Here's some stuff I made
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/wallpaper.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal52.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal6.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal119.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal112.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal115.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal116.png)
hm, with fractals, do you say "made" or "found"?
I think you would say that you made some renderings of a fractal that Benoit found (in the cases you have up there, at least)
they rook nice.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 26, 2008, 09:54:04 PM
I think you would say that you made some renderings of a fractal that Benoit found (in the cases you have up there, at least)
they rook nice.
RE: BRING N BRAG, How's that mouth stash lookin right about now Ipt?
WOW!
Those are beautiful!
I think the 5th is my favorite!!!
Good picks from the Mandelbrot. :)
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on November 26, 2008, 10:00:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 26, 2008, 09:54:04 PM
I think you would say that you made some renderings of a fractal that Benoit found (in the cases you have up there, at least)
they rook nice.
RE: BRING N BRAG, How's that mouth stash lookin right about now Ipt?
For the sake of on topicness, perhaps i could arrange it fractally?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 26, 2008, 10:11:52 PM
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on November 26, 2008, 10:00:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 26, 2008, 09:54:04 PM
I think you would say that you made some renderings of a fractal that Benoit found (in the cases you have up there, at least)
they rook nice.
RE: BRING N BRAG, How's that mouth stash lookin right about now Ipt?
For the sake of on topicness, perhaps i could arrange it fractally?
SWEET
Quote from: Iptuous on November 26, 2008, 09:54:04 PM
I think you would say that you made some renderings of a fractal that Benoit found (in the cases you have up there, at least)
they rook nice.
I got confused because all the documentation for the program is geared towards making or creating fractals. (not "fractal images")
But then again the guy who wrote it is German, so who knows what's up
As I have previously stated, these pics make my eyes attempt to forcibly leave my face. Possibly to seek counselling.
My mother makes fractal art. She is "lincava" on DeviantArt.
I'd go fetch the link for you but that site is a festering anal polyp of malware so until I switch to Ubuntu, yr gonna have to look her up yourself.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/3.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/5c.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/6.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/7-1.png)
:mittens:
this:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal52.png
is now my new desktop
Mine too!
Quote from: Cramulus on November 26, 2008, 10:18:05 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 26, 2008, 09:54:04 PM
I think you would say that you made some renderings of a fractal that Benoit found (in the cases you have up there, at least)
they rook nice.
I got confused because all the documentation for the program is geared towards making or creating fractals. (not "fractal images")
But then again the guy who wrote it is German, so who knows what's up
What program?
Hot shit, btw. Moar pls.
Glad you guys like 'em! I'm using Chaos Pro (http://www.chaospro.de/), which has all sorts of cool functions like layers.
repost:
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/flyingponyintofractal.jpg)
:lulz:
cracks me up everytime i see it.
Last night when Richter and I were in Borders, we discussed knitting fractals.
Burberry fractals or GTFO.
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2008, 05:01:32 PM
Last night when Richter and I were in Borders, we discussed knitting fractals.
knit me sierpinski gasket potholders?
Hey, Cram,
I'm putting together a Discordian Calendar. Can I use one of your fractal images?
I'm thinking one of these two:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal117.png
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/flyingponyintofractal.jpg
But I may wish to use one of the fractals with white background, or maybe modify one of the above a slight bit (black space to white space), in order to save on ink.
I will, of course, give credit.
yes, please use freely!
Awesome. I expect (hope) to finish by Monday night.
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2008, 05:01:32 PM
Last night when Richter and I were in Borders, we discussed knitting fractals.
That should be fun.
Do you know Elenor Kent? Here she is posing with her electro-luminiscent crocheted necklace :mrgreen:(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/292967177_f4c645550a.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: sonne on January 12, 2009, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2008, 05:01:32 PM
Last night when Richter and I were in Borders, we discussed knitting fractals.
That should be fun.
Do you know Elenor Kent? Here she is posing with her electro-luminiscent crocheted necklace :mrgreen:(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/292967177_f4c645550a.jpg?v=0)
Nope, but that looks pretty cool!
QuoteNope, but that looks pretty cool!
Chja, I agree.
This is her website, in case you're interested in having a look http://www.eleanorkent.net/gallery/ (http://www.eleanorkent.net/gallery/)
Vibrata also has a few cool things if you take/have the time to browse http://www.vibrata.com/ (http://www.vibrata.com/)
I just started using this program called Apophysis. I'm still very novice, but here's some of my doodlings.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apo3.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090519-302.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090519-723.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090519-811.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090519-806.png)
perdy. 2nd 4th and 5th are my favourites :)
nice! reminds me a bit of the "electric sheep" screensaver
These ARE nice! They remind me of dreams. :)
so if you leave this program rendering all night, it can produce some pretty bad ass images:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090520-202bluecut.png)
Love the fractals. Fractals are cool. Wasn't Greg Hill one of the first programmers to work with fractals?
Anyone know of a cheap (or free; I like free) fractal program that lets you make them from scratch?
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2008, 09:26:08 PM
repost:
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/flyingponyintofractal.jpg)
Who originally made the horse? It seems to be a tradition to use it in Intermittens issues.
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 20, 2009, 04:18:32 PM
Love the fractals. Fractals are cool. Wasn't Greg Hill one of the first programmers to work with fractals?
