Re: [Fractint] FOTD 23-05-03 (Isolated Minibrot [8])
On Sat, 24 May 2003 at 12:38:52 Albrecht Niekamp wrote: <snipped>
If a seemingly irregular structure turns out to be part of a bigger structure that isnt chaotic at all and maybe a structure that you havent seen before, then what is a fractal if this isnt?
The entire concept of the entities we now know as 'fractals' was invented by human beings, and it is up to each individual to decide what is or is not 'a fractal'. To me, a fractal is something that resembles the images that I first saw in 'Sci. Am.' magazine around 18 years ago. This is my personal decision. IMO, when things such as multiple layers and transforms are applied to an image, what results is computer art based on fractal formulae. There is nothing wrong with calling this art 'a fractal' or 'fractal art' or anything else the creator wishes. I simply choose not to call it a fractal.
Tell me what's missing.
Nothing is missing.
Purity as such is meaningless in this context, unless it is part of your message.
'Fractal purity' is also a human invention. No two people will agree on what it is.
And another question: If Lee detects hidden beauty within a seemingly uninteresting scene, what better could you say about a fractal artist?
I could say nothing better. I am most certainly not suggesting that everyone limit themselves to my definition of fractals or fractal art.
After all we are trying to do the same thing: Create images that make people look twice and maybe take a closer look.
True.
And maybe there is a smile on their face when they see beauty. As for me, we are covering a different part of the spectrum...
True. There is nothing wrong with that, especially in light of how I have narrowed my spectrum.
and if you feel attacked...
I do not feel attacked. I think you misread the word 'aggressive', which was intended as a joke much as the phrase 'sexy fractals' would have been. ...thats exclusively your own problem. No problem.
I'm happy that a fresh wind is blowing in Fractalia and that I could do my part to keep it alive. Regards,
Keep up the good work. Things that do not change with the times soon become things of the past. Jim M.
Jim Muth wrote:
The entire concept of the entities we now know as 'fractals' was invented by human beings, and it is up to each individual to decide what is or is not 'a fractal'. To me, a fractal is something that resembles the images that I first saw in 'Sci. Am.' magazine around 18 years ago. This is my personal decision.
Doesn't "fractal" have a *mathematical* definition? On the other hand, "what 'fractal art' is" would be almost as vague and as personally defined as "what art is" (I guess the one caveat would be that "fractal art" would *somehow* involved fractals.)
Purity as such is meaningless in this context, unless it is part of your message.
'Fractal purity' is also a human invention. No two people will agree on what it is.
I donno. I think you (Jim) define 'fractal purity' pretty well, and I think it *is* part of your message. I see you (Jim) as a kin to Ansel Adams: both capturing a beautiful landscape in a way that is as faithful as possible to the reality while at the same time doing so in an "artful" and creative way. Anyone can take a snapshot; an *artist* makes beautiful photographs, and a big part of that art (IMO) is knowing what makes a "picture" and knowing how to process that picture to bring out its full beauty. Just my 1/50th... -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
participants (2)
-
Jim Muth -
Programmer Dude