the BOMB project
corey.eiseman
the BOMB project is a dynamic, random work of web art
http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
Using JavaScript, the BOMB project will select a completely random
juxtaposition of images from a pool of original digital collage. It will
cycle indefinitely, selecting a unique juxtaposition each time. All of
the images were created using only photographs from the news media as
source material. I have been adding to the image pool since the project
began 8 or 9 months ago.
please visit http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
or read more about it at
http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/about.html
The BOMB project is NOT Š copyright by anyone, not even the artist and
creator.
It is considered public property.
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
Steve Ince
I liked this a lot and ties in with some stuff I've been playing
around with using Borland Delphi.
For me, though, I found the white background too much and a bit
distracting. I also thought that there wasn't enough of a random
element, though I think that may be a limitation of the fact you are
creating it on a Web site.
I will be adding it to my list of favourites and returning regularly.
Thanks,
Steve
IAN
Anyone can do this if they have Photohsop. Trust me. Anyone.
In the last 10 years we have more technical capacity
than the entire human history before that combined, yet
we are producing more degenerated art than ever bwfore.
Imagine if all that was directed towards making good art,
in the tradition of the masters that the people would like.
It is in some way with rendering softwares, but the
impulse to create has to be there. I'd like to see the
mind of Leonardo put in the computer. Or at least
people educated to draw.
IAN
In article <37a984fc...@nnrp.uk.insnet.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
corey.eiseman
> I liked this a lot and ties in with some stuff I've been playing
> around with using Borland Delphi.
Thanks for the comments, Steve. I'd be very interested in learning more
about your own project.
> For me, though, I found the white background too much and a bit
> distracting. I also thought that there wasn't enough of a random
> element, though I think that may be a limitation of the fact you are
> creating it on a Web site.
I can understand the white background problem, perhaps I should give the
user a choice between white, black and gray. As for the randomness, I'm
not sure if I understand the limitations you are referring to. I'm not
much of a programmer, and I'm kind of surprised I was able to get the
random selection to the point that I have. How would I make it more
random?
thanks again for the comments.
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
http://www.toegristle.com/
corey.eiseman
> Or at least people educated to draw.
Ian, I appreciate your comments. Certainly not everyone will be responsive
to the kind of random digital imagery that is in the BOMB project. That's
whats so great about personal taste, everyone has their own, right?
Still, it might interest you to know that I actually come from a very
strict drawing education by any standards, and I'm very glad I did. If you
are interested you can view some of my charcoal / wash drawings at
http://www.toegristle.com/corey/drawing.htm
Anyway, the BOMB project is just an experiment, one that I enjoy. I'm sorry
that you have such a low opinion of it, perhaps you could direct me to some
digital art that you consider worthy, for the sake of comparison.
Thanks again for the criticism, it is of course helpful in my own path of
personal improvement.
xform1
"corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> greetings netizens,
>
> the BOMB project is a dynamic, random work of web art
> http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
>
> juxtaposition of images from a pool of original digital collage. It
will
> cycle indefinitely, selecting a unique juxtaposition each time. All of
> the images were created using only photographs from the news media as
> source material. I have been adding to the image pool since the
project
> began 8 or 9 months ago.
>
> please visit http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
> or read more about it at
> http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/about.html
>
> The BOMB project is NOT Š copyright by anyone, not even the artist and
> creator.
> It is considered public property.
>
> viva la revolucion,
> corey.eiseman
>
>
I think your work is interesting, and it makes clearly
appropriate use of the digital medium. In particular, I
appreciate the way you treat the sources as to be
unrecognizable. One is confronted with the material
as is, without the distractions of the "object matter".
Also the random juxtaposition and the occasional
introduction of new images give the project an "open"
quality, one that seems to reject the finality of any
particular image. Were these conscious decisions in
planning the project, or do you take these ideas for
granted?
In a medium which is inherently *transformable* as well as
reproducible, the resultant loss of finality strikes a
second blow to Benjamin's "aura". Serious digital artists
all must recognize this in some way, though of course with
every artist there is a different approach.
These are aspects I take very seriously in my own work,
though my own experimentation has led me to much more
formal considerations (don't take that as a criticism,
just a way to summarize differing approaches). I have
essentially no background in drawing or painting so I am
wondering how this helps you.
Cheers,
--Harvey
--xform1 at geocities dot com--
Transformations Digital Gallery:
http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Exhibit/5782
~Artist~
>
> In article <37A326B6...@toegristle.com>,
> "corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> > greetings netizens,
> >
> > the BOMB project is a dynamic, random work of web art
> > http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
> >
> > Using JavaScript, the BOMB project will select a completely random
> > juxtaposition of images from a pool of original digital collage. It
> will
> > cycle indefinitely, selecting a unique juxtaposition each time. All of
> > the images were created using only photographs from the news media as
These photos are copyright. Duh.
Anyone recognizes any of their images. You sink they sue.
> > source material. I have been adding to the image pool since the
> project
> > began 8 or 9 months ago.
> >
> > please visit http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
> > or read more about it at
> > http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/about.html
> >
> > The BOMB project is NOT Š copyright by anyone, not even the artist and
> > creator.
> > It is considered public property.
Until they recognize their images.
> >
> > viva la revolucion,
> > corey.eiseman
Viva La Attornies and especially the ones who sue Yahoo!
Simon
I really enjoyed the site, but I agree that the white background detracts
from the *subtle* qualities of the images. Something a bit more neutral
would help.
The other thing I found with the site, is the size of the images. I really
wanted to look more closely at the images, but I found them a bit too small.
I could always save them to disk and look more closely, but I'll probably
get heavy pixellation.
What are the images created on? Is it Photoshop? It looks like it from the
motion blurs, difference clouds and invertions. If so, can I suggest you
use the alpha channels along with lighting effects to get more texture on
the surfaces because I think they have a *flat* quality to them. I
apologise in advance if they are intended to be. ;-)
I'm finding it difficult to appreciate the many layers and depths of the
images (and I can see that some of the images DO have many many layers).
But, you know, sometimes I think it is possible to go over-the-top with the
filters and flatten the image too much, so that however many layers there
are, you only really see the surface. This is a problem I have found when I
am creating, anyway. Would it be possible to create the ability to select
and view an enlarged image on the site?
I hope you don't mind my crits and suggestions. :-) I like the work
very much.
I am a big fan of randomness, and this seems to work well. Do the images
change at random intervals as well? I would like to know more about how you
come up with ideas for the images - i.e. is there a set of rules which you
work to? Or do you just 'tinker' until you think it looks right? Is there
any kind of randomness to the way you create them? Working on a computer
tends to prevent this to a certain extent, I feel, and I would like some
ideas on how I can overcome this.
I will return to the site again, thank you.
Simon.
p.s. Would it be possible to create a sister site, in which anyone can send
you work for inclusion - kind of like an international collage of digital
work?
xform1
"corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> Harvey, first of all i've got to tell you i first looked at your
website
> about a week ago and I am thoroughly impressed. Your work is
beautiful,
> and I am also impressed with the fact that you use GIMP and even code
some
> of your own filters. I wish I was at the point where I could do that.
Hey thanks! Basically, I just use what is available to me. There is
a temptation to get caught up in the process of coding (or collecting
software) and lose sight of the art. So my opinion in technique
is that it should be just what it needs to be to permit further
exploration, and of course everyone will relate to it differently.
Then again, you might happen on something totally unexpected and
get inspiration that way.
> <p>xform1 wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Also the random juxtaposition and the occasional
> introduction of new images give the project an "open" quality, one
that
> seems to reject the finality of any particular image. Were these
> conscious decisions in planning the project, or do you take these
ideas
> for granted?</blockquote>
> Well, yes, these were all very much conscious decisions. This project
above
> all else is meant to be dynamic, constantly changing, because I felt
these
> things were particularly reflective of what "web art" can and should
be.
> More precisely, I can see how any of the images would not work so well
> singularly on their own, but for me the more important part is the
random
> juxtaposition. I wanted to create an "engine" that continuously
experiments
> with random combinations and compositions.
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>In a medium which is inherently *transformable*
as
> well as reproducible, the resultant loss of finality strikes a second
blow
> to Benjamin's "aura".</blockquote>
> I agree with this statement very much but I'm not sure if I get the
reference
> to Benjamin's aura. Could you help me out?
Walter Benjamin's famous essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction". You can find several versions online,
a nicely formatted one is at:
http://pixels.filmtv.ucla.edu/community/julian_scaff/benjamin/benjamin.html
The "aura" is the intangible quality of an artifact due to physical
uniqueness, its existence as an "original". Benjamin's essay (written
in 1935) is an exploration of what happens when the aura is lost.
It is ever so relevant today, and so many
extensions arise concerning what we do.
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I have essentially no background in drawing or
painting
> so I am
> <br>wondering how this helps you.</blockquote>
> How does this help me? Well, from my standpoint, I'd say my drawing
background
> is the foundation of everything I do, whether it is evident to the
viewer
> or not. I don't think its important to know i have a drawing
background
> when looking at the BOMB project. The only reason i brought it up, in
fact,
> was in response to Ian's comments. I can understand if he personally
does
> not like the images themselves, but when he starts talking about how
he
> wishes myself and other digital artists had an education in drawing,
well,
> quite frankly he did not really know what my background was and was
making
> some pretty uninformed assumptions. I have a feeling he is just
prejudiced
> against any abstract art, and just assumes that anyone who experiments
> with it has no formal training. This is, of course, a ridiculous
assumption
> to make.
There are many trolls like Ian on rec.arts.fine, those who
are so vehement about what they refuse to understand. Some "Mani Deli"
who used to post here had the exact same opinions, what's more his
frequent postings were recycled from earlier posts, so you could assure
there was never a change of opinion.
I'm learning slowly that it's best to ignore them. I mean, there's a
lot I don't understand, and I am very particular about what goes
into my work, but I at least try to read a lot, and learn from the
many accomplished artists in this group.
> <p>To me, my drawing education affects even my abstract digital art in
> terms of general form and composition, but whether this is evident to
anyone
> but me is hard to say. And of course, there are many paths one can
take.
yeah -- This is part of what excites me so much about making art today!
> U say you have no drawing or painting background, but i for one would
say
> you have an excellent eye for composition. So obviously a drawing
education
> is not always necessary to achieve these things.
> <p>anyway, thanks for the comments, and keep up the good work.
> <br>(by the way, i noticed u joined the toe-gristle mailing list a
while
> ago, feel free to introduce yourself and "plug" your website, i know
there
> are people on the list that would love to see your work.)
I will soon, though I don't know if there's time for me to do
much more than that. I enjoyed your post about John Maeda, he is
someone I respect deeply even though there's no way to tell from
my work :) As you say, there are so many paths.
> <p>viva la revolucion,
> <br>corey.eiseman
> <br><A
HREF="http://www.toegristle.com/">http://www.toegristle.com/</A></html>
>
>
Cheers,
-- Harvey
toegr...@my-deja.com
constructive criticism.
Simon wrote:
> The other thing I found with the site, is the
> size of the images. I really wanted to look
> more closely at the images, but I found them a
> bit too small.
I feel the small size of each individual image is
necessary to allow for the variables in the page
layout. When i first started this project I was in
fact working a bit larger, with only 1 or 2 images
appearing on each layout. Over time I've added
layouts with up to 5 images at a time on a page,
and so I feel it leaves more room for any
combination if they all fit well on one page. Does
that make sense? I see what you mean tho...
> What are the images created on? Is it
> Photoshop?
Yep! That is what I use.
> Would it be possible to create the ability to
> select and view an enlarged image on the site?
Hmm... I suppose that would be possible. Thanks
for the idea, I will have to think about that.
> I hope you don't mind my crits and suggestions.
> I like the work very much.
Not at all, I appreciate the fact that it is very
constructive criticism. Not like the malicious
kind that seems so prevelant on usenet.
> Do the images change at random intervals as
> well? I would like to know more about how you
> come up with ideas for the images - i.e. is
> there a set of rules which you work to?
I add to the image pool as often as I am able, and
on some occasions I have edited existing ones or
decided to take some out. I don't really get any
ideas for the images. The only rule I have for
this particular project is that all the source
material comes from the news media, although in
the end it is heavily manipulated. Other than
that, I just sit down and tinker without any
preconceived notions.
> I will return to the site again, thank you.
No, thank you!
> p.s. Would it be possible to create a sister
> site, in which anyone can send you work for
> inclusion - kind of like an international
> collage of digital work?
You have taken this idea right out of my own mind!
I have thought about this before and have talked
to some friends about it who know about database
systems with upload capability. I'll definitely
keep you posted. Meanwhile, you might be
interested in seeing some other collaborative work
I've participated in at
http://www.toegristle.com/collab/
it's not quite the same thing but it is still fun
to collaborate. Currently we are working on one
with 14 participants from around the world,
although its not posted yet.
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
http://www.toegristle.com/
toegr...@my-deja.com
> Walter Benjamin's famous essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of
> Mechanical Reproduction". You can find several versions online,
> a nicely formatted one is at:
>
>
http://pixels.filmtv.ucla.edu/community/julian_scaff/benjamin/benjamin.h
tml
>
> The "aura" is the intangible quality of an artifact due to physical
> uniqueness, its existence as an "original". Benjamin's essay (written
> in 1935) is an exploration of what happens when the aura is lost.
> It is ever so relevant today, and so many
> extensions arise concerning what we do.
Thanks again for the reference, Harvey. I am looking forward to reading
this article and perhaps discussing it with you further. I have often
thought about similar themes, one of the things that draws me to digital
art is its apparent lack of physical existance, and what this does to
the idea of 'art as a commodity.' I will read and get back to you.