If he was, I did not know that. You mean our greg hill? Google sez there's a professor in Texas named Greg Hill who uses fractals in his class, but I can't find any other references
QuoteAnyone know of a cheap (or free; I like free) fractal program that lets you make them from scratch?
depends on what you mean by "make htem from scratch"... you can tinker with the equations, palette, zoom, etc in just about any fractal generator.
all the fractals ITT were made with ChaosPro or Apophysis. Both of them are free and have a lot of community support. Lots of fun, too.
QuoteWho originally made the horse? It seems to be a tradition to use it in Intermittens issues.
I actually don't know where the horse came from. As far as I know, It's just some floatsam from the net. The WOMP cabal was obssessed with that pony for a few months and we used it in a lot of art (like that fractal piece, above). The reason it occurs so much in intermittens is probably because people snag IM art from the WOMP Cabal vault, and the donkey ones are a little bit more coherent (kinda) than most of the other images in the vault.
He was also the inspiration for one of my music pieces. "the flying donkey honkey tonk", which you can hear if you click the logo in my sig. [/plug]
It's weird... I really LIKE the images I've been making with apophysis, but they're almos too easy. ChaosPro took me a few days to get the hang of. Creating a really cool looking image took a lot of searching, and then a lot of fine tuning.
In Apophysis you can generate great looking images by cycling through random seeds. You just browse through seeds until you find one you like, and then pick a palette, maybe zoom, and you're done. Sure there's scripts and stuff you can do to customize your fractal further, but you can't really fine tune your image so much as you make very broad changes. and then you just grab your monitor and shake until it produces something you're happy with.
Maybe it's just because I'm such a novice I'm blind to the myriad of really complex things this program can do.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090520-120.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090520-118.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/RibbonWallpaper.png)
awesome, it's like the Dutch flag :)
Quote from: Cramulus on May 20, 2009, 08:31:20 PM
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090520-120.png)
It looks like someone but a bird into a blender.
Awesome, all of them Cramulus.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 20, 2009, 08:31:20 PM
It's weird...--snip--
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Apophysis-090520-120.png)
Phoenix egg hatching.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 20, 2009, 04:29:17 PM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 20, 2009, 04:18:32 PM
Love the fractals. Fractals are cool. Wasn't Greg Hill one of the first programmers to work with fractals?
If he was, I did not know that. You mean our greg hill? Google sez there's a professor in Texas named Greg Hill who uses fractals in his class, but I can't find any other references
QuoteAnyone know of a cheap (or free; I like free) fractal program that lets you make them from scratch?
depends on what you mean by "make htem from scratch"... you can tinker with the equations, palette, zoom, etc in just about any fractal generator.
all the fractals ITT were made with ChaosPro or Apophysis. Both of them are free and have a lot of community support. Lots of fun, too.
QuoteWho originally made the horse? It seems to be a tradition to use it in Intermittens issues.
I actually don't know where the horse came from. As far as I know, It's just some floatsam from the net. The WOMP cabal was obssessed with that pony for a few months and we used it in a lot of art (like that fractal piece, above). The reason it occurs so much in intermittens is probably because people snag IM art from the WOMP Cabal vault, and the donkey ones are a little bit more coherent (kinda) than most of the other images in the vault.
Thanks, Cramulus. I got to make me some fractals.
I was thinking, though. From the very little I know, fractals apparently became big in the 1970s, just about the time "Modern Art" was fading into the past. If one of those abstract artists somehow got hold of a program that made fractals back in the 1950s or so, he or she could have made a bundle on prints. Critics would probably praise the artist's amazing creativity.
One other question: is there hardware/software that allows you to literally paint a digital image?
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 21, 2009, 05:41:36 PM
One other question: is there hardware/software that allows you to literally paint a digital image?
yes, it is the blessed program
Microsoft Paintit is the way and the light
and the wrath
the WRATH
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/avatar/womplogo3.jpg)
Quote from: Cramulus on May 21, 2009, 05:45:50 PM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 21, 2009, 05:41:36 PM
One other question: is there hardware/software that allows you to literally paint a digital image?
yes, it is the blessed program Microsoft Paint
it is the way and the light
and the wrath
the WRATH
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/avatar/womplogo3.jpg)
Thanks for the tip. But I'm thinking in terms of literally putting paint on a canvas. I'm not planning on going out and buying the hardware and software that would be required to do such a thing; I'm just curious if the technology exists.
widescreen wallpaper titled "Flock"
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/Flock.png)
I have these in larger format on request
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 21, 2009, 05:51:49 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 21, 2009, 05:45:50 PM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 21, 2009, 05:41:36 PM
One other question: is there hardware/software that allows you to literally paint a digital image?
yes, it is the blessed program Microsoft Paint
it is the way and the light
and the wrath
the WRATH
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/avatar/womplogo3.jpg)
Thanks for the tip. But I'm thinking in terms of literally putting paint on a canvas. I'm not planning on going out and buying the hardware and software that would be required to do such a thing; I'm just curious if the technology exists.
I had an idea a while back that I still haven't put into practice. Involved taking an image and reducing the palette to maybe 8 or 16 colours then magnifying it until each pixel was a fairly large square and numbering these in a grid. Next thing is reproduce the grid dimensions on a wall and then paint in the squares in corresponding colours.
