Title: "Fractal Art isn't Rocket Science" Post by: lycium on September 19, 2007, 11:09:24 PM just when i thought orbit trap couldn't get any worse... tim posts this gem: http://orbittrap.blogspot.com/2007/09/fractal-art-isnt-rocket-science.html
i want to take a little time to reply here in detail, where more programmers can see what this man thinks of us. Quote from: Tim Would it help me if I had such a solid math and programming background as these super stars did? It doesn't seem to be helping them out too much. let the slandering begin... now honestly, how can someone with such earth-shatteringly poor "artworks" (which bear essentially no fractal traits at all, ignoring the 16 colour lsd-inspired palette) even think to question the works of others, let alone the forerunners of our field?! such collosal arrogance is SO rare, even among arrogant people. Quote from: Tim Moving on. What confuses things is that the "tool-makers" can also perform the role of "tool-users". But the skills and abilities that lead to good tool making are irrelevant when it comes to using those tools to make art. as if he would know; as if he has the faintest inkling as to what sort of skills and abilities it takes to design a vast fractal parameter space, or a flexible colouring algorithm, or a simple control system and all the other things necessary to hide the reality of fractal generation. Quote from: Tim They might as well be two different people because when the "scientist" takes up the tool he made, he begins the same process of discovery as everyone else who takes up that tool. inhuman ignorance meants superhuman ego. notice how he puts scientist in quotes (!!). Quote from: Tim Crafting nunchuks vs. swinging them like Bruce Lee. ... Quote from: Tim Sure, the tool maker immediately knows how to operate the tool, allow me to inline a quote from just sentences earlier: They might as well be two different people because when the "scientist" takes up the tool he made, he begins the same process of discovery as everyone else who takes up that tool. hmm. ... and here is the tour de force: Quote from: Tim Actually the tool maker may have a handicap: he may think he has an edge over the one who is merely a tool-user and come to think his tool-making experience gives extra weight and an enhanced quality to his artwork. really, this one needs no comment. Quote from: Tim Artistic activities, on the other hand, have psychological challenges (objectively evaluating your work; creative inspiration) that the quantitative sciences have less of. too bad he has neither: (selected from his many "cutting edge" block wave filtered images; there are plenty of these littered about the blog) (http://ambaka.com/blog/17/cliff09.png) tim is just as poor a spokesperson for the social sciences as he is for the fractal community (quoted from http://orbittrap.blogspot.com/2007/09/orbit-traps-change-of-format.html): We invited the Fractal Community to speak for themselves and they didn't want to. We spoke for them and they told us to shut up. Quote from: Tim Furthermore, the precision and absoluteness of the quantitative sciences creates a mindset or approach to art that I think can be a stumbling block in the evolving, shifting, combinant and recombinant, alchemical world of art. nevermind "different perspective" or "broader view", it's a stumbling block to have a clue how the software you're using works. yup. Quote from: Tim But Fractal Art is Art; it's got its own set of skills and talents, which in the same way, also count for nothing when applied to the world of mathematics. no, you utterly fail at logic. having a grasp of basic maths DOES help with making fractal art. you just wouldn't know because you don't have it, so stop being so damn presumptuous and cocky. Title: Re: "Fractal Art isn't Rocket Science" Post by: Nahee_Enterprises on September 21, 2007, 09:49:38 PM Maybe when Tim was speaking about "tool-makers" and "tool-users" he had specific people in mind, such as Frederik Slijkerman :P and Janet Parke. ;)
I would classify only one of those two people as being a graphic fractal artist. ;D Title: Re: "Fractal Art isn't Rocket Science" Post by: lycium on September 22, 2007, 01:46:25 AM Maybe when Tim was speaking about "tool-makers" and "tool-users" he had specific people in mind, such as Frederik Slijkerman and Janet Parke. ;) :P I would classify only one of those two people as being a graphic fractal artist. ;D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://zueuk.deviantart.com/ Title: Re: "Fractal Art isn't Rocket Science" Post by: this is not kasker on November 11, 2007, 07:04:39 PM This guy deserves a beating.
Quote I like it because it was made by a machine. (http://ambaka.com/blog/17/new11.png) I geuss it is safe to assume then, that he doesn't like based on how it actually looks. I've seen this image alot... by any random person, in mspaint, with the rectangle tool. What an awful crime it was. Title: Re: "Fractal Art isn't Rocket Science" Post by: timhodkinson on November 12, 2007, 09:42:20 PM Yeah. What a jerk, eh? Have you seen his latest piece of garbage?
http://orbittrap.blogspot.com/2007/11/spider-writing.html Spider Writing! What an insult! I'll bet insects make better artwork than this goof! Oh, sorry. Spiders are not insects. Well, he's still a goof! Yup. Title: Re: "Fractal Art isn't Rocket Science" Post by: lycium on November 12, 2007, 10:57:27 PM garbage garbage can be recycled; that (dis)array of RGB values nearly voided the warranty on my screen. edit: actually, i am reminded of a section (http://www.nada.kth.se/~kai/lectures/geb.html) in hofstadter's "gdel, escher, bach" where mr. tortoise and mr. crab engage in a friendly competition to see whether mr. crab can construct a record player impervious to any of mr. tortoise's records (which would repeatedly destroy the former's record players through meticulous malicious engineering). just as my eyes grow accustomed to one jumble of aliased pixels, you up the ante with another :P |