Thanks!
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
http://www.toegristle.com/
toegr...@my-deja.com
> These photos are copyright. Duh.
> Anyone recognizes any of their images. You sink they sue.
>
> Until they recognize their images.
> Viva La Attornies and especially the ones who sue Yahoo!
Mattison, I'm afraid your reputation precedes you, so I will try to use
small words whenever possible.
First of all, I would encourage you to look up and research the doctrine
of 'fair use' in copyright law. Duh.
Second of all, it is painfully obvious that you did not even take the
time to look at the images in question. If you had, you would have
realized that every one of them has been manipulated BEYOND RECOGNITION.
The fact that I use photographs as SOURCE material doesn't mean any of
the imagery is duplicated exactly or even recognizable. And even if any
of it was recognizable, I still maintain my rights of appropriation as a
collage artist.
So I would defy you to find any news photographer who could recognize
his/her imagery in my own work. For that matter I would defy you to find
a lawyer or court of law who would sue me for such a ridiculous claim.
The truth is, no one in their right mind would sue an artist over a
non-profit project like this. If any decide to, I will gladly go to
court to defend my rights.
"If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence".
John Oswald
AAR
>
>Mattison, I'm afraid your reputation precedes you, so I will try to use
>small words whenever possible.
Now you've done it - she will take this as a compliment. Get ready for
her self-promoting Emails junking up your mail box ;-)
Alison
mdeli
>There are many trolls like Ian on rec.arts.fine, those who
>are so vehement about what they refuse to understand.
DO tell us what it is you "understand."
This guy imagines that anything that disagrees with his outlook is a
Troll.
> Some "Mani Deli"
>who used to post here had the exact same opinions, what's more his
>frequent postings were recycled from earlier posts, so you could assure
>there was never a change of opinion.
I presume you constantly change your opinion.
>
>I'm learning slowly that it's best to ignore them. I mean, there's a
>lot I don't understand, and I am very particular about what goes
>into my work, but I at least try to read a lot, and learn from the
>many accomplished artists in this group.
Your work is repetitive internet drivel. Totally unoriginal computer
hackery. Any idiot can create similar stuff with a few filters and a
bit of time. Stick to reading and ignore any criticism that challenges
what you happen to like. That way the repetitive work you create will
let you imagine it is original.
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/
Kay
Alison offered to give you a blow-job we never heard from you again.
Kay
:
:>There are many trolls like Ian on rec.arts.fine, those who
:>are so vehement about what they refuse to understand.
:DO tell us what it is you "understand."
:This guy imagines that anything that disagrees with his outlook is a
:Troll.
:> Some "Mani Deli"
:>who used to post here had the exact same opinions, what's more his
:>frequent postings were recycled from earlier posts, so you could assure
:>there was never a change of opinion.
:
:>
:>I'm learning slowly that it's best to ignore them. I mean, there's a
:>lot I don't understand, and I am very particular about what goes
:>into my work, but I at least try to read a lot, and learn from the
:>many accomplished artists in this group.
:Your work is repetitive internet drivel. Totally unoriginal computer
~Artist~
~Artist~
Copyright law even reaches into the images in the mind.
Mattison
~Artist~
Your on the list with Yaspew!
Mattison
~Artist~
>
> Welcome back, Mani. I missed you :-) Thought you might be dead after
> Alison offered to give you a blow-job we never heard from you again.
They are perfect 4 each other!!!!!!!!
LOL
Best L I've had in years!!!!!!!!!!!
Mattison
xform1
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 05:41:21 GMT, xform1 <xfo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >are so vehement about what they refuse to understand.
>
> This guy imagines that anything that disagrees with his outlook is a
> Troll.
>
Not so, as I suppose almost everyone here disagrees with some aspect
of my "outlook". As for you, and Ian (not Iian), and perhaps some
others that we don't want to awaken, the fact that you have talked
yourself into believing your repetitive drivel does not in any
way diminish its dishonesty. You post mainly to get a rise out of
people; you have contributed essentially zero to the discussion of
art. Well at least you didn't repeat yourself this time. I got a
veritable "M.D." original -- I'm so touched!
> > Some "Mani Deli"
> >who used to post here had the exact same opinions, what's more his
> >frequent postings were recycled from earlier posts, so you could
assure
> >there was never a change of opinion.
>
> I presume you constantly change your opinion.
Something called "learning" or "maturing" Mani, you should really
try it sometime. Though I suppose for you it really is too late. Yes,
after some effort and long periods of reflection, I have at times
reversed my opinion. For example, I used to really not like Clifford
Styll, mainly because I was put off by what I thought was a stifling,
ominous atmosphere that had little basis in the formal aspects,
which I thought to be a bit haphazard. However, at one point I
suddenly "got it"; I could *see for myself* that what he did was in
every way as beautiful and important as his contemporaries. You have
allowed yourself no knowledge of this. Believe me,
it's been your loss.
Change is nothing remarkable, really, I suppose everyone but you
has experienced it. Which is again, your loss.
> >
> >I'm learning slowly that it's best to ignore them. I mean, there's a
> >lot I don't understand, and I am very particular about what goes
> >into my work, but I at least try to read a lot, and learn from the
> >many accomplished artists in this group.
>
> Your work is repetitive internet drivel. Totally unoriginal computer
> hackery. Any idiot can create similar stuff with a few filters and a
> bit of time.
How delightful! Certainly I wouldn't mind if I was not the only one
making my images, as I would certainly catch a few movies, have more
friends etc. Where can I see some of this stuff, care to point me to a
website?
--Harvey
Render Wiz
In article <37B0FB...@att.net>,
~Artist~ <matt...@att.net> wrote:
> You can't make the images so you stole them.
>
Good Call, Mr. Mattison. They have less than zero skill. They try to
create "ART" like putting random, 2D scrawls on the canvas. And they
can't even do that, they have to go and steal someone else's work.
That's Art School for ya. Emperors New Clothes.
I Tell you though, the climate is a-changin. Now with advanced
rendering tools, the artist who is truly skilled can create virtual
worlds of unsurpassed Accuracy and Quality. Not any of this
"Abstract" crap.Over time, I predict that people view the 20th century
as the Second Dark Age of human culture. the 21st will be a new
Renaissance with Technology at its center, no more degenerated
self-absorptive CRAP!!! You just wait and see.
IAN
> Your on the list with Yaspew!
>
WHO IS Yaspew
> Mattison
Render Wiz
reason. I agree with what you say and everything on your Web site.
Art in 20th C. is just a pretentous in-joke started by Cezzann or even
worse Matisse who draws like a 12 year old at best. I predict that there
will be a change of heart and people will recognize your ideas as the
true voice. The next century and perhaps Millenium will see the return
of human civilization and rise of a technocratic,meritcratic society
where skill at rendering the environment bolstered by TRUTH is valued in
ART above all else. The technology perpares us for it is responsible of
the human spirit to rise from its 100 year slumber. IAN
> Your work is repetitive internet drivel. Totally unoriginal computer
> hackery. Any idiot can create similar stuff with a few filters and a
> bit of time. Stick to reading and ignore any criticism that challenges
> what you happen to like. That way the repetitive work you create will
> let you imagine it is original.
>
> 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/
>
burnin...@my-deja.com
"corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> greetings netizens,
>
> the BOMB project is a dynamic, random work of web art
> http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
You may have spent a lot of time programming it but I think
fractals are a lot more interesting -- and the colors are
better.
burnin...@my-deja.com
"corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> IAN wrote:
>
> > Or at least people educated to draw.
>
> Ian, I appreciate your comments. Certainly not everyone will be
responsive
> to the kind of random digital imagery that is in the BOMB project.
That's
> whats so great about personal taste, everyone has their own, right?
Quite correct. Keep reminding yourself of it.
>
> Still, it might interest you to know that I actually come from a very
> strict drawing education by any standards, and I'm very glad I did. If
you
> are interested you can view some of my charcoal / wash drawings at
> http://www.toegristle.com/corey/drawing.htm
They're OK. You look like you're into commercial art, though. I'm
not using that as a shitty comment; simply an observation.
The images are reasonably well done, mildly interesting, and
difficult to remember a few minutes after they're gone. Your
sense of color is terrible, btw.
>
> Anyway, the BOMB project is just an experiment, one that I enjoy. I'm
sorry
> that you have such a low opinion of it,
You're confusing "low" with "indifferent". "Low" implies, in some
ways, memorable. What you have are some decent decorataions.
> perhaps you could direct me to some
> digital art that you consider worthy, for the sake of comparison.
Digital art has about the same useage as jumbo shrimp and
military intelligence: people keep talking about it and no one
has ever seen it.
>
> Thanks again for the criticism, it is of course helpful in my own path
of
> personal improvement.
Why do you think anyone cares about your personal improvement? :P
burnin...@my-deja.com
toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ~Artist~ wrote:
>
> > These photos are copyright. Duh.
> > Anyone recognizes any of their images. You sink they sue.
> >
> > Until they recognize their images.
> > Viva La Attornies and especially the ones who sue Yahoo!
>
use
> small words whenever possible.
LOL :P
She does seem to be off her medication again....
>
> First of all, I would encourage you to look up and research the
doctrine
> of 'fair use' in copyright law. Duh.
Fair use is a rather hazy area when it comes to the internet. Several
sites have already been dragged into court for approximately what
you are doing... and they posted source and fair useage notices...
I didn't notice any on your site?
>
> Second of all, it is painfully obvious that you did not even take the
> time to look at the images in question. If you had, you would have
> realized that every one of them has been manipulated BEYOND
RECOGNITION.
> The fact that I use photographs as SOURCE material doesn't mean any of
> the imagery is duplicated exactly or even recognizable. And even if
any
> of it was recognizable, I still maintain my rights of appropriation as
a
> collage artist.
While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
*reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
reproduce it.
> So I would defy you to find any news photographer who could recognize
> his/her imagery in my own work. For that matter I would defy you to
find
> a lawyer or court of law who would sue me for such a ridiculous claim.
One story: the woman who won 3 million from McDonalds because *she*
spilled coffee she bought in her lap.
You were saying?
> The truth is, no one in their right mind would sue an artist over a
> non-profit project like this.
Happens all the time. Particularly when you have any sort of political
leanings. Lawyers care about how much of a fee they can make. If
someone decides to make an example of you, you're dead meat on a stick.
> If any decide to, I will gladly go to
> court to defend my rights.
>
> "If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence".
> John Oswald
This is true in a sense: it protects creative people from being
ripped off by 2nd-raters with delusions.
If you want to be a programmer, by all means, indulge yourself.
If you want to peddle it as art, you better spend some time on
Mani's site learning how to spew artspeak a lot better.
AAR
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Welcome back, Mani. I missed you :-) Thought you might be dead after
>Alison offered to give you a blow-job we never heard from you again.
Yeah, Mani ... I've been searching cyber for you - that check you gave
me bounced. That's 500 smackeroos you owe me ... and every cent of that
was well earned.
toegr...@my-deja.com
>
> While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
> *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> reproduce it.
There is a big difference between mechanically reproducing imagery, and
using imagery as raw material to be manipulated beyond recognition into
something new.
> Happens all the time. Particularly when you have any sort of
political
> leanings. Lawyers care about how much of a fee they can make. If
> someone decides to make an example of you, you're dead meat on a
stick.
So be it. It's not going to scare me into taking it down. If I get sued,
I get sued. Wouldn't surprise me at this point, i'd bet Mattison and Ian
have made it their personal mission to find someone to sue me. Still, as
you said, fair use is a fuzzy concept, and if you look at the actual
text of the law there is nothing in it specifically about art. The real
meat of the doctrine comes from precedents set in court cases. So
probably I get slammed, but maybe I set a good precedent. I feel pretty
comfortable in my ability to argue my viewpoint, the rest is out of my
hands.
> This is true in a sense: it protects creative people from being
> ripped off by 2nd-raters with delusions.
Ah, so I'm a 2nd rate rip-off artist now. Heh. Thanks for putting me in
my place. For a while there, i just thought i was having fun doing
something i enjoy.
> If you want to be a programmer, by all means, indulge yourself.
> If you want to peddle it as art, you better spend some time on
> Mani's site learning how to spew artspeak a lot better.
I wasn't aware that I was 'peddling' anything. And I don't see why
programmers can't be artists, and vice versa. "Specialization is for
insects."
damn, for a while there I was actually gaining some faith in humanity.
Thank god for Usenet!
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
http://www.toegristle.com/
toegr...@my-deja.com
>
> I Tell you though, the climate is a-changin. Now with advanced
> rendering tools, the artist who is truly skilled can create virtual
> worlds of unsurpassed Accuracy and Quality.
You mean like 'Toy Story'?
> Not any of this "Abstract" crap. <snip>
> You just wait and see.
>
> IAN
Knowing how you feel about the necessity of a drawing education for
digital artists, I'm STILL waiting to see some of your own drawings,
Ian. Got a URL for me?
viva la revolucion,
corey.eiseman
http://www.toegristle.com/
toegr...@my-deja.com
> They're OK. You look like you're into commercial art, though. I'm
> not using that as a shitty comment; simply an observation.
I don't really see it, but... ok.
> Your sense of color is terrible, btw.
Yeah, i've been told that, before. I prefer to think of it as
'experimental.' ;-)
> You're confusing "low" with "indifferent". "Low" implies, in some
> ways, memorable. What you have are some decent decorataions.
If Ian was so "indifferent," why did he bother responding in the first
place. For that matter, why are you?
> Digital art has about the same useage as jumbo shrimp and
> military intelligence: people keep talking about it and no one
> has ever seen it.
My, aren't we clever.