I figure if the squares/pixels on the wall were about 2 inches across it would look pretty abstract from close up but you'd see the picture clearly from a bit of a distance.
reminds me of these guys, who do art using colored post-it notes.
http://weburbanist.com/2008/01/24/more-unusual-art-from-everyday-materials-16-post-it-note-pranks-sculptures-and-murals/
I think that's cool - pixelated art in a non digital medium
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 22, 2009, 09:48:00 AM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 21, 2009, 05:51:49 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 21, 2009, 05:45:50 PM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 21, 2009, 05:41:36 PM
One other question: is there hardware/software that allows you to literally paint a digital image?
yes, it is the blessed program Microsoft Paint
it is the way and the light
and the wrath
the WRATH
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/avatar/womplogo3.jpg)
Thanks for the tip. But I'm thinking in terms of literally putting paint on a canvas. I'm not planning on going out and buying the hardware and software that would be required to do such a thing; I'm just curious if the technology exists.
I had an idea a while back that I still haven't put into practice. Involved taking an image and reducing the palette to maybe 8 or 16 colours then magnifying it until each pixel was a fairly large square and numbering these in a grid. Next thing is reproduce the grid dimensions on a wall and then paint in the squares in corresponding colours.
I figure if the squares/pixels on the wall were about 2 inches across it would look pretty abstract from close up but you'd see the picture clearly from a bit of a distance.
Cool idea. Do it and post a pic of it for us spags!
Quote from: Cramulus on May 22, 2009, 03:02:32 PM
reminds me of these guys, who do art using colored post-it notes.
http://weburbanist.com/2008/01/24/more-unusual-art-from-everyday-materials-16-post-it-note-pranks-sculptures-and-murals/
(Partial Quote)
I find that awesome, even covering furniture with post-it notes.
But what they really need to do is post-it note a toilet. With the paper already there, you wouldn't even have to wipe!
volva, the technology you think about indeed does already exist, check out Aaron
http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/
you can even download a free trial copy, that doesnt actually hardware-paint, but it does simulate the brushstrokes that the computer program models.
apart from the hardware side, the program itself is also very interesting, because it's actually capable of painting a wide variety of scenes with people and objects in them.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 24, 2009, 10:27:55 PM
volva, the technology you think about indeed does already exist, check out Aaron
http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/
you can even download a free trial copy, that doesnt actually hardware-paint, but it does simulate the brushstrokes that the computer program models.
apart from the hardware side, the program itself is also very interesting, because it's actually capable of painting a wide variety of scenes with people and objects in them.
Thanks. I checked it out, but it said, "AARON no longer available for downloading." Maybe the program can paint, but someone has trouble making proper sentences.
But there's not only a program that paints its own paintings, there's a program that writes its own poetry.
Frankly, this stuff scares the hell out of me. How long will it be before people go the way of vinyl records?
I wouldnt be too scared, the Generative Art movement has been breaking away at the boundaries between art, man, machine and process for decades. AARON is really good, however.
Do you know these cheap paintings you can get in interior design stores? The shorelines or abstract figures etc. They are made by people that continously produce paintings that are generally "likeable", it's more work than art. Is it art? Well maybe, probably, but not very "high art" (whatever that means). IMO, AARON is currently at about this level of artfulness. The sole thing that makes AARON more "interesting" or "artsy" than these mass-produced paintings, is that they are painted by a computer. Which is pretty cool.
The Generative Art movement (that also produce a lot of fractal-like artwork, btw) therefore focuses not only on the end-result of the work, but also on the process that produced it, and subsequently, the person(s) that designed this (usually algorithmic) process.
This actually goes for a lot of (non-generative) art. The "story" behind a piece plays a huge role in determining the artistic "worth" of it. For example, anyone that can hold a brush can paint the red/blue/yellow/white/black square designs that Piet Mondriaan made so famous, but it is the fact (story) that Mondriaan started out with sketches of actual complicated real-world scenes and then kept on simplifying until all he had left were squares in primary colours. This was Mondriaan's idea (or rather the idea of the "Nieuwe Stijl" movement), and the particular simplifications he picked sort of mirror his artistic personality. You could emulate it with a computer program, but it would not be the same. Not because the painting itself would be inherently different, but for the sole reason that the history, the process of making the painting, would not be the same. You can't measure this quality as a property of matter, it's like a love letter, or that sea shell you picked up as a souvenir from your beach vacation. Have the letter be generated by a computer program, with the same style etc, it still was not written by the person that loves you. Order the shell online, and it won't be that particular one you spotted on the sunset walk on the last day of your vacation.
In other words, the one thing cannot replace the other, because they are not the same things :-)
Mind you, I'm not saying AARON is not art, I think it is. But on an artistic level it doesn't compete with people that happen to paint similar paintings, because AARON's paintings are special because they come from a computer program, whereas these other people's paintings may be special (or not) because of any kind of reason.
Purely on the level where people want to buy a "pretty picture" to hand on the wall for interior design, AARON competes, but if that scares you, so will reproductions of famous paintings.
