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.htmli want to take a little time to reply here in detail, where more programmers can see what this man thinks of us.
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.
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.
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 (!!).
Crafting nunchuks vs. swinging them like Bruce Lee.
...
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:
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.
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)
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.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.
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.