> Why do you think anyone cares about your personal improvement? :P
When did I say anyone cares about my personal improvement? I care about
it very much, but i don't expect anyone else to. God forbid human beings
should care about each other, right? Especially "artists."
mdeli
wrote:
I guess that your masturbation fantasies about checks are due to the
fact that so few cross your palm. Keep pounding away as you try to
sell your dime-a- dozen abstract crap.
tomi...@hotmail.com
job. in this case i feel like journalists aren't fanatics, but the idea
is totally wrong. some people even wish a tortured death to those who
touch their art and rearrange it. that's even justified.
i didnt like bomb (idea/photomanips), perhaps seen web art or similar
too much, but other stuff like those drawing works are GOOD! nice own
ideas.
to comment render wiz,
>The next century and perhaps Millenium will see the return of human
civilization and rise of a technocratic,meritcratic society where skill
at rendering the environment bolstered by TRUTH is valued in ART above
all else. The technology perpares us for it is responsible of the
human spirit to rise from its 100 year slumber.
i feel like this brings a wide smile to my face, do any others feel
like it?. i mean, mixing words like "truth" & "art" is sarcastic =) in
my world technology doesnt bring anything good to art as talking about
what's beyond the work. after all it's relative.
xform1
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37AC902C...@toegristle.com>,
> "corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> > IAN wrote:
> >
> > > Or at least people educated to draw.
> >
> > Ian, I appreciate your comments. Certainly not everyone will be
> responsive
> > to the kind of random digital imagery that is in the BOMB project.
> That's
> > whats so great about personal taste, everyone has their own, right?
>
> Quite correct. Keep reminding yourself of it.
>
> >
> > Still, it might interest you to know that I actually come from a
very
> > strict drawing education by any standards, and I'm very glad I did.
If
> you
> > are interested you can view some of my charcoal / wash drawings at
> > http://www.toegristle.com/corey/drawing.htm
>
> not using that as a shitty comment; simply an observation.
>
> sense of color is terrible, btw.
Just wondering, do you find it a problem that images are "difficult
to remember"? To a certain extent, I *want* this effect in my own
images, to provide a certain kind of experience when you see them, then
total amnesia afterwards. I believe that beauty (or what ever it is we
try to achieve) is manifest only in the moment, as soon as we try
to sustain it just a little bit longer, to dissect it we find it
has vanished. "Icons" can never be beautiful; they are the basis for
ideology and propaganda. I guess you would disagree?
--Harvey
--xform1 at geocities dot com--
Transformations Digital Gallery:
http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Exhibit/5782
Kay
tomi...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7osk1k$nro$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:no, people who take parts from other artists are doing morally very bad
Did you go to school with Mattison?
Kay
Render Wiz
toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Render Wiz <i_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I Tell you though, the climate is a-changin. Now with advanced
> > rendering tools, the artist who is truly skilled can create virtual
> > worlds of unsurpassed Accuracy and Quality.
>
> You mean like 'Toy Story'?
>
Exactly like "Toy Story". Look at how many countless hours went into
that production and now look at the few secons for your crap. Few
seconds less 'cuz you steal it. In Toy Story, The
characters and motions were -believable-, there was a -plot-, and what
may be the truest test of all, -Lots of people PAID tosee it-. You see
real skilled artists have -jobs-, they -create jobs- which really impact
the economy. Where as all the "Modern Artists" do isthey whine and
leach off the government.
I can take it back furthur, Walt Disney was a much better artist than
all the "Modern Art" crap. Is he to be faulted because people actually
liked it? 'Cuz he made people happy?
> > Not any of this "Abstract" crap. <snip>
> > You just wait and see.
> >
> > IAN
>
> Knowing how you feel about the necessity of a drawing education for
> digital artists, I'm STILL waiting to see some of your own drawings,
> Ian. Got a URL for me?
>
Not a chance Corry, you'd just steal it. IAN
Render Wiz
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37A326B6...@toegristle.com>,
> "corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> > greetings netizens,
> >
> > the BOMB project is a dynamic, random work of web art
> > http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
>
> You may have spent a lot of time programming it but I think
> fractals are a lot more interesting -- and the colors are
> better.
>
Fractals are only a start, burningchrome, only a start.At least the
people who do fractals spend time on their art. They can make the art
which people -pay- to see, which they put on the calendars rather than
whiny self-important NEA-funded "Modern Art" Bullshit!
Fractals are a start, Now couple that with 2000 YRs history of drawing
knowhow, and a will to create something thats not degenerated.
Render Wiz
geometry paintings. All that technical -jumbomumb-o on your page is a
joke. You could learn a lotfrom Mani. Your no better than Corry and I
bet you leach funds of the NEA riding the "Modern Digitalk Art" wave.
IAN
In article <7oqmgb$c4c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Your work is repetitive internet drivel. Totally unoriginal computer
> > hackery. Any idiot can create similar stuff with a few filters and a
> > bit of time.
>
> How delightful! Certainly I wouldn't mind if I was not the only one
> making my images, as I would certainly catch a few movies, have more
> friends etc. Where can I see some of this stuff, care to point me to
a
> website?
>
WHAT harvey so you could steal it 2? IAN
Andy Pearlman
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7omohl$fqo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Second of all, it is painfully obvious that you did not even take the
> > time to look at the images in question. If you had, you would have
> > realized that every one of them has been manipulated BEYOND
> RECOGNITION.
> > The fact that I use photographs as SOURCE material doesn't mean any of
> > the imagery is duplicated exactly or even recognizable. And even if
> any
> > of it was recognizable, I still maintain my rights of appropriation as
> a
> > collage artist.
>
> While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
> *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> reproduce it.
Um. Yes, he does. As long as the use is commentary, you do. Especially if
the source images are not recognizable. An example of this in art is using
images from advertising or pornography. Look at Lichenstein's comic book
art - mostly old serialized comic art that he subtly changed, made larger,
and changed some of the emphasis around. The other element is that in order
to sue, you have to prove damages. An unknown artist with no money is not
exactly a suitable target for a lawsuit. When someone sells sculptures
based on a photograph for several hundred thousand dollars, then there is a
good reason to go after them.
The skill of the artist is not the question. The motive of the artist is.
And it really, really helps to have a smoking gun.
> > So I would defy you to find any news photographer who could recognize
> > his/her imagery in my own work. For that matter I would defy you to
> find
> > a lawyer or court of law who would sue me for such a ridiculous claim.
>
> One story: the woman who won 3 million from McDonalds because *she*
> spilled coffee she bought in her lap.
Urban legend. The case was significantly reduced on appeal and setttled -
that probably could have been reduced to near nothing by tying it up in the
courts long enough - The problem was that McDs corporate culture doesn't
like negative publicity of any kind - look how relatively enviro-friendly
they are compared to the other chains... They don't use rainforest beef,
paper containers, etc...
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman -
artwork at http://www.sito.org/sito/MASS/Pearlman_A/etching.html
AAR
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
>I guess that your masturbation fantasies about checks are due to the
>fact that so few cross your palm. Keep pounding away as you try to
>sell your dime-a- dozen abstract crap.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
Thanks sweet pea, I will - taking lessons from you, the Great
Masturbator, trying to sell your dime-a-dozen vanity *books*
(I see you still don't have an agent ? still have to send you a check
and wait for it to clear before the *book* is sent out, eh ?)
burnin...@my-deja.com
toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
> > *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> > reproduce it.
>
and
> using imagery as raw material to be manipulated beyond recognition
into
> something new.
Possibly to you. I'm not sure if your opinion has legal bearing.
>
> > Happens all the time. Particularly when you have any sort of
> political
> > leanings. Lawyers care about how much of a fee they can make. If
> > someone decides to make an example of you, you're dead meat on a
> stick.
>
> So be it. It's not going to scare me into taking it down.
:P
> If I get sued, I get sued.
Obviously, you've not spent much time in court.
> Wouldn't surprise me at this point, i'd bet Mattison and Ian
> have made it their personal mission to find someone to sue me.
Mattison is a deranged shill on her most lucid days. But, as they
say, even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.
Ian seems reasonable.
> Still, as
> you said, fair use is a fuzzy concept, and if you look at the actual
> text of the law there is nothing in it specifically about art. The
real
> meat of the doctrine comes from precedents set in court cases. So
> probably I get slammed, but maybe I set a good precedent.
Keep you comments and re-visit them in about 10 years when you're
not so green. You might be amused to think of what you sounded like
to other people.
> I feel pretty
> comfortable in my ability to argue my viewpoint
You're viewpoint is irrelevant.
>
> > This is true in a sense: it protects creative people from being
> > ripped off by 2nd-raters with delusions.
>
> Ah, so I'm a 2nd rate rip-off artist now.
Kindly re-read my comment. Nowhere did I say this applied to you.
I was referring to your quoted comment.
It is somewhat telling that you took it personally, though.
> Heh. Thanks for putting me in
> my place. For a while there, i just thought i was having fun doing
> something i enjoy.
Nothing wrong with that... until what you enjoy affects what other
people enjoy.
>
> > If you want to be a programmer, by all means, indulge yourself.
> > If you want to peddle it as art, you better spend some time on
> > Mani's site learning how to spew artspeak a lot better.
>
> I wasn't aware that I was 'peddling' anything.
Sure you are: your site, opinions etc.
"Peddle" doesn't always refer to immediate monetary gain.
> And I don't see why
> programmers can't be artists, and vice versa. "Specialization is for
> insects."
In a very narrow sense, programmers are artists. If you've ever
looked at code, there is a large difference between that of a good
programmer and a hack programmer.
If they have the talent, they can be visual artists as well. I was
not referring to programmers in general but to you. I did not consider
your site to be particularly creative.
>
> damn, for a while there I was actually gaining some faith in humanity.
> Thank god for Usenet!
You're quite welcome.
burnin...@my-deja.com
apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
>
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <7omohl$fqo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Second of all, it is painfully obvious that you did not even take
the
> > > time to look at the images in question. If you had, you would have
> > > realized that every one of them has been manipulated BEYOND
> > RECOGNITION.
> > > The fact that I use photographs as SOURCE material doesn't mean
any of
> > > the imagery is duplicated exactly or even recognizable. And even
if
> > any
> > > of it was recognizable, I still maintain my rights of
appropriation as
> > a
> > > collage artist.
> >
> > *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> > reproduce it.
>
Um, No, he doesn't.
> As long as the use is commentary, you do.
Several internet sites have recently received injunctions against
use of copyrighted material -- which they were using as commentary.
They had even attributed the original source and explicitly noted
it as discussion and fair use.
The infringed parties were the New York Times and the LA Times.
It would seem that the courts disagree with you.
> Especially if
> the source images are not recognizable. An example of this in art is
using
> images from advertising or pornography. Look at Lichenstein's comic
book
> art - mostly old serialized comic art that he subtly changed, made
larger,
> and changed some of the emphasis around.
Please note that I said one could use it as reference but not
mechanically reproduce it. The material you reference above was
not mechanically reproduced.
> The other element is that in order
> to sue, you have to prove damages.
Easy. He didn't pay for the use of the copyrighted images.
> An unknown artist with no money is not
> exactly a suitable target for a lawsuit.
Nonsense. The sites I mentioned above didn't make a dime from the
material in any sense. many companies will sue simply to make an
example of someone. Disney does it all the time.
> When someone sells sculptures
> based on a photograph for several hundred thousand dollars, then there
is a
> good reason to go after them.
You couldn't win a case as mentioned above. Not to mention it being
unlikely anyone would sell sculpture for the price mentioned :P
> The skill of the artist is not the question.
Red Herring.
> The motive of the artist is.
Nope. The only question is whether there was infringment. The fact
that the person made no immediate profit isn't much relevant.
> And it really, really helps to have a smoking gun.
His own words would convict him.
>
> > > So I would defy you to find any news photographer who could
recognize
> > > his/her imagery in my own work. For that matter I would defy you
to
> > find
> > > a lawyer or court of law who would sue me for such a ridiculous
claim.
> >
> > One story: the woman who won 3 million from McDonalds because *she*
> > spilled coffee she bought in her lap.
>
> Urban legend.
CaCa. An "urban legend" is something which has little to no truth.
The award was reduced to around 900K on appeal, last I heard.
> The case was significantly reduced on appeal and setttled -
> that probably could have been reduced to near nothing by tying it up
in the
> courts long enough - The problem was that McDs corporate culture
doesn't
> like negative publicity of any kind - look how relatively
enviro-friendly
> they are compared to the other chains... They don't use rainforest
beef,
> paper containers, etc...
Red Herring... and dumb as well.
McDonalds isn't "enviro-friendly," they're simply pandering to
the dull leftists who like to think they are being environmentally
something-or-other.
Styrofoam takes a lot longer to decompose than does paper and it's
more costly to produce.
There is no such thing as "rain forest beef". This is akin to saying
that you won't drink water from a certain part of a lake.
burnin...@my-deja.com
Render Wiz <ian...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7os2g0$a93$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <37A326B6...@toegristle.com>,
> > "corey.eiseman" <co...@toegristle.com> wrote:
> > > greetings netizens,
> > >
> > > the BOMB project is a dynamic, random work of web art
> > > http://www.toegristle.com/bomb/
> >
> > You may have spent a lot of time programming it but I think
> > fractals are a lot more interesting -- and the colors are
> > better.
> >
>
> Fractals are only a start, burningchrome, only a start.At least the
> people who do fractals spend time on their art.
Computer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
> They can make the art
> which people -pay- to see, which they put on the calendars rather than
> whiny self-important NEA-funded "Modern Art" Bullshit!
You won't get much of an argument from me about that :P
> Fractals are a start, Now couple that with 2000 YRs history of drawing
> knowhow, and a will to create something thats not degenerated.