I found a couple of interesting links if you want to read more about AARON's process:
http://www.generative.net/pipermail/eu-gene/2004-February/000819.html (check the PDFs)
oh and because it is my firm belief that it is impossible to delete anything from the internet (it's like taking urine out of a pool), I took up the challenge to dig up the AARON screensaver:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/MnFoOGNSZ1BlM1NGa1E9PQ
I scanned it for viruses and tested it, seems to be the genuine thing (I had to spelunk through some dusty and dark corners of the net to find it, so you can never be too sure).
have fun with it ;-)
Triple Zero: I agree with you, to an extent. That sea shell which reminds me of that great vacation at the beach may mean a lot more to me than to someone who finds it in a box after I'm dead. Even less if it gets thrown out and someone sees it in a trash bin.
But I think most people who look at a painting or a photo online or in a magazine don't care about its background. They don't think, "Hmm, I wonder what the story is behind this? I'll research it online." I think most people just see a photo or a painting, and either like it or don't.
And there's always been what I consider great art that's not really art. Think of the classic, "I think that I shall never see/a poem lovely as a tree." A single tree is an incredible piece, and yet it's not art. But let someone make a sculpture of a tree or paint a painting of one, and it is.
I think art involves an interpretation of something, even if it is just shapes and colors. Interpretation means thought, and computers, at least so far as we know, can't think. But if a human can't tell the difference between human-generated art and something made by a computer program, is there a "real" difference?
And unfortunately, this isn't just a philosophical discussion. It can determine whether or not someone goes to prison. There's the legal test of art/obscenity in America (from Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, who restated the constitutional definition of obscenity in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419.)
QuoteThe basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be (a) whether the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest ..., (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Twelve people on a jury, who are likely those who usually look at a piece and don't think much about it, have the legal power to decide whether or not a given work is artistic enough or not. If they don't think your art's good enough, you go to prison.
In 1975, a Texas court decided that the movie "Deep Throat" wasn't artistic enough, and labled it obscene. I find it ironic that virtually every porn movie made now makes "Deep Throat" look like a masterpiece.
This leaves another question: if a computer gets to where it can make porn movies (which, considering what computers can already do, seems likely to me), can their product be considered art?
Triple Zero: Thanks for the link to the AARON program. I would be hestitant about downloading it, but you checked it out. Cool.
The engine which determines how the computer makes the art - that was written by a human. If you ask me, the human is the artist whose tastes and mind were poured into all those pieces.
authorship in a digital world seems problematic too
like
these fractal images in this thread
- did I "make" then? Or did a computer make them?
If it's a compromise, is it fair to credit the programmer as co-artist? All he did was build the tools...
if true, then
for apophysis (the fractal flame generator) :
the programmer is a community of people. Who gets credit there?
I do
I take all the credit :ECH:
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 25, 2009, 07:50:30 PM
Triple Zero: I agree with you, to an extent. That sea shell which reminds me of that great vacation at the beach may mean a lot more to me than to someone who finds it in a box after I'm dead. Even less if it gets thrown out and someone sees it in a trash bin.
But I think most people who look at a painting or a photo online or in a magazine don't care about its background. They don't think, "Hmm, I wonder what the story is behind this? I'll research it online." I think most people just see a photo or a painting, and either like it or don't.
well yeah, that's why I gave the example of the mass produced interior design paintings. if someone would restart the AARON project or make a better one, I'm pretty sure they could program something that could compete with those (AARON is nearly a decade old, afaik).
So in that case we are in agreement. There is no difference.
But, in the case of the interior design paintings of abstract colourful sunsets and shit, the artist probably gets paid by the hour and a significant part of the production cost will be in the materials, transport and packaging. If AARON would take over the job of the artist, it would just cut out one man in a chain of many. It might cut costs a littlebit, but not much.
I personally wouldnt mind if that happened, and oh, similar stuff might very well be already happening (but perhaps kept secret). Did you ever see a pattern in cloth or wallpaper or something, often in a public building and you wonder what human mind could have come up with something as trite and almost completely but not entirely ugly? It might have been a computer! ;-)
Now, if a computer could come up with real, creative and innovative artpieces, that I can understand to be something you might be scared of. What if the computer ends up doing it better, should humans just give up making art? Perhaps you could compare it to meeting an alien civilisation that is all enlightened and beautiful and such, and they sing songs that are, by definition, more beautiful than anything any human could ever produce. Would we give up? Should we? Will Hakim Bey's "Art Sabotage" army rise up and genocide the aliens? :)
Interesting question. Another question is, whether it is actually possible to create art that is always more beautiful than anything else. Because beauty is not a linear scale, and in the eye of the beholder.
I think it also has something to do with quantity and quality. I find personally that, with art (how I see art), increase in quantity decreases the worth of an individual piece, even if the quality stays the same. This is exactly what Cram talked about a few posts back. He's playing with this fractal program, and the first few images were totally awesome to him, but after playing a while, he finds out that nearly ALL of the images that come out of this program are awesome. And Cram feels a sort of disappointment. Even though he has more awesome stuff than before. What now?
A computer making art would be able to generate art in enormous quantities.
I found this too (and ENKI might as well) when generating random texts according to programmatic rules. If you somehow limit yourself to generating only five paragraphs, you actually have the ability to stop and ponder them for a while, and appreciate their beauty. If you let the program run and generate thousands, you'll have a really large block of text. I have found that even just imposing an artificial limit on the output rate of such a program seems to increase perceived aesthetics to me.
