Fractals--yes, they are art
Charles Eicher
>
>Following on the heels of the recent discussion about whether or not
>fractals are art, the 1999 Fractal Art Competition is now open for viewing
>and judging. View over 400 entries, vote for your favorites
I noticed your voting for best artistic image omits one option: None Of The
Above.
Kerry Mitchell
fractals are art, the 1999 Fractal Art Competition is now open for viewing
comments for the artists. See the full site at:
http://www.fractalus.com/contest99/
Kerry
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
lkm...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew mc sweeney
ever be consider anything more than what they are,there is such a thing as
art,a piece can be distinguished as being art,fractals are not,says me
Erik A. Mattila
Have you ever used the "Fractal Noise" filter in Photoshop? I found it
somewhere on the internet as freeware. It's very cool. I don't know if it
qualifies as 'fractal art' but I've had a lot of fun with it. The simulated
jades on my homepage, http://www.impix.com , are done with this filter.
Basically a bunch of layers built up with intervening layers of color, all
adjusted to transparency of varying degrees. The filter itself will generate
a fractal pattern in greyscale, which you can colorize as you wish. There are
four options, and I have no idea about the math behind each.
This example was 'modeled' simply using the inside embossing effect. I've
also used Fractal Noise to generate image maps for Strata, and then the fun
begins, since you can play around with object transparency and luminosity, and
really get some tromp l' oeil extravaganzas.
But is it art? I don't know. But is it fractals? I don't know. I do know
that I have simulated stone textures for several years, and this filter really
excels.
Erik
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <7rs4ih$40o$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, lkm...@primenet.com says...
> >
> >Following on the heels of the recent discussion about whether or not
> >fractals are art, the 1999 Fractal Art Competition is now open for viewing
Lauri.L.
Depends. If you regard other found objects,
like bottle racks as art, fractals will do as well.
Even better, though most fractal forms are
mathematical, the coloring is arbitrary.
If the color scheme is selected in advance, you may say
the colors are found objects, too.
If it is colored afterwards, you just make
a 'painting' based on some geomtrical form,
again not unlike coloring Mondrian squares.
Canaletto used camera obscura for
his Great Cities to draw a complicated geometric form
and colored it. Is it more art than coloring a fractal pattern?
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Charles Eicher
>
>fractals are not art and cannot even with the biggest stretch of imagination
>ever be consider anything more than what they are,there is such a thing as
>art,a piece can be distinguished as being art,fractals are not,says me
How many times have we had this argument in r.a.f? Jeez, fractals are just
equations. It is as equally valid to call a graphic image of a fractal "Art" as
it is to call equations in a calculus book "Art." Yes, I can appreciate the
mathematical notation on some aesthetic level, but it isn't art. If you want to
make art out of equations, you go do like Marcel Duchamp, and hang a math
textbook from a string, outdoors, leave it there for months, and entitle it "The
Cruel Equations."
So, in an attempt to make yet another fresh attack at this issue, I'll make a
comparison.
As I see it, the strongest attraction of fractal images are that they exhibit a
sense of order, its obviously an image built on some sort of rule. But the rules
are incomprehensible and chaotic, mimicking natural processes. I get a much
stronger sense of this from looking at something like the patterns of Asian art.
For example, go take a look at this page:
http://www.norton.org/collect/chinese/chinese.htm
and select the image called "Girdle Ornament."
Note that this object uses typically Chinese forms. I don't understand them one
bit. But I have been told that this sort of imagery comes from nature, its sort
of an abstraction of animal spirits or some wacky thing. This image has a
feather in the middle, obviously its being blown by some sort of wind. The
nuances of the shape is all highly loaded with meaning IF you happen to be a
Chinese person living in the Chou Dynasty.
If you look at other asian artwork, these sorts of patterned flowing forms are
often used on surfaces, inscribed in incredible detail. Let's look at some more
examples, these are a little more abstract:
http://www.chineseantiques.com/antiques/han018.jpg
http://www.chineseantiques.com/antiques/spring005.jpg
http://www.chineseantiques.com/antiques/shang006.jpg
Some of the patterns on ancient Chinese bronzes are amazingly intricate, but I
couldn't find any good examples online.