Like I said, lay off the cyberpunk for awhile.
Chris
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> IComputer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
> involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
>
>
That's kind of like saying only paint brushes generate paintings. Someone
who knows what he's about can be as precise in the generation of a fractal
as (say) Pollack was in his spattering period - which, like fractals, were
actually far from random.
Cheers;
Chris
tomi...@hotmail.com
~Artist~
>
> In article <7os9he$fro$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> > > reproduce it.
> >
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Press is Press
Mattison
~Artist~
Good job.
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <37B25195...@mail.idt.net>,
> apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7omohl$fqo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Second of all, it is painfully obvious that you did not even take
> the
> > > > time to look at the images in question. If you had, you would have
> > > > realized that every one of them has been manipulated BEYOND
> > > RECOGNITION.
> > > > The fact that I use photographs as SOURCE material doesn't mean
> any of
> > > > the imagery is duplicated exactly or even recognizable. And even
> if
> > > any
> > > > of it was recognizable, I still maintain my rights of
> appropriation as
> > > a
> > > > collage artist.
> > >
> > > While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
> > > *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> > > reproduce it.
> >
~Artist~
Manis' Paintings KICK Sorry A on yours.
Better travel around America. The unabashed, capitalistic, and
western freedoms we have built here really do produce some great
work even in the mediocre middle!
Work - far better than what you are up too. Try, Allison, being less
absorbed in rereading all your own drivel and 3 million sigs and get
your A "out of your own way" and paint.
Any Artists spending as much time on the net as you do can in no way
be doing enough work to make it anywhere - at least in America.
You have several centuries to cat.ch up to any Americans. Seems the
dreary old city has stifled you or maybe it is just that the miles in the
kitchen sacraficed in your previous life did not give you the miles on
the brush you need to keep up with contemporaries.
Many of the older Artists I know the real pros know - you did not use
it you lost it.
Mattison Fitzgerald
Artist
~Artist~
>
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
> > *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> > reproduce it.
>
> using imagery as raw material to be manipulated beyond recognition into
> something new.
>
You can't do it without miles of risk.
> > Happens all the time. Particularly when you have any sort of
> political
> > leanings. Lawyers care about how much of a fee they can make. If
> > someone decides to make an example of you, you're dead meat on a
> stick.
>
> So be it. It's not going to scare me into taking it down. If I get sued,
> I get sued. Wouldn't surprise me at this point, i'd bet Mattison and Ian
I don't have to waste my time on you. The art world is small and the
photojournalistic world is smaller. They know what pics were taken
of that war and you are claiming you took thier copyrighted
materilas and used it, manipulated it and destroyed the artistic
integrity. Set yourself up for a copyright infringement case and news
agencies are far more visious than artists in chasing down abuses of
copyrights.
Artists always hear who is using your works. Even when I was in
college - only had a few pieces public and it got back and it always
gets back to the artists. One way or another.
If you were a professional artist you would have the integrity to use
you own work and produce your own works and not reuse or abuse
the works of others.
What you are simply is a mouse jockey - not an artist.
> have made it their personal mission to find someone to sue me. Still, as
> you said, fair use is a fuzzy concept, and if you look at the actual
> text of the law there is nothing in it specifically about art. The real
> meat of the doctrine comes from precedents set in court cases. So
> probably I get slammed, but maybe I set a good precedent. I feel pretty
> comfortable in my ability to argue my viewpoint, the rest is out of my
> hands.
>
> > This is true in a sense: it protects creative people from being
> > ripped off by 2nd-raters with delusions.
>
Mose Jockey is the term.
> Ah, so I'm a 2nd rate rip-off artist now. Heh. Thanks for putting me in
> my place. For a while there, i just thought i was having fun doing
> something i enjoy.
>
You'll get bored soon enough.
> > If you want to be a programmer, by all means, indulge yourself.
> > If you want to peddle it as art, you better spend some time on
> > Mani's site learning how to spew artspeak a lot better.
>
> I wasn't aware that I was 'peddling' anything. And I don't see why
> programmers can't be artists, and vice versa. "Specialization is for
> insects."
Programming is like architecture it is craft.
>
> damn, for a while there I was actually gaining some faith in humanity.
> Thank god for Usenet!
Yes, I love cultural control.
Here lemmings here here!
Mattison
LOL
~Artist~
>
> In article <37B0FB...@att.net>,
> ~Artist~ <matt...@att.net> wrote:
> > You can't make the images so you stole them.
> >
>
> Good Call, Mr. Mattison. They have less than zero skill. They try to
It's Ms.
Sorry web server down now or you could see the pic's if you are
clever evough to click them up.
My webbymaster is rather sardonic and thinks -
let them grovel for you....
LOL
Why not - most geekers r submissive are they not ?
We are putting a few new things up soon ---- be patient ----
even photos of that whipmy graffitti banner we dropped off at
Yahspew!!!!! the other day....
We hear they are groveling over who gets to keep it.
LOL
What a flippn joke.
> create "ART" like putting random, 2D scrawls on the canvas. And they
> can't even do that, they have to go and steal someone else's work.
> That's Art School for ya. Emperors New Clothes.
Yeah - sonds like you know the school of Yahspew!
>
> I Tell you though, the climate is a-changin. Now with advanced
> rendering tools, the artist who is truly skilled can create virtual
> worlds of unsurpassed Accuracy and Quality. Not any of this
> "Abstract" crap.Over time, I predict that people view the 20th century
> as the Second Dark Age of human culture. the 21st will be a new
> Renaissance with Technology at its center, no more degenerated
> self-absorptive CRAP!!! You just wait and see.
LOL
I LOVE IT!!!!!!
>
> IAN
>
> > Your on the list with Yaspew!
> >
>
> WHO IS Yaspew
Its the newly dubbed Yahoo!
We had to run a Boycott of those idiots over copyright 2 weeks ago.
3M hits in a week.
and the fools broke down but not enough for my standards.
Once a droid always a droid I guess....alt.have.no.clue@yahspew!
Just like the 210 M we are behind herein the arts - geeks are to art as
spots are to tigers.
You know I really do feel quite sorry for them geeks.
Mattison
p.b.
wrote:
>That's kind of like saying only paint brushes generate paintings. Someone
>who knows what he's about can be as precise in the generation of a fractal
>as (say) Pollack was in his spattering period - which, like fractals, were
>actually far from random.
Who is the author of a fractal image? The inventor of the formula, the
programmer who implemented it or the user that made attemps until a
lucky coincidence of parameters?
I think there is also a problem of inflation: it's a too broad path
toward art.
Chris
"p.b." wrote:
Rather than getting lost in the inconsequential (as above) it might be better
to ask - what is art, and can fractals be used to achieve that end? Fractal
analysis is simply a tool - like a brush. And leave the legal stuff to
burningchrome, since he'll expound at length on it anyway :)
As for the "to broad a path" business, that's been applied to virtually every
new art form that's come along, from movable type to photography and
television. It was probably applied to the first cave paintings ("ug, Ochre,
Bison., no good. Too broad path. grunt") by the guys who only painted on
cliffs (or vice-versa).
Art has a natural cycle to it - someone develops an accessible technique that
becomes popular, derivative artists follow in those footsteps and codify it,
hence restricting it's availability. The technique eventually becomes a sacred
cow in it's own right, to which only the self-appointed elect are condsidered
the true practioners, until a bunch of art-school droputs, low life scum, and
other assorted riff-raff fall off the (by now) razor thin path of true
righteousness, and find a great big dirty & fascinating world in which to
play....How's that for mixed metaphors?
Cheers;
Chris
burnin...@my-deja.com
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > IComputer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no
"art"
> > involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
> >
> >
>
This analogy is too lame to even qualify as red herring.
Please post the next fractal you make without using a computer &
software. We'd all like to see it.
> Someone
> who knows what he's about can be as precise in the generation of a
fractal
> as (say) Pollack was in his spattering period - which, like fractals,
were
> actually far from random.
LOL :P
Pollack was a drunk who couldn't paint. He found enough people to
buy his drippings to pay for his binges. Good for Pollack.
The only thing about a Pollack that isn't a result of either
gravity and blind drunk chance is the choice of colors -- such
that they are.
On a scale of talent, he's below Cezanne.
Christopher B Specker
: In article <37B2ECAF...@ns.sympatico.ca>,
: Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
: >
: >
: > burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
: >
: > > IComputer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no
: "art"
: > > involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
: > >
: > >
: >
: > That's kind of like saying only paint brushes generate paintings.
: This analogy is too lame to even qualify as red herring.
: Please post the next fractal you make without using a computer &
: software. We'd all like to see it.
Not necessary. Haven't fractals been around for over a century now? And
computers go back what, something like 50 years? So fractals have been
around over twice as long as computers. Funny thing is, at the time
they weren't considered "real math," just "pathological curves."
-----------------
Christopher Specker
AAR
>Allison -
I wonder who Allison is.
>
>Manis' Paintings KICK Sorry A on yours.
considering they probably came from that area I will concede this.
>
>Better travel around America. The unabashed, capitalistic, and
>western freedoms we have built here really do produce some great
>work even in the mediocre middle!
>
Thanks - I already have done this.
>Work - far better than what you are up too. Try, Allison, being less
>absorbed in rereading all your own drivel and 3 million sigs and get
>your A "out of your own way" and paint.
Oh I am sorry. I will readjust the settings on my new computer
immediately - can't have you thinking I am trying to confuse you.
>
>
>Any Artists spending as much time on the net as you do can in no way
>be doing enough work to make it anywhere - at least in America.
I see. Mattison, dear, as you are in the middle of a vendetta against
Kay at this time and are currently spamming the entire network with some
sort of prefabricated grievance against her server, I really think you
ought not to preach to others about how much time they spend on the Net.
I believe you Emailed her ISP what was it - 60 times in one day ? Now
that is what I call a complete futile waste of energy that could have
been directed into your so called art - or landscape gardening.
>
>You have several centuries to cat.ch up to any Americans. Seems the
>dreary old city has stifled you or maybe it is just that the miles in the
>kitchen sacraficed in your previous life did not give you the miles on
>the brush you need to keep up with contemporaries.
>
I really have no desire to keep up with my contemporaries. My own
development is the only interest to me. Today's artists are too involved
in the hype of fame to even grasp the basics of what art really is.
Sound familiar ?
>Many of the older Artists I know the real pros know - you did not use
>it you lost it.
>
Now we are in full agreement - fancy that. It is indeed important to
keep working.
--
Alison
p.b.
Interesting and largely acceptable point of view. I find useful the
analogy with photography: you can consider a photo as piece of art,
but you can not say (or implicitly suggest) "I painted it!". So
fractals, and more generally computer graphics, will surely develop
new kinds of art, but usually they seem to have little to share with
painting. Obviously, the question is not about the tools (e.g. brushes
vs computer - for example I often "paint" with computer and graphic
tablet) but the kind of mental processes, and consequently the
"skills", involved.
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:39:10 -0300, Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
mdeli
>Computer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
>involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
>
Fractals are infinitely more interesting then most all Modern Academic
art. Whether or not fractals are art is undecidable and irrelevant.
I have large collections of fractals and often show them to assorted
guests. The most interesting reaction comes from Artzy fartzies as I
find that most are unable to look at any sort of detail and that for
the most part they find fractals offensive.
I believe this occurs because fractals are so varied, well colored and
composed and contain mind boggling detail. This challenges their
cherished faith in modern abstraction as the fractal image is so much
more interesting and obviously superior to most modern crap,
especially theirs.
I might add that computer generated designs can mimic the styles of
most hard edge and average schmierer garbage at phenomenal rates. Of
course very original stuff can also be generated, but like most modern
academic art it can later be imitated until the style of image becomes
common and viewers lose interest. Early computer images of transparent
spheres are a good example.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
Jonathan Hendry
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7p1kpm$6ra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Please post the next fractal you make without using a computer &
>software. We'd all like to see it.
Use a brush to paint with water on an ice-cold piece of glass.
The resulting feathery ice crystals exhibit fractal geometry.
Heck, paint a fern. Or a coastline. Both of these are natural
examples of fractal geometry which are often cited.
Fractals are not "computer-generated images". Fractals
are natural phenomena. Computers are able to mimic
them, resulting in the well-known computer-generated images.
In terms of *art*, I'm not a big fan of the computer-generated
fractals; I used to be, but they got stale after they started
popping up everywhere.
As art, the purified and repetitive computer-generated fractals
aren't much better than, say, a color wheel, which is also a
man-made distillation of something found in nature. However,
since fractals *are* a feature of nature, they have a place
in art, much like the color wheel does - as a tool and aid
to understanding. Just as it's useful to understand the
relationships in the color wheel, it may be useful to understand
fractal self-similarity, if you're trying to realistically
render natural objects with fractal geometry. And there may
be other uses.
Recently, I saw a news item about an academic (I think at
Ohio State) who had found fractal self-similar geometry
in African culture; examples included hair braiding patterns
and the design and arrangement of structures in African
villages.
Ah, here it is. You can read the release at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990727071229.htm
The article contains links to the researcher's website. Evidently
he has a book on the subject.
As someone else mentioned, an analysis of Jackson Pollack's
paintings has found that they do show quite a bit of order:
http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F359000/359739.stm
"Fractals are a mathematical way of describing the underlying pattern in
apparently chaotic patterns. They are common patterns in nature, in leaves,
weather patterns and galaxies.
A key feature of fractal patterns is that they look the same and as complex
whether the whole pattern is viewed or just a detail.
The scientists analysed the paintings Pollock produced between 1943
to 1952. Their work shows that the fractal dimension, a measure of the
complexity, increased steadily over that time from a relatively simple
value near one to 1.72.
They believe that this approach could provide a "quantitative, objective
technique to both validate and date Pollock's drip paintings".
But the mathematical calculations also reveal how the artist refined his
dripping method. In 1943, he used single squiggles of paint that only
covered 20% of the canvas. By 1952, multiple squiggles covered over 90%
of each painting."
Jonathan Hendry
p.b. wrote in message <37b57f38...@news.tin.it>...
>
>Interesting and largely acceptable point of view. I find useful the
>analogy with photography: you can consider a photo as piece of art,
>but you can not say (or implicitly suggest) "I painted it!". So
>fractals, and more generally computer graphics, will surely develop
>new kinds of art, but usually they seem to have little to share with
>painting.
I suppose it depends on the artist. There are those who find
computer-generated fractals interesting and beautiful in their own
right. Alas, they are able to churn them out in their thousands,
and their ten thousands, thanks to the wonder of computers.
On the other hand, the underlying principals of fractal geometry can
be used by 'real' artists in 'real' art. The end result won't obviously
resemble 'the usual suspects' of computer-generated fractals (the Mandelbrot
set, the Julia set, etc), but will share quite a bit with them. In a way,
Escher's work has some fractal-esque aspects, especially his work with tiled
patterns.
Charles Eicher
In article <37b5d846...@news.psi.ca>, hug...@interlog.com says...
>
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Computer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
>>involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
>>
>Fractals are infinitely more interesting then most all Modern Academic
>art. Whether or not fractals are art is undecidable and irrelevant.
Perhaps it is irrelevant and undecidable in YOUR personal aesthetic, something
that doesn't seem to include any developments in Art since after the
Renaissance.
>I have large collections of fractals and often show them to assorted
>guests. The most interesting reaction comes from Artzy fartzies as I
>find that most are unable to look at any sort of detail and that for
>the most part they find fractals offensive.
You are truly a moron, mani. It is IMPOSSIBLE to look at fractals in detail,
because they HAVE no detail. A fractal, viewed at a distance, is the same as
that fractal viewed under a microscope. That is the DEFINITION of a fractal.
>I believe this occurs because fractals are so varied, well colored and
>composed and contain mind boggling detail. This challenges their
>cherished faith in modern abstraction as the fractal image is so much
>more interesting and obviously superior to most modern crap,
>especially theirs.
People are entranced by fractals for the same reason Fibbonacci was entranced
with the patterns found in nature. It was a new discovery that seemed to put
order to chaos. Even a novice viewer can see a glimpse of the underlying rule
constructing a fractal (even if they cannot rationally understand it), just as
they can see the Fibbonacci sequence in the spirals of a flower. But its just a
perceptual trick, signifying nothing. Artists, on the other hand, use perceptual
tricks to a specific goal. If you don't like those goals, mani, that does not
mean they are invalid. They are the expression of a human intellect, not the
mindless meanderings of silicon chips.
>I might add that computer generated designs can mimic the styles of
>most hard edge and average schmierer garbage at phenomenal rates.
I might add that you can mimic the styles of rational art criticism, but you're
still an idiot.
mdeli
>>guests. The most interesting reaction comes from Artzy fartzies as I
>>find that most are unable to look at any sort of detail and that for
>>the most part they find fractals offensive.
Short Fuse Eicher wrote:
>You are truly a moron, mani. It is IMPOSSIBLE to look at fractals in detail,
>because they HAVE no detail.
Even when a constipated pedantic moron like you looks at a fractal on
the screen he is faced with an image containing detail. Obviously this
is only snap shot of a detail of a fractal.
> A fractal, viewed at a distance, is the same as
>that fractal viewed under a microscope. That is the DEFINITION of a fractal.
It isn't the same its self-similar but that has no relevance to what
I'm talking about.
>>I believe this occurs because fractals are so varied, well colored and
>>composed and contain mind boggling detail. This challenges their
>>cherished faith in modern abstraction as the fractal image is so much
>>more interesting and obviously superior to most modern crap,
>>especially theirs.
>
>People are entranced by fractals for the same reason Fibbonacci was entranced
>with the patterns found in nature. It was a new discovery that seemed to put
>order to chaos. Even a novice viewer can see a glimpse of the underlying rule
>constructing a fractal (even if they cannot rationally understand it), just as
>they can see the Fibbonacci sequence in the spirals of a flower. But its just a
>perceptual trick, signifying nothing. Artists, on the other hand, use perceptual
>tricks to a specific goal.
Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
> If you don't like those goals, mani, that does not
>mean they are invalid.
I love visual tricks. However when a famous painting is judged solely
by its signature and is little more than an imitatable pattern I
believe we are dealing with PR hyped crap.
>They are the expression of a human intellect, not the
>mindless meanderings of silicon chips.
Most Modern Academic Art is an expression of natural stupidity which
at this time is unable to compete with the computer image.
>>I might add that computer generated designs can mimic the styles of
>>most hard edge and average schmierer garbage at phenomenal rates.
>
>I might add that you can mimic the styles of rational art criticism, but you're
>still an idiot.
>
Always delighted to be called an idiot by an artzy fartzy failure like
you.
paul reid
~Artist~ wrote:
> Pearlman -
> Good job.
>
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <37B25195...@mail.idt.net>,
> > apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <7omohl$fqo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > toegr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
<snip>
>
> > > > > The fact that I use photographs as SOURCE material doesn't mean
> > any of
> > > > > the imagery is duplicated exactly or even recognizable. And even
> > if
> > > > any
> > > > > of it was recognizable, I still maintain my rights of
> > appropriation as
> > > > a
> > > > > collage artist.
>
drop the collage bit and you are accurate. As an artist, digital or
otherwise, UNLESS you are catering to the commercial (I will get into that
later)..:)...you are certainly entitled to the world around you...hell,
everything's been done, right? -- 'maintain...rights of appropriation.."?
drop the rationalization, dude. just create.
>
> > > > While you have the right to use other copyrighted materials as
> > > > *reference* material, you don't have the right to mechanically
> > > > reproduce it.
> > >
> > > Um. Yes, he does.
> >
> > Um, No, he doesn't.
> >
what are you talking about here -- if i get this right, then you are saying
mechanically reproduce AFTER the manipulation has taken place....OK, dammit, I
was going to wait till later but WTF.
(I'll assume this company, we'll call it company 'X')
Company X has a successful ad campaign in the works. They release it and it's
a go. the client likes it, and it runs. in a mag, on the transit, whever.
ANY company out there, if they see stuff that even VAGUELY lies within the
realm of near possibility that it RESEMBLES their own work, they WILL go after
you. Period.
That said, Sometimes it is not within their collective interest to do so. No
mystery here.
>
> > > As long as the use is commentary, you do.
> >
> > Several internet sites have recently received injunctions against
> > use of copyrighted material -- which they were using as commentary.
> > They had even attributed the original source and explicitly noted
> > it as discussion and fair use.
> >
> > The infringed parties were the New York Times and the LA Times.
> >
> > It would seem that the courts disagree with you.
> >
um if a newspaper uses this type of material, ie reproduced copyrighted stuff,
then they are looking for it. maybe just wanting attention, but certainly
looking to attract a crowd.-- 'who the media?' -- ya i know surprising.
>
> > > Especially if
> > > the source images are not recognizable. An example of this in art is
> > using
> > > images from advertising or pornography. Look at Lichenstein's comic
> > book
not recognizable? -- then whats the prob?
>
> > > art - mostly old serialized comic art that he subtly changed, made
> > larger,
> > > and changed some of the emphasis around.
> >
> > Please note that I said one could use it as reference but not
> > mechanically reproduce it. The material you reference above was
> > not mechanically reproduced.
> >
> > > The other element is that in order
> > > to sue, you have to prove damages.
> >
incorrect. if you are disney, you dont have to prove much.
>
> > Easy. He didn't pay for the use of the copyrighted images.
> >
> > > An unknown artist with no money is not
> > > exactly a suitable target for a lawsuit.
> >
> > Nonsense. The sites I mentioned above didn't make a dime from the
> > material in any sense. many companies will sue simply to make an
> > example of someone. Disney does it all the time.
> >
Great minds....the basic law here is that if some big company comes after you,
you can do one of three things, well four but im not counting taking off.
1. apply for a job with the suing company.(make sure you will make more a year
than they are suing for)
2. drop the project immediately. Never look at it again, or at least dont
have an exhibit with the work on the front easle. or wall. or whatever.
3. tell them no one lives here by that name.
3. tell them to talk to your lawyer. pay the lawyer fees to find out you have
one of the above options available to you, and then hang yourself shortly
after because you should have remembered this.
>
> > > When someone sells sculptures
> > > based on a photograph for several hundred thousand dollars, then there
> > is a
> > > good reason to go after them.
> >
> > You couldn't win a case as mentioned above. Not to mention it being
> > unlikely anyone would sell sculpture for the price mentioned :P
> >
> > > The skill of the artist is not the question.
> >
> > Red Herring.
> >
ah yes.
>
> > > The motive of the artist is.
> >
> > Nope. The only question is whether there was infringment. The fact
> > that the person made no immediate profit isn't much relevant.
> >
BINGO...almost. 'immediate'?-- that part confused me. beyond that tho, you
got it on the money. if there is proof that the [victim]company suffered at
all, through clients being mislead, straight up confusion, OR loss in profit,
whatever. obviously every company cares if they lost money over the incident,
but they will word it appropriately enough to get the money they want. there
are no precedents, no matter what they [the courts] say.
>
> > > And it really, really helps to have a smoking gun.
> >
> > His own words would convict him.
> >
> > >
> > > > > So I would defy you to find any news photographer who could
> > recognize
> > > > > his/her imagery in my own work. For that matter I would defy you
> > to
> > > > find
> > > > > a lawyer or court of law who would sue me for such a ridiculous
> > claim.
anyone that thought it was in their best interests. thats it.
>
> > > >
> > > > One story: the woman who won 3 million from McDonalds because *she*
> > > > spilled coffee she bought in her lap.
> > >
> > > Urban legend.
>
nope, true.
> >
> > CaCa. An "urban legend" is something which has little to no truth.
> > The award was reduced to around 900K on appeal, last I heard.
> >
> > > The case was significantly reduced on appeal and setttled -
> > > that probably could have been reduced to near nothing by tying it up
> > in the
> > > courts long enough - The problem was that McDs corporate culture
> > doesn't
> > > like negative publicity of any kind - look how relatively
> > enviro-friendly
> > > they are compared to the other chains... They don't use rainforest
> > beef,
> > > paper containers, etc...
> >
> > Red Herring... and dumb as well.
> >
ah yes....OH but the mcdonalds thing is true....and as a DIRECT result of this
nonsensical 'enviro-Mcd's', I must retire....
>
> > McDonalds isn't "enviro-friendly," they're simply pandering to
> > the dull leftists who like to think they are being environmentally
> > something-or-other.
> >
> > Styrofoam takes a lot longer to decompose than does paper and it's
> > more costly to produce.
> >
> > There is no such thing as "rain forest beef". This is akin to saying
> > that you won't drink water from a certain part of a lake.
> >
oh ok, you brought it back. whew. on a final note on that, you know why they
can call it 100% pure beef? -- ya you probably do, if you dont like them as
much as you sound
cheers,.
>
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Designer
Gatornetworkz -- DWM
Toronto, Canada
tomi...@hotmail.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>I believe this occurs because fractals are so varied, well colored and
> >>composed and contain mind boggling detail. This challenges their
much
> >>more interesting and obviously superior to most modern crap,
> >>especially theirs.
why fractals; is there anyone left looking at them?
female parts of the body are seeming to be much more interesting &
superior compared to 'em among people.
maybe this is the highest form of art ever known for us (what we know
now)and always will be (as long as you consider pictures and art are
the same).
> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
both had "original" ideas (that they reflected to their works pretty
well). computers have no ideas and can't generate nothing itselves.
> I love visual tricks. However when a famous painting is judged solely
> by its signature and is little more than an imitatable pattern I
> believe we are dealing with PR hyped crap.
as in art;we don't buy the work, we buy the work from a specific artist
who have his mind of own;whether we understand it or not. you never
know where those guys are, for example with LSD your seeing ability
changes totally. anyone sees the same works same way than the others.
it could be totally different to see what you're looking for if you
dont understand it.
PR hyped crap sucks you're right, but that's the fault of _artists_ or
stupid people having tv-shop-mentality. just like alexandra nechita
with all her 990$, 1290$ 2490$ prints of dozens of prints..
unfortenately many artists are selling out for $ instead of going
further/ studying more.
> Most Modern Academic Art is an expression of natural stupidity which
> at this time is unable to compete with the computer image.
>>I might add that computer generated designs can mimic the styles of
> >>most hard edge and average schmierer garbage at phenomenal rates.
no it can't. perhaps the way it looks like but not what it is. that's
the difference.
burnin...@my-deja.com
~Artist~ <matt...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Press is Press
>
> Mattison
>
:P
Mattison's work is aptly described as a "well-used butcher's apron."
You're welcome, mattie-dear :P
Robin Lawrie
p.b. <p_...@usa.net> wrote in message news:37b57f38...@news.tin.it...
>
> Interesting and largely acceptable point of view. I find useful the
> analogy with photography: you can consider a photo as piece of art,
> but you can not say (or implicitly suggest) "I painted it!". So
> fractals, and more generally computer graphics, will surely develop
> new kinds of art, but usually they seem to have little to share with
> vs computer - for example I often "paint" with computer and graphic
> tablet) but the kind of mental processes, and consequently the
> "skills", involved.