This may be one of the reasons why a lot of generative artists do not just use computer random number generators, but get their random data from all sorts of weird sources (video images of plants growing, neurons from rat brain, etc), this limits the rate with which they can generate artwork, even if they mangle the datasource beyong recognition, and additionally it adds a nice "story" background to their artwork (which sometimes makes me feel they're trying too hard, but sometimes they also hit the background story in a real poetic or ironic fashion, which makes it extra cool).
QuoteAnd there's always been what I consider great art that's not really art. Think of the classic, "I think that I shall never see/a poem lovely as a tree." A single tree is an incredible piece, and yet it's not art. But let someone make a sculpture of a tree or paint a painting of one, and it is.
i don't know. im gonna go with a bit of maybe logic here and say it is in some sense and it isnt in some sense. i think it's a whole different discussion that is probably not very pertinent to your initial statement about being scared of automatic painting machines.
I think art involves an interpretation of something, even if it is just shapes and colors. Interpretation means thought, and computers, at least so far as we know, can't think. But if a human can't tell the difference between human-generated art and something made by a computer program, is there a "real" difference?
QuoteAnd unfortunately, this isn't just a philosophical discussion. It can determine whether or not someone goes to prison. There's the legal test of art/obscenity in America (from Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, who restated the constitutional definition of obscenity in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419.)
QuoteThe basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be (a) whether the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest …, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Twelve people on a jury, who are likely those who usually look at a piece and don't think much about it, have the legal power to decide whether or not a given work is artistic enough or not. If they don't think your art's good enough, you go to prison.
In 1975, a Texas court decided that the movie "Deep Throat" wasn't artistic enough, and labled it obscene. I find it ironic that virtually every porn movie made now makes "Deep Throat" look like a masterpiece.
This leaves another question: if a computer gets to where it can make porn movies (which, considering what computers can already do, seems likely to me), can their product be considered art?
huh now where did this come from?
we were still discussing whether it's art if a computer generates it, and if a computer generates a movie, I don't see what difference it makes whether it's porn or not.
I also don't really see what the law in Texas has to do with it. They don't get to decide (for everybody) what is art and what is not, just whether someone (that is tried in Texas) goes to prison or not.
And if twelve people decide something is not art, and they are in a jury, and this happens in a country where the decision of a jury creates precedence, it does not mean that something "is not art" in the general sense, it just means that the judicial precedence has been made that the law doesn not consider this particular thing as "art", pertaining to the relevant laws etc etc whatnot.
That's law, it's logic, rules, it does stuff, that's how law works. Fascinating topic, really, but I don't see what it has to do with our discussion.
I see patterns and especially faces everywhere, although I think faces are often purposely snuck into designs as human beings tend to respond to faces. But I've also seen "pictures" in wood grain, which presumably is not designed by humans.
I understand Cramulus' illogical but yet very human feeling that having more great fractals lessens their value and makes each one seem less great. If I receive one diamond ring as a gift, I may think "awesome!" If I date a billionaire who gives me one a week, each one is just one more diamond ring. If I eat steak every day I won't appreciate it as much as if I get it once a year. And the feeling may be biologically-based--hunters and gatherers will focus today on what they're less likely to be able to get tomorrow. That same inbuilt response can apply to collecting anything, including art.
I threw in the legal references because we were discussing the subjective aspects of art; can a computer make art or does it take a person, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc. It's a matter for philisophical debate, but doesn't necessarily have much application in the "real world."
But legally, it can. The subjective judgment of a random group of trained, professional art critics can make or break an artist's career, maybe. (It doesn't seem to have hurt Thomas Kincaid, who claims to be the most collected living artist in spite of critics calling his work kitsch). But the subjective judgment of a random group of untrained jurists can make or break a person's freedom.
So it got me wondering. Because in America the artistic value of a piece can determine whether or not its considered obscene and thus prosecutable, would a jury consider porn made by a computer to automatically be non-artistic?
Quote from: Cramulus on May 25, 2009, 08:21:54 PM
The engine which determines how the computer makes the art - that was written by a human. If you ask me, the human is the artist whose tastes and mind were poured into all those pieces.
I think this could apply even more to elephants that paint paintings sold at zoos. Someone made the paint brush, someone made the paint, someone chose which colors would be available to the elephant, and someone decided when the elephant had painted enough and took the brush and paint away.
But with fractals, someone designed a computer program, which generally would not be considered art. You wouldn't expect to go to an art museum and see a sheet of 8.5 by 11 inch paper with programming code hung on the wall (at least I wouldn't; for all I know, it's been done). If someone designed a program that randomly shot colors of paint on a canvas, would the programmer be praised as an artist? I doubt it.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 25, 2009, 08:21:54 PM
But in the case of fractals
authorship in a digital world seems problematic too
like
these fractal images in this thread
- did I "make" then? Or did a computer make them?
If it's a compromise, is it fair to credit the programmer as co-artist? All he did was build the tools...
if true, then
for apophysis (the fractal flame generator) :
the programmer is a community of people. Who gets credit there?
