|
|
|
Sockratease
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2011, 10:23:51 PM » |
|
...concerning this important matter of Fractal Art being Real Art. The question is meaningless in my view. It's Real Art to you if you say it is, and not if you say it isn't. There will always be people who think the concept of "Real Art" has meaning, but they are all wrong. There is no such thing as Real Art, for that implies the existence of Unreal Art, and I can think of no such thing. Now, if the question were "Is this Good Art?" it would be meaningful, but that would mean admitting the answer is subjective and different people can have different opinions on it. Those who argue if something is Real Art or not refuse to admit to the fact that ALL Art is Real, and the only question is whether or not you as an individual like it.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components. The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out! |
|
|
|
David Makin
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2011, 10:58:20 PM » |
|
My new response to the usual *root* of this question is:
Drawing and Painting are not "Art" because even a baby or a dog or a horse can put a mark on a piece of paper.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vega
Global Moderator
Conqueror
Posts: 143
From Russia With Love
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2011, 07:11:01 AM » |
|
My new response to the usual *root* of this question is:
Drawing and Painting are not "Art" because even a baby or a dog or a horse can put a mark on a piece of paper.
 When a baby or a dog or a horse will learn to draw fractals, it won't be art too.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
visual.bermarte
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2011, 11:21:53 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 11:58:44 AM by visual »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
taurus
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2011, 04:03:30 PM » |
|
to get this thing serious again, i'd compare fractaling with photography.
surely not every handy snapshot is art, but a photography (also a handy snapshot) could possibly be art. it's quite similar with fractals.
denying the artistic potential of fractals is like denying the possibility, that a photography can be art.
the line between is difficult to draw and a quite subjective thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
when life offers you a lemon, get yourself some salt and tequila!
|
|
|
|
David Makin
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2011, 07:55:59 PM » |
|
My new response to the usual *root* of this question is:
Drawing and Painting are not "Art" because even a baby or a dog or a horse can put a mark on a piece of paper.
When a baby or a dog or a horse will learn to draw fractals, it won't be art too. The point of course being that the most annoying and ill-thought out statement that fractals are *not* art is essentially the same as photography not being art i.e. it's the camera that takes the photograph and it's the computer that makes the fractal so *anyone* can do it so it's not art - I've encountered this attitude several times *even before they've even seen a fractal* ! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jesse
Download Section
Fractal Schemer
Posts: 1013
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2011, 09:39:37 PM » |
|
... and here we have the elephant drawing an elephant  Wow, this is most amazing, thanks for the link! At least this should be (one of) the most artistic animals ever, and if this not art, it must be zen! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KRAFTWERK
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2011, 09:37:52 AM » |
|
... and here we have the elephant drawing an elephant Wow, this is most amazing, thanks for the link! At least this should be (one of) the most artistic animals ever, and if this not art, it must be zen! Yeah Woha... If that video is for real I am truly amazed. I would call that art any day, just because of the fact (?) it is made by an elephant! What I was talking about in my text was not if fractal images can be considered to be art but if we ever will see a fractal image become a masterpiece. Of course fractals can be seen as art, but I didn't want to get into that discussion... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lkmitch
Fractal Lover
Posts: 238
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2011, 04:19:37 PM » |
|
Tim, at the Orbit Trap blog ( http://orbittrap.ca/?p=3051), talks about fractals not being art because they don't engender the deep emotions in viewers that "real" art does. I'll agree that most fractals I've seen don't fill me with any sort of emotional response, but quite a few have. And, many make me think. It seems to me that causing viewers to think is certainly as worthy as causing them to feel. How do you respond to fractals, if at all? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JodyVL
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2011, 06:27:36 PM » |
|
What I was talking about in my text was not if fractal images can be considered to be art but if we ever will see a fractal image become a masterpiece.
Of course fractals can be seen as art, but I didn't want to get into that discussion... Woops! My bad  .. Have edited my post a bit now ;P Though that's exactly the topic your post inspired out of me, especially since I've been showing friends my fractal work and many of them do go "Yeah, but can that really be considered art?" when I show them how it's done. Even if they were impressed at first ¬¬ ... Just because mathematical formulae generate the images we see... And as far as anyone's been concerned so far, maths and art just don't mix. Well, to me, even since high school, I was very inspired by the beauty of even the normal Euclidean maths.  I agree very much with fractal art being compared with photography. It's all about light and composition! But in fractal art, of course, we have the added dimensions of colour and shape/structure. This makes it more versatile and much more difficult, I believe. As for what response they evoke out of me... Well, when I first saw Mandelwerk's stuff, I was pretty much blown away. Yes, I'll always have a geeky, maths side to me which was of course a big influence, but generally, everyone I show his (and others') works to are significantly impressed. Some really have a hard time looking away.  So does it make me think? Certainly. And feel? Hell yeah. Some more than others of course, but that's art for ya. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 06:31:28 PM by JodyVL »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
taurus
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2011, 07:56:20 PM » |
|
I agree very much with fractal art being compared with photography. It's all about light and composition! But in fractal art, of course, we have the added dimensions of colour and shape/structure. This makes it more versatile and much more difficult, I believe.