I found that knowing what to chuck out when doing a bunch of fractals, is
half the job. A pic might look so-so, even after hours, days of work, colour
selection, filtering, and rendering, but if it doesn't work it doesn't work,
so out it goes. Sure, fractal generation is accessible art, but why does
that make it a bad thing? It's not everyone's cup of tea, but for those of
us who do like it, it is addictive and satisfying.
A friend of mine had a stroke recently, and had trouble dealing/handling her
usual brush and charcoal. She got real depressed and shut down, thinking
that well that was that wrt art creation. I got her onto fractals and she
went crazy for about two weeks, loving the way that with only a couple of
mouse clicks she could still express what was happening in her head in a
different medium. Like pulling the plug <g>. It was a good thing.
Anyway. One other thing I like about these fractals is that it's dragging a
lot of science types into new ways of looking at their work. Exercise the
other half of the brain <g>.
Robin
mdeli
>In article <37b6ef12...@news.psi.ca>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
>
>both had "original" ideas (that they reflected to their works pretty
>well). computers have no ideas and can't generate nothing itselves.
Name one. Bet he can't.
>> Most Modern Academic Art is an expression of natural stupidity which
>> at this time is unable to compete with the computer image.
>>>I might add that computer generated designs can mimic the styles of
>> >>most hard edge and average schmierer garbage at phenomenal rates.
>
>no it can't. perhaps the way it looks like but not what it is. that's
>the difference.
>
What's that supposed to mean?
Chris
mdeli wrote:
>
> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
Pollock's spattering paintings were extremely successful, (I believe) in no small
part due to a 'perceptual trick' - the tendency of the human subconscious to impose
order on random (or chaotic) events. He was, in a sense, deliberately forcing the
viewer into constructing the painting.
Cheers;
Chris
Charles Eicher
>
>On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:55:18 GMT, tomi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <37b6ef12...@news.psi.ca>,
>>well). computers have no ideas and can't generate nothing itselves.
>
>Name one. Bet he can't.
Sure I can, its easy. But I have forgotten the precise scientific name for the
phenomenon, so I haven't posted about it yet. It has some name like "The
Smith-Jones effect" but the names were a lot harder to remember, some odd pair
of polysylabic European names..
In particular, Mondrian used a phenomenon you can see if you draw a square grid
of white lines on a black field. You will notice little grey blurs forming in
the corners, but only the corners you are NOT looking directly at. When you
notice a grey blur, and move your eyes to look at it, the blur disappears, and
reappears at some other place where you're not looking.
This phenomenon was extensively described in a book called "Image, Object and
Illusion" which is a reprint of articles from Scientific American magazine on
the topic of perceptual psychology. This effect is described elsewhere, in about
any basic book on optical illusions, but that's where I first read about it in
scientific detail. I would have posted in more detail if I could refresh my
memory, but I can't find my darn book.
Mondrian made extensive use of this illusion in an interesting way, his grids of
colored lines against colored fields makes for a dynamic effect. The areas
you're NOT looking at do weird things to the areas you ARE looking at. It
affects the color and contrast of these areas, and pulls your eye around the
painting. It is a quite sophisticated effect. From descriptions by witnesses of
Mondrian's working technique, he constantly made miniscule adjustments of the
width and placement of colored lines on his canvases, to fine-tune this effect.
Charles Eicher
>
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
>
>small
>part due to a 'perceptual trick' - the tendency of the human subconscious to
>impose
>order on random (or chaotic) events. He was, in a sense, deliberately forcing
>the
>viewer into constructing the painting.
Yep, this effect is commonly known as "The Edison Effect." Its named after
Thomas Edison, you know, the lightbulb and all that.
Edison was a real goofball, he used to hold seances, he thought he could hear
voices from beyond the grave in the static of a radio receiver. It took quite a
while to debunk this, people really believed it, and it took considerable
research in psychology to get to the bottom of the effect. Thus, the natural
tendency for the human brain to recognize patterns in randomness was named after
Edison's delusion. Sometimes I am fooled by the same effect; sometimes I think I
hear the telephone ringing when I'm in the shower. I'm tricked by the whitenoise
of the water. But this only happens when I'm expecting a phone call.
But this isn't the primary trick Pollock uses. I'd have to cite specific
paintings, and its pretty hard to get people to follow your logic when the
painting you're citing is called "Untitled."
But all this begs the question. I'll make one flat assertion:
ALL painting IS perceptual trickery.
Jim
>
>Computer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
>involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
>
Andy Warhol painted a Campells' Soup tin which he neither had a hand
in designing the label nor any input into the manufacture of the soup.
Art sometimes is not the process of original creation, but draws the
viewers' attention to a particular thing or concept.
I see no reason why Fractals cannot be considered a part of art now,
or in the future.
Jim
"Don't know much about art, but I know what I like"
tomi...@hotmail.com
j_thu...@hotmail.com (Jim) wrote:
>
> >
> >Computer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
> >involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
> >
>
> Andy Warhol painted a Campells' Soup tin which he neither had a hand
> in designing the label nor any input into the manufacture of the soup.
>
> Art sometimes is not the process of original creation, but draws the
> viewers' attention to a particular thing or concept.
>
> I see no reason why Fractals cannot be considered a part of art now,
> or in the future.
>
i think walhol's art seemed to be more in his theories to make art from
crap rather than making a "tin" that is a artwork.
if you consider fractals as art everything can be considered as art.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> if you consider fractals as art everything can be considered as art.
>
Mountain ranges are fractals - many paintings of them are 'just' paintings
of fractals. This doesn't make them non-art.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Charles Eicher
>
>In article <7pdnrq$euu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> tomi...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>>
>> if you consider fractals as art everything can be considered as art.
>>
>Mountain ranges are fractals - many paintings of them are 'just' paintings
>of fractals. This doesn't make them non-art.
Mountain ranges are definitely not fractals, although there are some fractal
constructions that are visually similar to mountains.
If I push a button on my computer to generate a fractal, that is not art. If I
take that image, look at it, and interpret it with a painting done with my own
hand, that IS art. The same goes for your lame analogy of a painting of
mountains.
Peter H.M. Brooks
cei...@inav.net "Charles Eicher" writes:
> >> if you consider fractals as art everything can be considered as art.
> >>
> >Mountain ranges are fractals - many paintings of them are 'just' paintings
> >of fractals. This doesn't make them non-art.
>
> Mountain ranges are definitely not fractals, although there are some fractal
> constructions that are visually similar to mountains.
>
They are fractals. If you take a mountain range, and analyse it as a curve,
you will find that it has self-similarity and a fractal dimension, in other
words, it is a fractal.
>
> If I push a button on my computer to generate a fractal, that is not art. If I
> take that image, look at it, and interpret it with a painting done with my own
> hand, that IS art. The same goes for your lame analogy of a painting of
> mountains.
>
It isn't a 'lame analogy', it isn't an analogy at all. When you paint a
mountain range, you are painting a fractal, it is simply a fact.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
To be in process of change is not an evil, any more than to be the
product of change is a good.
- Marcus Aurelius.
Chris
Charles Eicher wrote:
[..interesting stuff on "Edison Effect" snipped...]
> But this isn't the primary trick Pollock uses. I'd have to cite specific
> paintings, and its pretty hard to get people to follow your logic when the
> painting you're citing is called "Untitled."
>
LOL; but if you do have some pointers, I'd be glad to try & follow the logic...
>
> But all this begs the question. I'll make one flat assertion:
>
> ALL painting IS perceptual trickery.
Won't argue with that one!
Cheers;
Chris
burnin...@my-deja.com
j_thu...@hotmail.com (Jim) wrote:
>
> >
> >Computer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no "art"
> >involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
> >
>
> Andy Warhol painted a Campells' Soup tin which he neither had a hand
> in designing the label nor any input into the manufacture of the soup.
Yeah? OK?
>
> Art sometimes is not the process of original creation, but draws the
> viewers' attention to a particular thing or concept.
Yeah? OK?
>
> I see no reason why Fractals cannot be considered a part of art now,
> or in the future.
You have to right to consider anything you wish to be "art".
And, by your parameters, almost everything is.
>
> Jim
> "Don't know much about art, but I know what I like"
>
>
Chris
A good deal of the argument here seems to center on just what is, and is not, a
fractal. So to muddy the water further, I'll add my own 0.02 dollarettes...
What you get when you push buttons on your computer is no more a fractal than a
round circle with two dots in the upper half and an upward turning arc in the lower
half is Mani. They are just representations, i.e projections of the real thing into
two dimensions.
Similarly, when one says a mountain range is (or is not) a fractal, one is saying as
much (if not more) about the concept of measurement used in analysing the mountain
range as about the mountain range itself.
The question of whether fractals can be used as art (to me) seems to depend quite
heavily on this. If one only considers the affects achievable by simplistic computer
programs, I'd agree that fractal analysis, at least w/r to art as more than
decoration, is a dead end.
OTOH, if one considers them in their proper scientific formulation - the analysis of
of objects in a system that allows fractional dimensions, rather than one restricted
to the more common whole number dimensions - then why not? It becomes a question of
how far science can go in influencing art - or even human perception. Looking at
history I'd say it can go quite far, though it often takes a long time for ideas
from one field to percolate over to the other.
Cheers;
Chris
>
Charles Eicher
>
>In article <7pdsi9$2h...@edrn.newsguy.com>
> cei...@inav.net "Charles Eicher" writes:
>
>> >> if you consider fractals as art everything can be considered as art.
>> >>
>> >Mountain ranges are fractals - many paintings of them are 'just' paintings
>> >of fractals. This doesn't make them non-art.
>>
>> Mountain ranges are definitely not fractals, although there are some fractal
>> constructions that are visually similar to mountains.
>>
>They are fractals. If you take a mountain range, and analyse it as a curve,
>you will find that it has self-similarity and a fractal dimension, in other
>words, it is a fractal.
You are really weak on this whole basic fractal theory, I don't know why I
bother arguing with your outrageously incorrect statements. But I am willing to
be convinced. Please provide some evidence. This should be easy, since you
assert that all mountain ranges are fractals.
Please go to your local mountain range, and select a site. Let me know the
precise latitude and longitude of the location. and I'll get a USGS digital
elevation map to assist in the analysis of the curve. Please get a hammer, and
knock off a piece of rock from the surface of the mountain, note its location,
and send it to me. I'll analyze it, and determine if any part of the curve is
self-similar to the mountain range.
Please submit two copies of your evidence, in case you are correct. That way, I
can submit a copy to the Nobel Prize committee, on the off-chance that you have
proven something that is physically impossible.
>>If I push a button on my computer to generate a fractal, that is not art. If I
>>take that image, look at it, and interpret it with a painting done with my own
>> hand, that IS art. The same goes for your lame analogy of a painting of
>> mountains.
>>
>It isn't a 'lame analogy', it isn't an analogy at all. When you paint a
>mountain range, you are painting a fractal, it is simply a fact.
You seem to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between your opinions and
facts.
If I paint a picture of a mountain, I'm creating an image based on my sensory
impressions of a mountain, my mental imagery of mountains, and everything
contained in my memory about mountains. Fractals don't have anything to do with
it.
mdeli
>>mdeli wrote:
>>> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
>Yep, this effect is commonly known as "The Edison Effect." Its named after
>Thomas Edison, you know, the lightbulb
>large snip
>But this isn't the primary trick Pollock uses.
so why the lecture?
> I'd have to cite specific
>paintings, and its pretty hard to get people to follow your logic when the
>painting you're citing is called "Untitled."
Especially when you have nothing to say on the matter at hand.
>
>But all this begs the question. I'll make one flat assertion:
>
>ALL painting IS perceptual trickery.
Not if it looks like nothing more than paint on canvas as does
Pollock. By your reasoning every mark on a surface is perceptual
trickery. However some is more tricky than others. Dali's double
images are an example.
As I said many times here whatever Mondrian did it isn't any more
visually interesting than a patch quilt or a towel design.
Economically speaking both artists are somewhat interesting.
mdeli
wrote:
(mdeli) wrote:
>>
>>>> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
>>>
>>>well). computers have no ideas and can't generate nothing itselves.
>>
>>Name one. Bet he can't.
>
>Sure I can, its easy. But I have forgotten the precise scientific name for the
>phenomenon, so I haven't posted about it yet. It has some name like "The
>Smith-Jones effect" but the names were a lot harder to remember, some odd pair
>of polysylabic European names..
This doesn't say beans. What a blow-bag you are.
>In particular, Mondrian used a phenomenon you can see if you draw a square grid
>of white lines on a black field. You will notice little grey blurs forming in
>the corners, but only the corners you are NOT looking directly at.
I presume this is a perceptual trick worthy of museum recognition.
>notice a grey blur, and move your eyes to look at it, the blur disappears, and
>reappears at some other place where you're not looking.
>This phenomenon was extensively described in a book called "Image, Object and
>Illusion" which is a reprint of articles from Scientific American magazine on
>the topic of perceptual psychology. This effect is described elsewhere, in about
>any basic book on optical illusions, but that's where I first read about it in
>scientific detail. I would have posted in more detail if I could refresh my
>memory, but I can't find my darn book.
Lucky us
>
>Mondrian made extensive use of this illusion in an interesting way, his grids of
>colored lines against colored fields makes for a dynamic effect.
What's a Dynamic effect?"
>The areas
>you're NOT looking at do weird things to the areas you ARE looking at.
Weird things?
>It
>affects the color and contrast of these areas, and pulls your eye around the
>painting. It is a quite sophisticated effect.
Wonder if this dolt ever looked at bath towels in Walmart.
> From descriptions by witnesses of
>Mondrian's working technique, he constantly made miniscule adjustments of the
>width and placement of colored lines on his canvases, to fine-tune this effect.
Its called the "emperor's new clothes" effect
From my book:
Mondrian's paintings are a bore a focal point of intellectual kitsch.