I do
I take all the credit :ECH:
The matter of who deserves credit has changed with the medium; I agree. If a modern-day painter paints a painting (is that redundant?), we list that person as artist, not the one who made the brushes, mixed the paints, made the canvas, etc. And yet without those tools, the painting wouldn't exist. The same goes with a wood carver who uses a knife made by someone else.
But with a computer program, the program wasn't just a tool used by the user, in this case you, Cramulus. The program, written likely by a team of people, actually created the image. But the user, Cramulus, decided which of those images to post here. And if the user can change some of the random variables in the program, then the user in a sense becomes one of the programmers.
But again, as in my previous comment, if one person sold this as their art, it would ultimately come to a jury or a judge to decide. In this case, they would decide who gets the money.
QuoteBut with fractals, someone designed a computer program, which generally would not be considered art. You wouldn't expect to go to an art museum and see a sheet of 8.5 by 11 inch paper with programming code hung on the wall (at least I wouldn't; for all I know, it's been done). If someone designed a program that randomly shot colors of paint on a canvas, would the programmer be praised as an artist? I doubt it.
Computer programs, and in particular the sort you are describing here, have been generally considered "art" themselves by the artistic computing community for ages.
You don't see code printed out on sheets hung to a wall in a gallery for the same reason as you don't see musical scores printed on sheets in a gallery.
The programmer of the program that randomly shoots paint at a canvas would definitely be considered an artist, depending on the artistic merit his work has. For a comparison, again consider music. John Cage has created several musical pieces that consist of instructions to roll dice or flip coins or something in order to determine the score to be played. This is directly analogous to a computer program (= instructions). And John Cage, the writer of the program is indeed considered the artist.
Btw, some famous classical composer, could have been Bach, had already done something similar. He wrote parts of scores, that would be reordered depending on some random source (might have been a stack of cards or dice, I'm not sure).
Quote from: Sheered Völva on May 29, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
So it got me wondering. Because in America the artistic value of a piece can determine whether or not its considered obscene and thus prosecutable, would a jury consider porn made by a computer to automatically be non-artistic?
I'm not sure because I'm not at all familiar with the practical workings of the American jury-system. But, giving it some consideration, I think the answer falls apart in two categories.
First, what they most probably
will do, which is, judge the piece on whether their personal tastes classify it as "obscene" or not. So that will most probably come down to a per-jury-member decision based on the ratio of hardcore fucking scenes versus aestetically pleasing softcore erotica. This may not be the "proper" way to judge the law but that's what you're gonna get if you let a bunch of random people with no legal training decide on these matters. Do juries really get no training? At all? Not even a 30 minute crash course powerpoint into the basic concepts of law and ethics? Or a flyer? And then they put it to a vote, right? And the assumption is that if you take the majority vote of a bunch of people with no idea what they're deciding about, you get something fair :lol:
Anyway, second is what they should decide if they take into account the letter of the law and the intention of the law. Then combine that with a factor of how important it is to punish the case in order to keep society safe and deter further criminal behaviour. But this is right about where my knowledge of your culture fails. See if the law just said "porn is obscene and therefore illegal", it would be easy. Some middle-eastern countries have this. Given something that may or may not be porn, decide using the amount of skin/boobage/organs/pubic hair or whatever the precedent tells you, and make a judgement. But as soon as you add the clause " ... unless it's art." it stops making sense and IMO you wrecked the fairness of the legal system.
Really, just consider it for a moment. Stop thinking of whether a computer generated it or not. Stop thinking about porn (or at least try to ;) ), and just consider this statement for a moment:
"X is illegal .. unless it's art."
Now imagine. X is something you actually deeply consider to be morally wrong. Murder, rape, child pornography, etc. What do you think of this law now? For me, the words "dangerous loophole" come to mind.
Then imagine X is something you really don't consider wrong, but some other people do. Filesharing, pornography, smoking cannabis. What do you think now? For me, if I didn't know better, I'd think "ha one step closer to winning the battle", or something.
Do you see what's happened now? The law is considered fair by neither of the fronts. The law is also vague and arbitrarily gets some people into trouble and lets others go free. Whether this is considered just, depends purely on the particular case and the moral stance of whoever considers it.
Which, afaik, is exactly the sort of unclarity the Law is supposed to prevent.
So in this case, it's not a law about obscenity of porn that's the problem, but a bunch of artist hippies that managed to wreck the system by adding the clause ".. unless it's art" to the law.
In a way, that's Strife and Discordia, of course. But if you consider the above for a few moments, it's not exactly making people more "free", but rather lull them into justifying the system to be more arbitrary.
Excellent post, zilch.
My one bone of contention is that those artists were making a legitimate point with that "...unless it's art" clause. That's vagueness saves the artist because every written definition of pornography will be incomplete. You just can't write an airtight definition of anything, much less porn, or art for that matter. So juries don't have any non-subjective criteria to evaluate whether something is really porn or really for-real artistic expression. Those aren't neat categories anyway. There's tons of art depicting, say, a naked woman. If I hang it on a wall, people will come to see it. If I print it in a magazine, people will jerk off to it. This could be the same photograph. (therefore the art vs porn discussion is very much about context, often moreso than content)
I have this evil plan to get for-real art removed from museums. I'll just send someone to the museum every day to jerk off to that piece. They'll get arrested of course. But after 10 or 15 people are compelled to drop trow and flog the dog as soon as they see the art, juries will have to decide it's porn, right? :lol:
Well, yes, if you decide pornography to be illegal, you shouldnt make a law that vaguely outlaws "pornography", but it should be more clearly stated as "a realistic depiction of a sexual act" or "a depiction of bodyparts X Y or Z, not covered by cloth" (or whatever)
and yes in the latter case you're going to run into trouble with pics of women breastfeeding their kids, and a lot of beautifully artistic paintings.
tough luck.
in the Arabic countries they can't publically display all paintings by Gustav Klimt either. but at least you get all that filth out of public view in a more or less fair way.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 29, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
Well, yes, if you decide pornography to be illegal, you shouldnt make a law that vaguely outlaws "pornography", but it should be more clearly stated as "a realistic depiction of a sexual act" or "a depiction of bodyparts X Y or Z, not covered by cloth" (or whatever)
and yes in the latter case you're going to run into trouble with pics of women breastfeeding their kids, and a lot of beautifully artistic paintings.
tough luck.
in the Arabic countries they can't publically display all paintings by Gustav Klimt either. but at least you get all that filth out of public view in a more or less fair way.
no no, I disagree. It's better to leave the definition of pornography subjective, because any definition you write won't adequately cover the cases. I think it's more important for art to be free than for porn to be illegal. With a rigid definition, you'll always end up censoring nonpornographic artistic expression. There
aren't objective categories to distinguish art and porn. This is precisely the subject of a substantial amount of of art. Neither intercourse nor genitals are specifically pornographic. And the "realistic" qualifier in your example is just another subjective measure which the jurors will have to wrestle with internally.
And that definition, of course, opens up the gateway for all sorts of "non realistic" porn. :lol:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/freudphallusvaginadiagram.jpg)
Quote from: Cramulus on May 29, 2009, 03:40:23 PMno no, I disagree. It's better to leave the definition of pornography subjective, because any definition you write won't adequately cover the cases. I think it's more important for art to be free than for porn to be illegal.
Ehm, no. If I'm not mistaken you think porn should not be illegal at all.
(So, most things would be more important to you can porn to be illegal)
QuoteWith a rigid definition, you'll always end up censoring nonpornographic artistic expression. There aren't objective categories to distinguish art and porn. This is precisely the subject of a substantial amount of of art. Neither intercourse nor genitals are specifically pornographic. And the "realistic" qualifier in your example is just another subjective measure which the jurors will have to wrestle with internally.
No, see. "Pornography" is just not a term that should be used in legal definitions. Unless you use it as a shorthand for a very specific legally specified set of things. But in that case it does not correspond to the meaning of the word in every day language anymore. Because the word is subjective, the way it is used in the language.
The thing is, you gotta ask the people that want to ban "pornography" what it exactly is they want to ban. They'd better have a fairly accurate definition of it, and I'm pretty sure that the people that want to ban pornography will consider a whole bunch of artistic expression to be pornographic as well.
If you just say "pornography is illegal", you're gonna have the anti-pr0n ppl trying to push every Klimt showing a nipple into the pr0n class, whereas others will try to push porno as art.
And the upshot of this all is that as soon as the anti-pr0n ppl come up with a list of specific and reasonably unambiguous definitions, THEN you can also put to question whether it's actually reasonable to prohibit part of them.
But if the reason behind banning pr0n is that "it corrupts the mind", and these people apparently got their way, I don't see why a whole crapload of art shouldnt be banned too.
I just want to know if I can leave it in my legislator's office.
isnt pornography specifically "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." therefore, not including lotsa art....
also how did fractals turn into porn?
As far as I can tell, you guys are agreeing?
Quote from: Fred Noodle on May 29, 2009, 04:34:29 PM
also how did fractals turn into porn?
sheered volva didnt want to let go of the subject and I took the bait :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 29, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: Fred Noodle on May 29, 2009, 04:34:29 PM
also how did fractals turn into porn?
sheered volva didnt want to let go of the subject and I took the bait :)
All right, I admit it. I masturbate while looking at fractals. :fap:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/LayeredFractal-1.png)
strangely erotic.
Mesmerizing. Rapturous. Bonerific.
Learning some new tricks in Apophysis. There is PAINFULLY little documentation on this program, a lot of my learning materials are chat logs and discussions on deviant art. So it's slow going, but I'm starting to get a feel for 3D fractals.
these are kind of large, so I'll post them as thumbnails - right click -> view to see full size.
"Sun Temple"
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/SunTemple.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/SunTemple2.png)
^this is an early render, I'm actually working on a larger version that should be finished rendering in the next ... 30 hours or so. I'm not sure if it'll actually LOOK better, it might be too noisy with the detail that high. We shall see, we shall see.
Wicked cool!
Wow that is soo cool!
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/targeteyeclouds.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/space7-2.png)
I really like the cross hair thing the first one has going! :mittens:
The space one is now my new netbook background! Very neat!
Quote from: Cramulus on December 31, 2009, 08:21:56 PM
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/targeteyeclouds.png)
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/space7-2.png)
I want to fuck your fractals
--Telarus' girl Mara aka Liv
EITHER
Your images have reeally advanced since this thread began. These newest ones are fucking cool. And I was sick of "fractals" like, 15 years ago. I'd like to know more about how you base the images and then expand to get these epic fractal-scapes. These are inspiring, for sue
OR
Butt is it really art?