Anyway, I think you see where I'm going. These images can have the same sort of
fascination as fractals. They're constructed according to a system of pattern
construction that died out over 2000 years ago. They are incomprehensible, yet
fascinating to the eye, because our brain seeks to impose structure and order on
the incomprehensible visual image.
Marge Inal
>But is it art? I don't know. But is it fractals? I don't know. I do know
>that I have simulated stone textures for several years, and this filter really
>excels.
Okay. I think calling fractals NON-art is a bit elitist.
IF -- and I emphasize *IF* -- we define art as "something
that is visually stimulating" then what difference does
it make whether we arrive at the art by using fractal
generators or an elephant slinging paint with its trunk?
mdeli
wrote:
>How many times have we had this argument in r.a.f? Jeez, fractals are just
>equations. It is as equally valid to call a graphic image of a fractal "Art" as
>it is to call equations in a calculus book "Art."
We are talking about the visual images that these equations make and
the fact that they interest the viewer. Some also point out that as
visual images fractals make the majority of Modern Academic
abstraction look sick by comparison.
>Yes, I can appreciate the
>mathematical notation on some aesthetic level, but it isn't art.
Whether its art is irrelevant.
>If you want to
>make art out of equations, you go do like Marcel Duchamp, and hang a math
>textbook from a string, outdoors, leave it there for months, and entitle it "The
>Cruel Equations."
Eicher seems to imagine that there is no difference between the
equation and its visual result.
>As I see it, the strongest attraction of fractal images are that they exhibit a
>sense of order,
Fractals are attractive for many reasons. But one needs no reasons to
be intrigued.
> its obviously an image built on some sort of rule.
So is most artwork. So what.
>But the rules
>are incomprehensible and chaotic, mimicking natural processes. I get a much
>stronger sense of this from looking at something like the patterns of Asian art.
>If you look at other asian artwork, these sorts of patterned flowing forms are
>often used on surfaces, inscribed in incredible detail. Let's look at some more
>examples, these are a little more abstract:
Indeed skillfull abstraction is far more interesting than the crap in
the Modern Sections of museums. But most artzy fartzies are unaware of
this.
>
>Anyway, I think you see where I'm going. These images can have the same sort of
>fascination as fractals. They're constructed according to a system of pattern
>construction that died out over 2000 years ago. They are incomprehensible, yet
>fascinating to the eye, because our brain seeks to impose structure and order on
>the incomprehensible visual image.
>
Just like fractals "fascinating to the eye." In fact that's really all
that counts for any artwork.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Lauri.L.
for clear and simple comments
Lauri.L.
for the clear and simple contribution
andrew mc sweeney
to art than candy,charles i think it was started touching off patterns,and
patterns derived from nature,i started thinking about art neuvou and
stuff,it`d make you think of the worth of mondrian who abstracted tress to
arrive at his famous composition series,ye probably know this but trees are
fractals,i dunno,i just dont think fractals are art no matter what slant you
try and take on things,what human intervention is there?,how can something
without human intervention be considered art,said me
Chris
andrew mc sweeney wrote:
>
> fractals are no more than randomly generated eye candy, [....]
Fractals are anything but random; one of their great points of
attraction are the way they illustrate how we perceive (perhaps
defensively) highly complex structures as noise.
Certainly though the use of fractals can degenerate into eye-candy, the
same way that logic degenerates into brain-candy by way of
post-modernism, or the chronic attraction of middle-class students to
designer versions of street lingo.
Cheers;
Chris
br...@wralaw.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On 17 Sep 1999 01:45:04 -0700, Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net>
> wrote:
> >Yes, I can appreciate the
> >mathematical notation on some aesthetic level, but it isn't art.
> >If you want to
> >make art out of equations, you go do like Marcel Duchamp, and hang a
math
> >textbook from a string, outdoors, leave it there for months, and
entitle it "The
> >Cruel Equations."
>
> Eicher seems to imagine that there is no difference between the
> equation and its visual result.
It may be relevant to point out that the creation of oriental
rugs, tiles, etc. is mathematical. Even if equations aren't
used ultimately the way that a simple set of colored (warp?)
threads is rotated to create patterns even simple animals is
mathematical -ergo a simulation with fractals can be used.
We are also lead to believe that Mondrian and other minimalist
platonic abstractionists followed a mathematically meticulous
process.
> >As I see it, the strongest attraction of fractal images are that
they exhibit a
> >sense of order,
> Fractals are attractive for many reasons. But one needs no reasons to
> be intrigued.
The up side is that they appeal to our pattern recognition sense
and some tend to have a high degree of detail, the down side
is that this detail tends to be the same detail and thus really
isn't worth looking at to long. I would consider fractals
useful as an element of future artwork or perhaps if the
representations are more consciencely selected they could stand
alone much the way that oriental rugs or moorish tiles or
gothic architecture does.
Bryn Ayers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Amanda Amante
based on it, everything has it's mathematical side. Even if it has no
answer!
My best to you as always,
Amanda
<br...@wralaw.com> wrote in message news:7t5ulj$9o3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
mdeli
>In article <37e268f0...@news.psi.ca>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 1999 01:45:04 -0700, Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net>
>> >If you want to
>> >make art out of equations, you go do like Marcel Duchamp, and hang a
>>>math textbook from a string, outdoors, leave it there for months, and
>>>entitle it "The Cruel Equations."
>>
>> Eicher seems to imagine that there is no difference between the
>> equation and its visual result.
>
>It may be relevant to point out that the creation of oriental
>rugs, tiles, etc. is mathematical. Even if equations aren't
>used ultimately the way that a simple set of colored (warp?)
>threads is rotated to create patterns even simple animals is
>mathematical -ergo a simulation with fractals can be used.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>
>We are also lead to believe that Mondrian and other minimalist
>platonic abstractionists followed a mathematically meticulous
>process.
>
I doubt that Mondrian used math for much of anything, His technique is
recorded.
>> >As I see it, the strongest attraction of fractal images are that
>they exhibit a
>> >sense of order,
>
>> Fractals are attractive for many reasons. But one needs no reasons to
>> be intrigued.
>
>The up side is that they appeal to our pattern recognition sense
>and some tend to have a high degree of detail, the down side
>is that this detail tends to be the same detail and thus really
>isn't worth looking at to long.
I find the best fractals I've see are extremely attractive. Much of
the newer stuff shows a minimum or repetition. The colors beat
anything in the modern museum. As to down side of detail sameness
check out Pollock, Mondrian stripes and Twombly chicken scratches etc.
Not only boring but plain stupid.
> I would consider fractals
>useful as an element of future artwork or perhaps if the
>representations are more consciencely selected they could stand
>alone much the way that oriental rugs or moorish tiles or
>gothic architecture does.
Fractals provide attractive images the likes of which could not be
seen before the advent of the computer.
Check out Fractint and fractals on the web. Fractals offer lessons in
composition and color (especially since formulas which allow double
blends were introduced.) In computer images of fractals one can see
how blends change and the different means of expressing harmonic
change.
Charles Eicher
>
>In article <37f81af7...@news.psi.ca>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 21:49:41 GMT, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>> >It may be relevant to point out that the creation of oriental
>> >rugs, tiles, etc. is mathematical.
>> >-ergo a simulation with fractals can be used.
>
>> I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>
>principal fractals, Or if they don't fit the definition
>of fractals -which I think some do- the use of a math
>as a basis for design art isn't new, the computer is
>new,...
No, they are not fractals, but are constructed according to simple mathematical
rules. Thus the importance of the Jacquard Loom in the history of computing.
Most CompSci people consider the Jacquard Loom as a primitive computing device.
The Jacquard Loom is merely a machine that does the job of handweaving with
mechanical precision and speed. Someone COULD weave a pattern in an oriental rug
that represents a fractal, but I've never seen it. Just because its mathematical
formula expressed in a 2-d visual plane, does not make it a fractal.