Credited with an unbending devotion to the mystique of "practically
nothing", Mondrian has inspired larger effusions of vacuous babble
than any other MAA (Modern Academic Art) practitioner. No worthy MAA
critic can fail his capability to justify Mondrian at length. Mondrian
is to MAA critics, what the nude was for the Academics. If you can
draw the nude well, an academic feels, you can draw just about
anything. If you can justify Mondrian, you can do it with just about
anybody.
Like the Pythagorean theorem in mathematics, Mondrian's works provide
classical practice problems for the art student and MAA critic. There
is no student of Academic Abstraction who has not been trained to say
something about the marvels of this master. Mondrian, is in fact not
really a painter, he is a problem. Most fashionable intellectuals
are convinced that Mondrian's brand of minimality contains a hidden
essence totally beyond ordinary explanation. Critics are certain that
his composition exemplifies the quintessence of utter perfection.
His painting "Boogy-Woogy" certainly stands out as it contains about
ten colors, a record for Mondrian. It is more complex then all his
former works put together. Judging from the work that preceded it, one
can only conclude that it must also have taken many years of planning.
It has provoked many theories about what all these rectangles mean.
Some scholarly interpretations are, City buildings, stops on subway
maps, post boxes, it is all supposed to be a portrait of New York
City.
Intellectuals who feel that Picasso discovered the cube generally
concur that it was Mondrian who dissected matters one step further.
The cube itself is made up of even more elemental straight lines.
Along with insights into the forth and sometimes even the fifth
dimension, a few people even credit Mondrian with the actual discovery
of the straight line. Even more critics agree that it was Mondrian who
actually discovered the true significance of the straight line,
whatever that means. The reason so much has been written about all
this significance, is that no one can quite explain it. But critics
assume that Mondrian, understood all this better then anyone.
Few can deny that Mondrian can leave an uninitiated onlooker
speechless. After all, what is there to really say here? Mondrian's
paintings can not be accused of bad drawing, they contain no
subject-matter, no color and no story. They are all quite pristine and
inoffensive. Mondrian has created a perfect vehicle for non-sensible
criticism and has managed to entirely insulate himself from sensible
criticism. He is the envy of many of today's painters.
Dali whose goofs on our idiotic Modern Academic critics kept his
statements to a minimum here. He best summed up Mondrian in his
MINIMAL comment "Piet Niet."
Chris
Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>
> You are really weak on this whole basic fractal theory, I don't know why I
> bother arguing with your outrageously incorrect statements. But I am willing to
> be convinced. Please provide some evidence. This should be easy, since you
> assert that all mountain ranges are fractals.
Charles;
Before you go off half-cocked, you might want to do a little quiet research on Hurst
exponents,etc.
A common way of estimating fractal dimension is carried out by sequentially
reducing the basic size (length, area, weight, whatever) of the measuring tool, and
seeing how that affects the resulting estimate. I am aware of such work w/r to
ice-sheet strength, cloud formation, and turbulent fluid flow in pipes; Mandelbrot's
books mentionned the fractal dimensions of beaches or coastlines, etc. Why not
mountains? When you say that they are not fractal you are then stating positively
that their Hurst exponent is integral.
Whether or not the mountain range has a fractional dimensionalty is not really
relevant to whether or not it exists. Your awareness of that issue though could
easily affect the way in which you percieve it, just as the awareness of
3-dimensional analysis or central persepective might.
Cheers;
Chris
Charles Eicher
>
>On 17 Aug 1999 19:02:01 -0700, Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net>
>wrote:
> (mdeli) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Describe a perceptual trick in Mondrian or Pollock.
>>>>
>>>>both had "original" ideas (that they reflected to their works pretty
>>>>well). computers have no ideas and can't generate nothing itselves.
>>>
>>>Name one. Bet he can't.
>>
>>Sure I can, its easy. But I have forgotten the precise scientific name for the
>>phenomenon, so I haven't posted about it yet. It has some name like "The
>>Smith-Jones effect" but the names were a lot harder to remember, some odd pair
>>of polysylabic European names..
>
>This doesn't say beans.
You are, for the very first time, correct. This paragraph merely indicates why I
hadn't yet responded, for lack of a proper scientific term.
>>In particular, Mondrian used a phenomenon you can see if you draw a square grid
>>of white lines on a black field. You will notice little grey blurs forming in
>>the corners, but only the corners you are NOT looking directly at.
>
>I presume this is a perceptual trick worthy of museum recognition.
This is a perceptual trick worthy of study in Mondrian's works (and in the works
of other artists).
>>Mondrian made extensive use of this illusion in an interesting way, his grids of
>>colored lines against colored fields makes for a dynamic effect.
>
>What's a Dynamic effect?"
I merely mean that the effect works actively on the viewer, rather than just
being an effect you passively observe. If you view the painting, you could not
avoid being influenced by the effect. Its wired into your brain.
I did manage to locate a sample image on the web:
http://www.infinet.com/~mike/dots.html
This image is inverted from the usual way I see it reproduced, squares of black
ink on a printed page. But I suppose this works better on a CRT image. I shall
have to investigate this effect.
>>The areas
>>you're NOT looking at do weird things to the areas you ARE looking at.
>
>Weird things?
>
>>It
>>affects the color and contrast of these areas, and pulls your eye around the
>>painting. It is a quite sophisticated effect.
Those are the "weird things" I was referring to. I need to go find the research
articles, as I've forgotten the technical details of the effect, its pretty
obscure. But anyone can see the optical illusion. Hmm.. or maybe thay can't.
Sometimes I think people can't see the effect in a reproduction of a Mondrian
painting, because of the change of scale in the smaller reproductions. I was
disappointed at some recent reproductions in the catalog for the recent Mondrian
retrospective. Some of the paintings that I'm well familiar with from personal
viewing, just did not work as photographs.
>> From descriptions by witnesses of
>>Mondrian's working technique, he constantly made miniscule adjustments of the
>>width and placement of colored lines on his canvases, to fine-tune this effect.
>
>Its called the "emperor's new clothes" effect
Its called, the "someone who knows what he wants to express in his paintings"
effect. He knew what he was doing, even if you don't understand it.
Charles Eicher <ceicher
>
>
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You are really weak on this whole basic fractal theory, I don't know why I
>>bother arguing with your outrageously incorrect statements. But I am willing to
>> be convinced. Please provide some evidence. This should be easy, since you
>> assert that all mountain ranges are fractals.
>
>Charles;
>
>Before you go off half-cocked, you might want to do a little quiet research on
>Hurst
>exponents,etc.
>
>A common way of estimating fractal dimension is carried out by sequentially
>reducing the basic size (length, area, weight, whatever) of the measuring tool,
>and
>seeing how that affects the resulting estimate. I am aware of such work w/r to
>ice-sheet strength, cloud formation, and turbulent fluid flow in pipes;
>Mandelbrot's
>books mentionned the fractal dimensions of beaches or coastlines, etc. Why not
>mountains? When you say that they are not fractal you are then stating
>positively
>that their Hurst exponent is integral.
Yes, I did the math, I know all about it. Perhaps this is just a religious
dispute. I think the universe is irreducibly complex but not in the manner you
describe..
>Whether or not the mountain range has a fractional dimensionalty is not really
>relevant to whether or not it exists. Your awareness of that issue though could
>easily affect the way in which you percieve it, just as the awareness of
>3-dimensional analysis or central persepective might.
As I said, I absolutely don't see the universe in your way, when I look at a
mountain range and make an artwork from its visual appearance.
Ray Girvan
> ironic =) everyone (even my rabbit) can press a button and
> create 10000 pieces of fractals ...
It would clarify the discussion to dispense with this "you just press
a button" fantasy that always crops up when people want to diminish
the skill and/or creativity involved in work with computers.
For even the simplest kind of fractal exploration, I think
there's a close analogy with photography. Like capturing a scene by
camera, one step is "just pressing a button". If that were all, any
photographer could be Ansel Adams. The skill lies in deciding where and when.
I think it puts it more into perspective to consider fractal
work this way, as photography of mathematical objects. Some
photography I'd consider art; some not. The distinction is in the
intention, not the medium.
Ray
--
ray.g...@zetnet.co.uk +++ Technical Author +++ Topsham, Devon, UK
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rgirvan/ +++ The Apothecary's Drawer
Tony Roberts
>In article <37B2ECAF...@ns.sympatico.ca>,
> Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > IComputer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no
>"art"
>> > involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
>
>Please post the next fractal you make without using a computer &
>software. We'd all like to see it.
Easy. See my photographs of lego fractals at
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/~robertsa/legofracs.html
Others have also shown original thought to fold fractals out of paper
(though it is typically the edges that are then fractal).
Tony
--
Professor A.J. Roberts E-mail: arob...@usq.edu.au
University of Southern Queensland Phone: (07) 4631 2943
Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 Fax: (07) 4631 2721
AUSTRALIA http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/~robertsa/home.html
con...@inow.com
> relevant to whether or not it exists. Your awareness of that issue though could
> easily affect the way in which you percieve it, just as the awareness of
> 3-dimensional analysis or central persepective might.
>
Chris, FYI, "Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws", Manfred Schroeder,
W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York, 1991, ISBN
0-7167-2136-8, pp. 135-137 uses a fractal surface dimension of D = 2.5
and 3.5 for mountains. A power spectrum of f^-2.8, giving D = 2.1
seems nice, IMHO, (but I'm from New Mexico, and you might like your
mountains smoother.) There are plates.
John
BTW, a couple of years ago, there was a mountain-scape generator
floating around the Linux community-it drew a moving landscape in the
X-Windows background. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the program.
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688, FAX 408.379.9602, whois '!JC154'
con...@inow.com, http://www2.inow.com/~conover/john.html
~Artist~
Peter H.M. Brooks
cei...@inav.net "Charles Eicher" writes:
> >They are fractals. If you take a mountain range, and analyse it as a curve,
> >you will find that it has self-similarity and a fractal dimension, in other
> >words, it is a fractal.
>
>You are really weak on this whole basic fractal theory, I don't know why I
>bother arguing with your outrageously incorrect statements. But I am willing to
>be convinced. Please provide some evidence. This should be easy, since you
>assert that all mountain ranges are fractals.
>
It is, though your one about rocks won't work. You are getting confused
about platonic functions and their representation in the world. When I
say that the wheel of a car is a circle (or a cylindrical prism to be
more accurate), I am pointing out that it is a real instance of the
ideal of a circle. You could easily prove that it was not a platonic
circle as you couldn't measure it arbitarily precisely. This is your
point about mountain ranges.
To be sensible, though, a mountain range is a representation of a fractal
curve in the same way that a motorcar tyre is a representation of a
cylindrical prism.
Happy now?
>
>If I paint a picture of a mountain, I'm creating an image based on my sensory
>impressions of a mountain, my mental imagery of mountains, and everything
>contained in my memory about mountains. Fractals don't have anything to do with
>it.
>
Yes, they do. The shape of the horizon above the mountain range is a fractal -
if you measure it with a theodolyte from 10 km, 5 km and 1 km, you will
find the self-similarity that is a characteristic of fractals. Just as
you will if you measure a coastline.
Peter H.M. Brooks
bro...@ns.sympatico.ca "Chris" writes:
>
> A common way of estimating fractal dimension is carried out by sequentially
> reducing the basic size (length, area, weight, whatever) of the measuring tool,
> and
> seeing how that affects the resulting estimate. I am aware of such work w/r to
> ice-sheet strength, cloud formation, and turbulent fluid flow in pipes;
> Mandelbrot's
> books mentionned the fractal dimensions of beaches or coastlines, etc. Why not
> mountains? When you say that they are not fractal you are then stating
> positively
> that their Hurst exponent is integral.
>
He is actually making the undergraduate point that all of the example you
mention are applications of fractals to reality, not idealised mathematical
fractals.
Boring, but, I suppose that somebody has to do it!
>Whether or not the mountain range has a fractional dimensionalty is not really
>relevant to whether or not it exists. Your awareness of that issue though could
>easily affect the way in which you percieve it, just as the awareness of
>3-dimensional analysis or central persepective might.
>
I have found that understanding the fractal nature of both natural objects,
like mountain ranges, and music has given me a delightful insight into
the relationship between them. It has also helped me understand what
synaesthesia would be like, to some extent.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Chris, FYI, "Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws", Manfred Schroeder,
> W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York, 1991, ISBN
> 0-7167-2136-8, pp. 135-137 uses a fractal surface dimension of D = 2.5
> and 3.5 for mountains. A power spectrum of f^-2.8, giving D = 2.1
> seems nice, IMHO, (but I'm from New Mexico, and you might like your
> mountains smoother.) There are plates.
>
Thank you!
>
>
> BTW, a couple of years ago, there was a mountain-scape generator
> floating around the Linux community-it drew a moving landscape in the
> X-Windows background. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the program.
>
I think that I saw that, it was very good.
Amit Raam
[..]
>A friend of mine had a stroke recently, and had trouble dealing/handling her
>usual brush and charcoal. She got real depressed and shut down, thinking
>that well that was that wrt art creation. I got her onto fractals and she
>went crazy for about two weeks, loving the way that with only a couple of
>mouse clicks she could still express what was happening in her head in a
>different medium. Like pulling the plug <g>. It was a good thing.
Ah, but here's the question: in what way is it expressing what's going in her
head? what creative input can she put in, and how intentional are the results?
Amit Raam
Email address: raama at indigo.co.il
--------------------------------------------------
".sigless and proud of it" (R) (C) (tm) (look-and-feel)
burnin...@my-deja.com
arob...@usq.edu.au (Tony Roberts) wrote:
> In article <7p1kpm$6ra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, burnin...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
> >In article <37B2ECAF...@ns.sympatico.ca>,
> > Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > IComputer programs generate fractals. Not people. There is no
> >"art"
> >> > involved. Even though they are decorative and interesting.
