I have
found from the Merriam Webster distionary:
-----ART:
the conscious use of skill and creative imagination
especially in the production of aesthetic objects.-----
THAT definition is all encompassing, what the computer does
in terms of fractals is not art.
NOW IF YOU GUYS REALLY THINK THAT FRACTALS ARE ART, LETS
SEE WHO AMONG YOU IS WILLING TO SHELL OUT BUCKS FOR SOME OF
IT? But you wouldn;t would you? because you could download
the program and go to town yourself making fractals by the
assload, you could set it to generate fractals go away for
a week and have a lifetimes worth fo work with no
interaction on your behalf other than botting up the
program. Now please explain to me how it;s possible in
terms other than a personal attack how it;s possible to
consider these art?
Gruhn
> the conscious use of skill and creative imagination
> especially in the production of aesthetic objects.-----
>
> THAT definition is all encompassing, what the computer does
> in terms of fractals is not art.
Oddly enough, you are right. Of course, it doesn't matter because you are
side tracking. You may as well have said "what the brush does laying paint
on canvas is not art".
Now, back to whay you really meant, that "fractals aren't art". Seems to me
that under the definition you provided, they are. I fully understand that
you are reading the definition so that it means otherwise, worry not.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Ray McVay
>
> Let me put this VERY simply. If I had a rock crushing
> machine (you know one that smashes up boulders looking for
> diamonds) if I grabbed every bit that looked interesting
> that came out of the end and stuck it on the wall, it may
> be interesting to look at but it;s not art! The computer
> too is a machine and everything it spits out is not art.
Ah, but you have at least left the door open to the fact that the
"conscious use of skill and creative imagination" come to bear in the
selection (every bit that looked interesting) and display (stuck it on
the wall).
> found from the Merriam Webster distionary:
> the conscious use of skill and creative imagination(A)
> program. Now please explain to me how it;s possible in
> terms other than a personal attack how it;s possible to
> consider these art?
There is a piece of the whole process which is not art; the calculation
of the fractal array values. (A) is used in the selection of the
parameters that drive the calculation. Once the array of values is
generated then (A) once again comes into play for determining what
purpose these values should have. Are they to be mapped to colors?
If so then (A) does the mapping. Do they become an alpha channel?
Are they used as 3d displacements? Are they used for some other type
of displacement like glass distortion, motion blur, hsv variation,
etcetera? Time and time again (A) is applied.
Are fractals art? No but you're not talking about fractal instances,
you're talking about the application of fractals in art and, as Peter
said, they are as important as a brush. Can they be used mechanically
and unimaginatively? Sure, and that is quite common but that's no
reason a gallery of images produced using fractal calculations cannot
be considered "artistic".
--
Ray
Toonman
says that art is the "activity of creating things that arouse the emotions
through one or more senses." Whew Whew, my dictionary is the best! I'm the
champ! Whew!
Toonman, the official evaluator of what constitutes a good and bad
dictionary definition
DLFrost
Brian Baker <exe...@pscreations.com> wrote:
> Let me put this VERY simply. If I had a rock crushing
> machine (you know one that smashes up boulders looking for
> diamonds) if I grabbed every bit that looked interesting
> that came out of the end and stuck it on the wall, it may
> be interesting to look at but it;s not art! The computer
> too is a machine and everything it spits out is not art.
When you grabbed those interesting bits you were applying "the conscious
use of skill and creative imagination [...] in the production of
aesthetic objects" as defined below. So it's art, even by your
preferred definition. When someone works with and selects images using
a fractal tool, they're creating art as well.
> here is one of the best Dictionary definitons of art I have
> found from the Merriam Webster distionary:
>
> -----ART:
> the conscious use of skill and creative imagination
> especially in the production of aesthetic objects.-----
>
> THAT definition is all encompassing, what the computer does
> in terms of fractals is not art.
>
> NOW IF YOU GUYS REALLY THINK THAT FRACTALS ARE ART, LETS
> SEE WHO AMONG YOU IS WILLING TO SHELL OUT BUCKS FOR SOME OF
> IT? But you wouldn;t would you? because you could download
> the program and go to town yourself making fractals by the
> assload, you could set it to generate fractals go away for
> a week and have a lifetimes worth fo work with no
> interaction on your behalf other than botting up the
> program. Now please explain to me how it;s possible in
> terms other than a personal attack how it;s possible to
> consider these art?
Fractal art has been selling in poster form and in art books for some
years now. So I guess a lot of people have been shelling out the dough,
otherwise no one would go to the trouble of printing that stuff.
We can consider procedurally generated images to be art because there is
an aesthetic selection process at work by the artist in its
presentation. In most cases there is further editing applied such as
color selection and adjustment, the application of effects, and
compositing. All of these things require concious attention, judgement
and execution, and qualifies as art per Webster.
Brian, you're not going to win this one--these issues were debated and
decided many years ago. Instead of staging a jihad against art you
don't like, you'd be better off promoting the kind of art you think is
noble and worthy.
richard fox
DLFrost wrote:
I agree with Doug. I mean, this is just a non issue, at the end of the
century. Crushed rocks on a wall are considered art, and have been
displayed too many times by artists who think they are clever with their
stones.
Keep an Open mind
rfox
Charlene Russ
original in designing fractals, some fractal art is much better than
others. What about Picasso? He used his brain to abstract images and his
work is considered art. Fractal generation is reverse abstraction, and
there is a creative process here. It seems likely to me that an artist
could very easily use his/her skill to create very unique designs and
incorporate these designs into multimedia presentations and so forth.
Fractal generation is not random if the artist knows what he or she is
doing. Simply a different media the designer chooses to use, and not an
easy one. If the fractal generator is used by the artist to accomplish an
intended effect i think it most certainly could be classified as art. The
creation of art is dependent upon methods employed by the artist and the
creative process, not the medium he/she uses to create it. I agree that
the physical creation of art is a conscious act, but the inspiration for its
creation is often unconscious.
-newbie
Brian Baker <exe...@pscreations.com> wrote in message
news:932094...@www.remarq.com...
> Let me put this VERY simply. If I had a rock crushing
> machine (you know one that smashes up boulders looking for
> diamonds) if I grabbed every bit that looked interesting
> that came out of the end and stuck it on the wall, it may
> be interesting to look at but it;s not art! The computer
> too is a machine and everything it spits out is not art.
>
> here is one of the best Dictionary definitons of art I have
> found from the Merriam Webster distionary:
>
> -----ART:
> the conscious use of skill and creative imagination
> especially in the production of aesthetic objects.-----
>
> THAT definition is all encompassing, what the computer does
> in terms of fractals is not art.
>
> NOW IF YOU GUYS REALLY THINK THAT FRACTALS ARE ART, LETS
> SEE WHO AMONG YOU IS WILLING TO SHELL OUT BUCKS FOR SOME OF
> IT? But you wouldn;t would you? because you could download
> the program and go to town yourself making fractals by the
> assload, you could set it to generate fractals go away for
> a week and have a lifetimes worth fo work with no
> interaction on your behalf other than botting up the
> program. Now please explain to me how it;s possible in
> terms other than a personal attack how it;s possible to
> consider these art?
>
>
>
Toonman
Fractal Schmactal let's call the whole thing off.