EITHER
You know Cram, 'sun temple' is basically the 'Helm of awe', or damn near any of the 'Helms', and really a great sort of, transposition of primal forms. The latter image, the 'outer space' flyfot or whatever, is straight up cave man shit done 2010. I can't tell you how much I like these new fractals! If you're into it, I'd love a low down on your method and what you were thinking.
OR
The goddess said not to stare directly into the...
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 04, 2010, 07:24:55 AM
Your images have reeally advanced since this thread began. These newest ones are fucking cool. And I was sick of "fractals" like, 15 years ago. I'd like to know more about how you base the images and then expand to get these epic fractal-scapes. These are inspiring, for sue
Thanks much!
I've been exploring fractals since 15 years, but I agree that my work has made progress over the last few weeks.
Mainly, it was experimenting with Apophysis, which is a pretty neat program. It's taken me a number of weeks to start to really figure out how the Apophysis' transform editor works. I still don't entirely get it, but I'm starting to get a sense for how to modify stuff to make it look a specific way.
ChaosPro (the program I was using at the beginning of this thread) is sort of like using a paint brush. You pick a fractal, and then basically zoom in until you have the image you want. You can tweak the palette, but you're somewhat limited in how much control you have. With Apophysis, on the other hand, you
even less control. And that's what makes it interesting looking.
Working with the Transform editor is like working with a spray can - the paint comes out of the can, and you can guess roughly where it's going to land, but you never know for sure. Most of what you're doing is moving these little triangular fields around until you have something cool looking. Knowing how to manipulate the editor is like having different types of nozzles for the spray cans. Maybe your fractal has some swirl patterns, or some bubbles. I've found it challenging to make all the elements combine in a way which isn't just noise.
Over the last two weeks I've probably spent 20 hours just playing with Apophysis -- installing different plugins, going through tutorials, trying to figure out how to jockey the math. I still feel like a novice - the cats on deviant art are making much cooler stuff than I.
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 04, 2010, 07:41:25 AM
If you're into it, I'd love a low down on your method and what you were thinking.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/space7-2.png)
This one is called Space Seven. I was trying to make interesting symmetrical patterns using julia transforms. Ironically, I was trying to make really "natural" looking fractals, and was shying away from far out colors like pinks and pastels. When this image emerged from the stew, I thought it would look good on fabric like some sort of Buddhist mandala. The pinks and greens also made me think of the colors you might see in deep space photographs. I tried putting the fractal onto fabric textures, but it wasn't really working, so I picked out an image from the hubble telescope. It's been manipulated a bit to keep everything roughly symmetrical.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/targeteyeclouds.png)
I hadn't juxtaposed this with the Helm of Awe - interesting comparison! This image started as a perspective study. I discovered these really interesting details around the circumference and wanted to focus in on those. The gold radial markings reminded me in part of gold filigree and the big sun calendars that ancient people used to measure the seasons. Hence the name, "sun temple".
thanks for asking!
and thanks for the kind words, everybody. I appreciate it. :)
Wow, those really are awesome! Damn. Especially this one:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/targeteyeclouds.png)
I really want to do some 3d work with your fractals, Cram.....
Hmmm, maybe a project for today since I woke up before noon =P.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2008, 05:47:53 AM
The first of the second batch is like plaid.. pan-dimensional plaid.
I would definitely say that those last two are my favorites.
These are beautiful. I'm taking a class on chaos theory, fractals, crystallography and a lil' bit of programming with Ralph Abraham. He would love your work too! Soon I will know the math behind the mysterious romanesco broccoli and electric sheep.
Do make music by any chance?
Ralph Abraham! I read a book by him where he was doing "trialogues" with Rupert Sheldrake and Terrence McKenna. Abraham was the only one not talking shit.
I wonder if I still have that book, I never finished it, afaik.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 21, 2010, 10:37:45 PM
Ralph Abraham! I read a book by him where he was doing "trialogues" with Rupert Sheldrake and Terrence McKenna. Abraham was the only one not talking shit.
I wonder if I still have that book, I never finished it, afaik.
It's definitely a treat to watch the bearded genius present lectures out of memory and personal experience. He won a grant that allowed him to teach the class he always wished he could, so this Math and Art class is really an excuse for him to write another book, and use the lectures as an outline for his chapters. A genius and an opportunist. turns me on.
These are too large to post in-thread without it screwing up your browsing window. I'll post em at thumbnail size, but they should be viewed at full size.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/cb5f455e44e24f02c9cbfc91ae88ded0/tumblr_mj46ihioUH1rhegcjo1_1280.png)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/bdc26e443e0c595bcb29f9a8a5088d19/tumblr_mixqxzRIes1rhegcjo1_1280.png)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d3041cad9c12306e65065d75bdd9f59c/tumblr_mi52glOXMK1rhegcjo1_1280.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/e3ab06bbd690162883f1f8869d3c3099/tumblr_mi52fgtZlT1rhegcjo1_1280.jpg)
GD, Cram! These are crazy awesome too!!
Very impressive work! Awesome!