> >
> >Please post the next fractal you make without using a computer &
> >software. We'd all like to see it.
>
> Easy. See my photographs of lego fractals at
> http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/~robertsa/legofracs.html
Well, I suppose one could make a technical case for the displayed
work being a fractal.
I assume you know that while it might technically be a fractal,
it was neither decorative or interesting, and I'm not saying
that to be snotty.
Let me further define my statement, please feel free to show us
the next fractal you make without using a computer which is
decorative and interesting. Legos don't quite cut it.
Chris
"Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, I did the math, I know all about it. Perhaps this is just a religious
> dispute. I think the universe is irreducibly complex but not in the manner you
> describe..
>
> As I said, I absolutely don't see the universe in your way, when I look at a
> mountain range and make an artwork from its visual appearance.
I can certainly agree that this is pretty much a religious dispute (and similarly for
the rest); I can also take the hint & get off the evangelical stump :)
Cheers;
Chris
PS - the followups have been set to only rec.arts.fine
Kerry Mitchell
contexts, it seems to me that fractals are shapes. Just as a circle or a
square can be art, so can a fractal. Just as neither a circle nor a
square exactly represent reality, neither does a fractal.
Kerry
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
lkm...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mdeli
wrote:
>If I paint a picture of a mountain, I'm creating an image based on my sensory
>impressions of a mountain, my mental imagery of mountains, and everything
>contained in my memory about mountains. Fractals don't have anything to do with
>it.
>
Right EIcher.
When I gererate a computer image in Fractint do fractals have anything
to do with it? If the image is appealing to the viewer is the original
cause a result of a fractals? Is it a crime to call the screen image
created in Fractint a fractal?
As I said:
Fractals are infinitely more interesting then most all Modern Academic
art. Whether or not fractals are art is undecidable and irrelevant.
I have large collections of fractals and often show them to assorted
guests. The most interesting reaction comes from Artzy fartzies as I
find that most are unable to look at any sort of detail and that for
the most part they find fractals offensive.
I believe this occurs because fractals are so varied, well colored and
composed and contain mind boggling detail. This challenges their
cherished faith in modern abstraction as the fractal image is so much
more interesting and obviously superior to most modern crap,
especially theirs.
mdeli
snip
>Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
>encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
>beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
Yes indeed Webber!!!
I definitely noticed two very large blue ass holes in a Pollock.
Anyone can obviously see these if he squints hard enough and squeezes
his imagination.
In fact I'm sure anyone with your vast sensitivity and scholarly
superiority could even manage see the figures that these anatomical
parts were attached to. I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive
clod like me could get no deeper.
~Artist~
So do the Artists in Silly Con Valley.
Several people in the news groups are complaining that I have not
updated my site in a couple of years. This is because I have been
recovering from a sever car accident (last in a series of 4 over a 6
year period - none my fault). Essentially, over the last 6 years, I have
been in many stages of recovery at one point or another. I am happy
just to be walking, let alone painting after the last accident. I was
badly injured and the trauma has caused some sever health concerns
which I am still battling.
Also during that period a Yuppie rather, Silly Con Valley Con Artist
tried to steal my entire art collection and extort capital from my
businesses. I have been very busy dealing with those issues and
trying to return my health to some form of normal function on top of
being in the first 5 years of start up on two small business which I
started with 600.00 earned from my art.
The Con - - You will be happy to note I picked her off before much
was lost and made a grand off her while I was at it. The collection
and more is safe and sound. You will also be happy to know that I
also resuced other businesses from the con-idiot. She had many
people fooled from the Mayors Office on down in San Jose.
Of course it is the rowdy Artist who picks the Con off, more power to
the radicals! I will keep you all posted on the con story as it evolves
and becomes more public knowledge.
Basically, I posted this because people complained that I did not
update the art on my site and because I had something important to
bring to lite. (What elese is new).
I hope sharing it will help other artists and business people avoid the
hassels cons in this valley can cause. There are way more - someone
called them 'Carpet Baggers' here now than ever before. I also hope
that some of the other art she stole makes it back to its rightful
owners - I know some of it belongs to an Austrailian Artist. As when
people steal artworks they are stealing your soul.
Yesterday, we added another very expensive security system to the
studio.
I was thinking,
Some sign of success,
I live in a ghetto and the poor people respect the art and I have to buy
a security system to keep the greedy insane yuppies out.
Back to the origianl intent of my post -
Those of you who want more art on my site, a wee bit is there now. I
will not put the entire collection up to share with the public until the
encryption is better and companies like Yahoo! stop promoting the
disempowerment of the arts by squatting on copyrights.
Also note, due to the accident and the con I was not able to paint for
many months and just sleeping was painful, let alone holding a bush
or sitting up straight.
My health still remains a challenge but I am much stronger lately and
currently working on a very large series for the Rain Forest Action
Network and have others in the planning stages. I am excited to
share them with you in the upcoming months.
Sorry, I could not keep my site as current as demand has asked.
For those of you who have asked -
New page on my site.
The works are mixed media from 1994 The are all COPYRIGHTED!
Get Out of the way YAHOO! talk about Squatters - Yaspew! takes
the copyrighted cake!!!!
http://www.rhinodev.com/M/799/BROCHURE799.html
If you would like a printed brochure that is a larger rendition of this
page, send your snail mail and I will forward you one. I will also
include the Sonoma Mendocino Artists Studio Tour Catalogue that
takes place on Sept 4 - 5 and Sept 11 - 12.
Other Events to note, I will discuss some of these topics with Paul
Rickie - KKUP Radio
Mattison Fitzgerald Artist Interview
KKUP 91.5 Radio
August 25th, 1999 with 6:30 pm - 7:30
With Paul Rickie Critic Art Radio
Mattison Fitzgerald Participates
Gualala Arts
7th Annual
Studio Discovery Tour
September 4th & 5th 7 and 11 & 12, 1999
Mendocino & Sonoma Counties from Sea Ranch to Elk
Complimentary Cat.alogue Available
(See Press Release for More information)
REDWOODS R 2 RAIN FORESTS!
More Art in the Redwoods....
Augusts End Summer 1999, Sea Ranch, CALIFORNIA, USA
Internationally recognized Artist Mattison Fitzgerald has been
working on the Sonoma-Mendocino coast since "she was a kid! My
first public exhibition was with 'Art in the Redwoods' when I was 16
years old. I had to compete with the adults then. Now, Art in the
Redwoods has a category for kids which is great." Since then,
Mattisons career has taken her around California and now into
national and international art arenas.
Early this summer you can find Mattison "painting
out" behind the Fitzgeralds' Sea Ranch home or tucked in behind the
rocks with her pastels along the coast or participating in the 1999
Studio Discovery Tour Labor Day Weekend in Sonoma and
Mendocino Counties located 2 hours North of the Golden Gate
Bridge on the California Coast.
Mattison Fitzgerald is starting a new series of large paintings on
redwoods trees this spring. She will finish the tree series just before
the California Sonoma Mendocino Counties 1999 Studio Discovery
Tour on Labor Day weekend September 4th and 5th and the
weekend of September 11 - 12 hours 10 am - 5pm. You are welcome
to stop by the Studio Discovery Tour either weekend and see what
she is working on. Mattisons work is also represented by Studio One
Gallery in Gualala among other galleries nationally and
internationally. Studio One will also be hosting a reception for their
artists the same weekend.
Fitzgeralds' sempervirens series about the trees is called 'Redwoods
R 2 Rain forests'. Fitzgerald commented "The redwood paintings
are dedicated to the people who have committed their lives to
fighting for the preservation of Redwood Trees. Especially the young
man David Gypsie Chain who was killed saving the trees for
everyone".
Fitzgerald hopes the paintings will be here for centuries to help raise
the awareness of the finite resource we have in the Redwood
Forests. Fitzgerald says "they are the rain forests of the northern
hemisphere and you are responsible for taking care of them. It is
important for Californians and everyone on the planet to stand up
for managed care of these and other important resources."
Mattison Fitzgerald has recently been included in the National
Museum of Women in the Arts Archives in Washington D.C. She has
also been included in Who's Who in America and recently Who's Who
in the World and featured with Womens Caucus for the Arts
Newsletter and the North Coast Artists Guild Newsletter. As well as
received recognition from the National Association of American
Penn Women and the Womens Fund of Silicon Valley and published
Nationally with Ashai Art Communications, Tokyo Japan.
Mattison said she "will donate a portion of the sales from these
redwood paintings to help aid the activists in support of their voice
in saving the environment." Mattison will with Rain Forest Action
Network and other environmental organizations promote this effort
and exhibit the paintings in San Francisco, San Jose and beyond in
2000.
Mattison Fitzgerald
Artist
http://www.rhinode.vcom/M
Ray Girvan
> Ray Girvan <ray.g...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> For even the simplest kind of fractal exploration, I think there's
>> a close analogy with photography. Like capturing a scene by
>> camera, one step is "just pressing a button". If that were all,
>> any photographer could be Ansel Adams.
> never heard before who he is, but my Zing player showed a
> landscape from him surprisingly with pressing reply button for
> this thread, wierd! ;) he rocks =)
I'm a great fan; a good site for seeing more of his work is the Fiat
Lux exhibition (http://www.book.uci.edu/AdamsHome.html). I mentioned
him because he's sufficiently acclaimed for there to be no doubt that
he was an artist; and because I think a lot of his work shows a
process in common with what fractal artists do. He sought out
distinctive structures and textures: the branching tips of a group of
young palm trees, spikes of Pampas grass, or the two whorled heads of
a lettuce cutting machine.
>> I think it puts it more into perspective to consider fractal work
>> this way, as photography of mathematical objects. Some
>> photography I'd consider art; some not. The distinction is in
>> the intention, not the medium.
> i can't make any rational decisions against my view of fractals
> because now i'm only backing myself on emotions of what i
> think that art is. Your view is more theoritical, i'm perhaps
> more "artist" (with big "'s) kind of a person (thinking more
> with psychological view). i believe people who know artists's
> high (when there's no space or time doing art, your hand moves
> freely and all you know is concentrating on work) or have strong
> "deep" processes to make works are more into their works
> than most of the photographers or computer graphicians who
> generate works with programs or effects ...
Understood. I appreciate that physical dexterity and concentration
are traditional elements in art. I can't pretend that dexterity has
any part in making fractals, but concentration certainly does; many
people do get lost for hours in searching for that particular image
or trying variants on a formula. As for creativity, I can only
recommend the fractal art of Sylvie Gallet, who 'paints' in
mathematical functions to tailor her fractals to intended forms.
> ps. if you want to see a computerpainting joint by Cat and me check out
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tomppa1/kuvat/US-BIO~1.JPG
> hope you fractalists like it :)
Yes; it's very dark and unpleasant. For comparison, check out;
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rgirvan/scorpion.gif
This is one of my fractal pieces, designed give an unpleasantly
'organic' object inspired by the Burgess Shale creatures. There's
probably about two weeks' work there: most of it to devise the
mathematical formula to 'breed' two fractal types that I thought
would give the biological feel I wanted (one called Lamda Sine for
the spikiness, the other called Newton for the symmetry and radial
structures). An evening or so was needed to experiment with
composition, and to design a colour palette to give the
three-dimensional appearance and an 'oceanic' atmosphere.
I won't pretend it's up with the best of the fractal artists,
but it is an example of how fractals can go beyond "pushing a button"
and be designed intentionally. I think - whatever anyone might think
of its quality as art - that that intention is what qualifies it as art.
Erik A. Mattila
everywhere.
Erik Mattila
tomi...@hotmail.com
> ...no skill no art
ironic =) everyone (even my rabbit) can press a button and create 10000
pieces of fractals. to discuss if fractals are art might lead to
nothing, but one thing is certainly true; it doesnt belong to
the "elitism" of finearts... or atleast i hope so!
-tomi
Charles Eicher
>I assume you know that while it might technically be a fractal,
>it was neither decorative or interesting, and I'm not saying
>that to be snotty.
I saw the lego "fractals" and it really depends on your finding some
mathematical interest in the arrangements. I dunno, I was looking at some really
interesting Penrose Tilings today, they're really interesting but only on a
mathematical level.
>Let me further define my statement, please feel free to show us
>the next fractal you make without using a computer which is
>decorative and interesting. Legos don't quite cut it.
You might be surprised. I was just reading a paper on "self-affine fracturing in
deformed surfaces." The researcher analyzed the cracks that form in a slab of of
semi-dry clay when you flex it til the surface cracks and then let it relax. It
forms a network of fine cracks aligned with the axis of the flexing, it has some
interesting mathematical properties, he described it as a fractal. He took
photos, scanned the images, did some really interesting calculations, learned
ways to control the production of the pattern by manipulating the materials.. It
was primarily intended as a study for metallurgical research, but it points to
methods to make some interesting surfaces with clay. But this is nothing more
than what a good potter knows, intuitively, based on his years of handling slabs
of clay.
burnin...@my-deja.com
Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net> wrote:
> In article <7pgsr1$o1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, burnin...@my-deja.com
says...
>
> >I assume you know that while it might technically be a fractal,
> >it was neither decorative or interesting, and I'm not saying
> >that to be snotty.
>
> I saw the lego "fractals" and it really depends on your finding some
> mathematical interest in the arrangements.
This is rec.arts.fine -- it went unsaid that I referred only to their
art value.
|>legos don't quite cut it
> You might be surprised.
(snip)
Only if someone did manage to create an interesting fractal with
legos.