I think you're weak on the fundamental math of this whole fractal thing. And you
state the obvious, to say that the use of math as the basis for design art isn't
new. For example, read this fascinating article:
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0598issue/0598rothman.html
Which shows some ancient Japanese mathematical diagrams. Constructing these
geometrical works were considered an art, as well as a religious practice in
that era. But they're still just math problems, not art.
br...@wralaw.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 21:49:41 GMT, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> >It may be relevant to point out that the creation of oriental
> >rugs, tiles, etc. is mathematical.
.....
> >-ergo a simulation with fractals can be used.
> I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
I am saying that many pre-computer design works are in
principal fractals, Or if they don't fit the definition
of fractals -which I think some do- the use of a math
as a basis for design art isn't new, the computer is
new,...
>
Bryn,
br...@wralaw.com
Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net> wrote:
> In article <7tbq1c$469$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, br...@wralaw.com says...
> >principal fractals, Or if they don't fit the definition
> >of fractals -which I think some do- the use of a math
> >as a basis for design art isn't new, the computer is
> >new,...
> I think you're weak on the fundamental math of this whole fractal
> thing.
I don't know the precise definition. I saw a single triangle
with three triangles inside it defined as a fractal in order
to demonstrate how simple and complex a fractal can be(in some
book I think called computers and the imagination there were
of sourse some extremely complex representations of the Mandlbrot
set too). I am assuming that some designs somewhere must accidently
be a simple fractal, but I don't know what the precise definition
of one is. There are some oriental rugs that are completely
abstract and have very fractal like designs, they don't have to
be fractals in order to look like one.
> And you state the obvious, to say that the use of math as the
> basis for design art isn't
> new.
Obviously,
> For example, read this fascinating article:
> http://www.sciam.com/1998/0598issue/0598rothman.html
> Which shows some ancient Japanese mathematical diagrams.
> Constructing these
> geometrical works were considered an art, as well as a religious
> practice in
> that era. But they're still just math problems, not art.
I guess there just must be a fuzzy boundary between art and geometry.
I'm sure we can invent post-hoc definitions that include or exclude
each.
Since I am not a graphic artist I won't take up the Gontlette for
them, but I won't exclude math as art with out conditionally
other unitentional manifestations of aesthetics.
Bryn Ayers
Charles Eicher
>
>> I think you're weak on the fundamental math of this whole fractal
>> thing.
>
>I don't know the precise definition. I saw a single triangle
>with three triangles inside it defined as a fractal in order
>to demonstrate how simple and complex a fractal can be(in some
>book I think called computers and the imagination there were
>of sourse some extremely complex representations of the Mandlbrot
>set too). I am assuming that some designs somewhere must accidently
>be a simple fractal, but I don't know what the precise definition
>of one is.
Ah, I see. You know nothing whatsoever about fractals. Go read some web-pages
about fractals, and look for the words "self-similarity."
>There are some oriental rugs that are completely
>abstract and have very fractal like designs, they don't have to
>be fractals in order to look like one.
ROTFL! That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard lately.
>I guess there just must be a fuzzy boundary between art and geometry.
>I'm sure we can invent post-hoc definitions that include or exclude
>each.
Nope, these were considered art in the same way that swordsmanship was
considered an art. But it is not Art.
>Since I am not a graphic artist I won't take up the Gontlette for
>them, but I won't exclude math as art with out conditionally
>other unitentional manifestations of aesthetics.
However, as a graphic designer (in times past) I will take up the *gauntlet* and
assert that math is not Art. Math is math. It has applications in Art, as it is
a universal foundation for almost everything. But you might just as well say
that Chemistry is Art, because all art objects are made from chemical elements
that obeys chemical laws. And you'd be wrong about that too.
Charles Eicher
Nikolaus Maack
>>There are some oriental rugs that are completely
>>abstract and have very fractal like designs, they don't have to
>>be fractals in order to look like one.
Which caused another being to say:
>ROTFL! That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard lately.
What I love about this newsgroup is the sense of humour people
possess. No matter what the opinion expressed, someone else will take
the time to point at it, say it's utterly ridiculous, and laugh. Oh,
we are indeed a jovial bunch.
Nik
PS.
I'm gonna go knit me a fractal.
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Outsider art for outsiders.