well, you're right, it's similar not equal. there's another similarity between theese two directions of art. like we are now, the early photographers were not well accepted as artists - wrongly... i'd like to point out two additional differences between potography and fractaling. the first is deirection. unlike the real world (or more accurate the earth), most fractals have no top and no bottom - at least when you bring up some inner structures. so the direction of an image has to be fixed by the artist. the second one is time. photographers have the additional difficulty to catch a moment, that never returns - even in a dedicated shooting. a fact, that should not be underestimated. all in all i do not see any more or less dificult in this comparison. photography and fractaling are still too different, to make that kind of judgement. i'd be glad, if the acceptance of fractal art would reach the acceptance of photography as art. let's work for this!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
when life offers you a lemon, get yourself some salt and tequila!
|
|
|
Madman
Fractal Molossus
Posts: 678
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2011, 12:18:50 AM » |
|
Is it art? This seems to be the question that rules the fractal world these days. And if emotion is an essential part of art, then the discussion that follows this question must be a masterpiece indeed  . Maybe we should start from a definition of art. I've found several, some more explicit then others. The first one is from dictionary.com, the second from Wikipedia: - Art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
- Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect
The first definition is rather interesting since it implies that beauty, appeal and significance are quantifiable qualities. It reminds me of my university days, where I lived in a house with a larger then average amount of architecture students. One of them had been to the World Fair in Sevilla and he arranged a viewing of the countless slides he had made. Thoughtlessly (as I found out later...) I remarked that I found a certain pavilion beautiful. All of the architecture students told me that it wasn't. Not that it didn't appeal to them, no, it was ugly. Because they had been taught so at university. Quantifiable. The same seems to apply to art. At least, according to some... I like the second definition better. It indicates that creating art is an intentional activity with the purpose of influencing the way the observer feels. And to me these two ingredients are the heart of art. There is no judgement in this definition and it doens't quantify in any way. It also implies that it doesn't matter which tools you use. And maybe here we can find the solution for the rift between the "fractal is art" faction and their opposers. Because a fractal pur-sang will never be art. Some people can make it art, though, by consciously manipulating the "bare fractal" (by changing colours, FOV, DOF, backgrounds, etc) into something that influences the senses or the emotions of the observer. Another nice touch to the second definition is that art doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful. In the extreme: If an artifact is such an affront to your eyes that it makes you throw up, it most definitely is art, since it has an influence on your senses  . This surely explains why "Who's afraid of Red Yellow and Blue" classifies as art... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All I want is a warm bed, a kind word and unlimited power (Ashleigh Brilliant)
|
|
|
Yesiamjames
Forums Freshman
Posts: 19
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2011, 12:39:43 PM » |
|
<iframe width="420" height="315" src=" http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7Vuv4ScRuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> The painting elephant is amazing. Not only can it copy what is in front of it but it also apears to be able to paint from memory, imagination and can even draw abstract forms which I think shows a high level of cognition than simply copying. But then again what do you expect from a creature with a brain the size of a basketball? As for what is art and what is good art... Sure whether something has artistic merit is largely subjective but I don't think something becomes art just because someone proclaims it so. For example I saw a youtube video where a woman was naked in front of the camera and proclaimed "this is art." Another example is a local art gallery I frequent which had some "paintings" by an England cricketer which were made by him dipping a ball in paint and throwing it at the canvas, a couple had semi interesting splash patterns but I defy anyone says they are anything more than a guy throwing a paint covered ball. It tells you nothing of his emotions, dreams, ambitions and certainly doesn't represent anything. Maybe I should sell my clothes next time I paint ball! As for good art, sure it's largely subjective but the fact that people pay for art lessons, buy more expensive equipment and spend a long time on a piece of work kinda prove that there are some objective elements (which can be agreed apon to decide whether something is "good". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
HeBeGeBe
Forums Freshman
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2012, 07:28:57 AM » |
|
I'm going to go with the non-politically correct thing and say that beauty is Universal. AT least in this one respect: The Golden Ratio. i.e. it's math! It exists in all of nature (at least emulated by nature) and the PHI number. Beauty in this way is the subconscious intuition of health and vitality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM