At the risk of rising a rightfully dead topic full of strife and argument, I would argue that we are approaching the problem incorrectly. Rather than focusing on solving the issues, we are instead focusing on debating them, and the semantics so involved, which usually produces no result, this case not being an exception.
Therefore, it is with this excessively wordy thought in mind that I suggest we all pause and go read Seth Godin for a moment. Seth Godin is not a fractal artist. Seth Godin, is in point of fact, not even an artist. He is a marketing guy (an absolutely brilliant one). It is his approach to solving problems, however, as well as his acute analysis of the world we live in, however, that are of interest.
I start by examining the problem at hand, and conclude that yes, Terry and Tim have a valid point, in that the public exposure to fractals is limited. I would argue that their point regarding the ethical practices of the two contests is invalid, especially in the case of Fractal Universe, but the point would be moot, and I will refrain from making and supporting it, in the hopes that further discussion of it can be avoided. Ethics being a subjective issue, this argument can never be solved, as both sides have a legitimate case, and their is no absolutely correct answer).
The more important point here is not the ethics of various fractal art competitions, but rather the exposure to the public. In fact it remains, that, while preponderance of the evidence does not constitute proof, it also may represent the best available actionable information in an issue. While I have no numbers to post (and any who do would greatly aid this discussion by doing so - I get paid to write software and so I have neither the time nor necessarily the knowledge to find said numbers and present them in an intelligent way), I can state that, like others, I have never seen any fractal art in the " public eye " other than the fractal universe calendars I have seen in Barnes and Noble. And while I have never personally bought a Fractal Universe calendar (for no other reason than because if I want to view fractal art, I prefer to do so on DA and Renderosity, where I can post comments and increment the ego/confidence/happiness building view count for the artist's pleasure), I do have the 2008 calender at my desk because my friend, whose only exposure to fractals has been my gallery, bought it for me as a gift, and I don't believe all of this amounts to some crazy coincidence. Fractal Universe clearly has public attention and appeal. The other competition is debatable, but, having not been involved in making fractals since I was really young (I'm now 20, still probably the youngest guy here, but I haven't made fractals seriously since I was about 15), I will take your word and assume it has its fair share of publicity.
Yet I will significantly disagree with OT on another point. The reason (at least the stated reason, which for the purpose of this post I will assume to be correct) for the choice of fractals at Fractal Universe is that they are deemed to be the fractals most likely to draw buyers to the calendar. And I will admit, brightly colored pretty looking spirals do tend to stand out well, even though what I'm really looking for is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar
.
Given this, we likely should agree that the problem isn't necessarily with the nature of Fractal Universe (which as they say is NOT a competition), but rather with the selection of publicly available material. I find it sad that while there are loads of books on abstract art, I have never once seen a book on fractals. I have seen lots of modern works, from odd paintings to people making canvases out of skateboards to a room covered in bubble wrap featuring a bubble wrap igloo inside (which was actually kind of cool...I really had to restrain myself from poping them....
). But no fractal art.
I will not comment on the reasoning behind this, I'll let others do that, and I will not present a solution. But I will argue against a statement by the OT crew. If an individual is not happy with his neurosurgeon, he cannot operate on his own brain - true. But if the community is unhappy with the efforts and achievements of neurosurgery in general, and wants to achieve more, it works together to plan, develop, and implement a better solution. My point here being that while we can sit here and argue about Fractal Universe all day, their motives, rights to expression, and end products are their own, and if we want to change the publicly available collection of fractal work, we would be grossly better served by doing so in an additive fashion, as not only would this be simpler, but the end result would be MORE fractals available to the consumer, MORE exposure to our art, and MORE opportunities for all artists, of all styles to gain publicity.
I am not suggesting that one artist be responsible for creating the solution, nor do I think the solution is singular in nature. I believe, and have long believed, even when I was making art before, that we should, as a community, work towards gaining more presence in the mainstream. A small amount of work by every artist, given freely, could result in massive benefits for all. Look at Wikipedia - tiny contributions by millions of users results in a massively useful (even if ultimately not completely reliable) tool for all.
I suggest we continue to discuss what we, as a community can do to further this goal. Given focus and some intelligent input from many members, I think we can really make some cool things happen. I am mirroring this post over at the Fractal Forum (the origional was over at DeviantArt, found here:
http://news.deviantart.com/article/44605/?offset=25#comments), which I found along with this discussion while searching for 'fractal communities'. Thanks for reading this post (for those few of you who have not fallen asleep yet)!
//Matt
July 09, 2011, 06:40:43 AM
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM