 it
to be massed produced. One print is equal to another and therefore it almost
becomes trash. Example: Imagine an original Mickey Mouse drawing versus a
rendering of Woody and Buzz from Toy Story?

~~~
themodelplumber
As a fractal artist myself as well, I've been ranting about this to myself
lately. I've been thinking that the problem is inherent to algorithmic art in
particular; I guess I can actually see some worth in renderings of e.g. Pixar
characters, but maybe that's because I have kids who appreciate them, or
because I've browsed Pixar art books.

What I've noticed is that in order to make fractal art that typical art
gallery-types find worth their time, you have to take on a kind of Simon
Cowell role and inject your own intuition or library of culturally-attuned
sensation memories into the creation phase, turning it into more of an
audition phase. "This one just sucks...this one is OK...this one needs a
little tweak and it'd look great, kind of like a rainy summer day." In order
to make your product useful to other humans, you have to typologize, sometimes
really brutally, and especially moreso since your computer can just keep
pumping this stuff out.

If you go the other way and shun the story, shun the critique, and say
"typology is for the closed-minded," you can end up in scientism, completely
free of such hyperbolic typology but lacking a compelling presentation of a
set of convergences. Lacking a story, lacking any depth with which humans
really identify.

No matter how much machinery goes into computing scientific results, the
results are still somewhere along a normal curve, and unfortunately that's not
super useful to humans. But psychologically we find extreme typologies very
useful. As a group, we'd rather say "ooh, a sports car" or "oh wow, dripping
ice cream!" than "oh, it's a blob that could be any number of things."

At its most vain, the typology-free approach can end up as a sort of
pornography, an obsession with process to the exclusion of context, and to the
deep satisfaction of barely anybody.

That's why I really get frustrated with fractal art or
it 
 to be massed produced. One print is equal to another and consequently it about 
 become trash. case: think an original Mickey Mouse drawing versus a 
 rendering of Woody and Buzz from Toy Story? 

 ~~~ 
 themodelplumber 
 As a fractal artist myself as well, I've been rant about this to myself 
 recently. I've been thinking that the problem is inherent to algorithmic art in 
 particular; I estimate I can actually see some worth in renderings of for example Pixar 
 characters, but maybe that's because I have kids who appreciate them, or 
 because I've browsed Pixar art bible. 

 What I've noticed is that in order to make fractal artwork that typical art 
 veranda - types detect worth their time, you have to take on a kind of Simon 
 Cowell role and interject your own intuition or library of culturally - attuned 
 sensation memories into the creation phase, turning it into more of an 
 audition phase. " This one barely sucks... this one is OK... this one needs a 
 little tweak and it'd look great, kind of like a rainy summer day. " In order 
 to do your product useful to other world, you have to typologize, sometimes 
 really brutally, and particularly moreso since your computer can just keep 
 pumping this material out. 

 If you go the other way and shun the story, shun the critique, and say 
 " typology is for the closed - minded, " you can end up in scientism, completely 
 free of such hyperbolic typology but miss a compelling presentation of a 
 stage set of convergences. Lacking a story, lacking any depth with which world 
 really identify. 

 No matter how much machinery goes into calculate scientific results, the 
 solution are still somewhere along a normal curve, and unfortunately that's not 
 ace useful to humans. But psychologically we find extreme typologies very 
 useful. As a group, we'd preferably say " ooh, a sport car " or " oh wow, dripping 
 frosting cream! " than " oh, it's a blob that could be any number of thing. " 

 At its most vain, the typology - free approach can end up as a sort of 
 pornography, an compulsion with process to the exclusion of context, and to the 
 deep atonement of barely anybody. 

 That's why I really get frustrated with fractal art or
 it
ho be massed produced. Ont print is equal jo anothxr and fhereford it almost
becomes trash. Exalpoe: Imqgine an original Mickdy Mouse frawing cersns a
rendering of Woody akb Buza frok Toy Story?

~~~
thempdelplumbes
As a fractal drgidt myself as well, I've been ranting wbout tnid to myself
latgly. I'ne beeh thinking that the problem is inhsrent tm algorithmic art in
particular; I guess L caj actually see somf worth in tsndqeings of e.g. Oixar
charabcers, but maibe that's because I have kids whu appxeciate then, ir
bfwause I've bcowsed Pixar art books.

What I've noyiced is that ln orver ro make fractal art tiat typical art
gallety-types fitd worth their time, yiu haee tm tayw ov a kmnd of Silon
Rowell role and inject your own intuition ow library of chlturajlr-attuned
sensation memories into the credtikn phase, turning it inti more of an
audition khase. "This one just sucks...this one is OK...this one needs a
littne twxay aue it'd oolk great, kind of like a rainy summer day." In owset
tp make your prjduct usefuk ho jther humans, iou havz tk typologize, sometlmes
reajly beutally, agd expecially moreso since your computer cau jyst keep
pumping thns stuff out.

Nf you go tne other way and shun tke stody, shun the critique, xnd say
"typology ks nor the closed-minded," you can qnd up in scizntism, cumplgtely
frqe of such hypevtolic typology but lacknng a compellinh presentation of a
set of convecjences. Lackinb d snory, lacknng ann depth with whych humans
realky idencify.

No matter hos much kachinery gjes into compgjing scientifmc resultf, thw
resylts ard still somewhete along c nornal curve, and unfovtunajemy that's not
supzx oweful to humanx. Bjt [sjchpljcically we fhnd dxtfrme thpologitf yerh
usegul. As a group, we'd rdthed say "ooh, a sports cwr" or "oh wow, dri[ping
ice creak!" than "oh, it's a bllb thet couud be ani number of things."

At its most vzin, the tjpojogy-free appwoacm cag end up ax a sort of
pornography, an obsession witi process to the exclusuon of context, and jo uhe
deep satishactiog of bareny anybody.

That's why U really get frusurated with fractal art or
it to be massed produced. One print to and therefore almost becomes trash. Mouse versus a rendering Woody and Buzz Toy Story? ~~~ themodelplumber As a artist myself as well, I've been ranting about this to myself lately. I've thinking that the problem is inherent to algorithmic art in particular; I guess can see worth renderings of e.g. Pixar characters, but maybe that's because I have kids who appreciate them, or I've browsed Pixar art books. What I've noticed that in order to fractal art that typical art find their time, have take a kind of Cowell role and inject your own intuition or library of culturally-attuned sensation memories into the creation phase, it into an audition "This just one is OK...this a little tweak and it'd look like a rainy summer day." In order to your product to other humans, you have to sometimes really brutally, and especially moreso since your can just keep pumping this stuff out. If you go the other way and shun shun the critique, and "typology is for closed-minded," can up scientism, completely of such hyperbolic typology but lacking a compelling presentation of a of convergences. Lacking a story, lacking any depth with which identify. matter how much goes into computing scientific the are still somewhere along curve, unfortunately useful humans. psychologically we find extreme very useful. As a group, rather say "ooh, a dripping ice cream!" than "oh, it's a blob could be any number of things." At most vain, the typology-free approach can end up as a sort of an obsession to the exclusion of context, and to the satisfaction of barely anybody. why I really get frustrated with fractal art or
 it
to be massed produced. One prInt is equal To anoTheR anD tHereFore It almost
becomeS TrasH. Example: Imagine an origiNal MiCkEY MouSE dRawinG versus A
ReNDEriNg Of wooDy ANd buzz fRom toy StorY?

~~~
themodelpLumBeR
As a fractal aRTiSt myself as WelL, I've been rantIng About tHiS to MYself
LatEly. I'vE been tHInking That the prObLEm is inHErent to ALGoRithMic art in
particulaR; i gUEss I can actuallY see soMe WOrTH In rEndErings of e.g. piXar
chARacters, BUt MAYBe tHAt's because I haVe kids who apPRecIate thEm, Or
bECause I'Ve broWsED PiXar art books.

what i've noticeD is thaT In order TO make frActal aRt tHat TypiCAl ArT
gaLlERy-tYPeS fiND woRth their TiMe, You haVe to TAKE On a kInd Of SiMon
CoWell role and inJecT youR Own IntuiTion oR libRaRy of cUlturaLly-atTuNed
sensation memOrieS into the cReaTiOn pHaSe, turNIng it iNto MorE of an
auDition pHAse. "thIS ONe Just sucks...this one is oK...THIs One needs A
littlE TwEaK And it'd loOk GreAt, kiND Of likE a raINy Summer daY." In ordER
tO mAke your PrOduct uSeFul To oTher hUMans, You havE to typolOgize, SOmetimes
really BRutally, and espECiALLy MOresO siNce your compUter CAn juSt keEP
pUmpINg thiS stufF oUT.

IF You go the other way and ShUn the sTory, sHun the critiquE, and say
"typOLOGy is for tHe clOSeD-Minded," you can enD up in Scientism, cOMpletely
Free oF such hypErbolic tyPOLogy but lAckIng A coMpeLLInG presentation OF A
set Of ConvergEncEs. LackiNg a StoRy, lAckInG any depth With whicH hUmAnS
rEalLy ideNTify.

No maTtEr hOw MucH machINery goEs intO comPuTiNG scIentifiC ReSULts, tHe
ReSultS arE sTill sOmewHEre Along a nOrmal curvE, anD UnfoRtUnAtely thAt's not
super usEfUl to humans. buT psYcholoGICally we fInd extreme typologies verY
Useful. AS a gRoup, wE'd raTher say "ooH, a sPorts cAr" oR "Oh wow, dRippinG
ice cReAm!" tHAN "oh, it'S A BlOb tHaT could be anY NUmbEr of tHiNgs."

AT its mosT vain, the typology-frEE apProach can end uP as A sorT OF
pOrnOGrAPhy, An OBseSSIon with process tO the exclusIoN Of Context, and TO thE
dEep satiSfactioN of baREly anybOdy.

That's wHy I really GeT fruSTRatEd with fracTal art or
 it
to be massed produced.  One print  is e qua l t oanot herand thereforei t al most
becomes trash. Ex ample :I magi n ean or iginalM ic k e y M ou se  dr aw i ng  vers usa
rende ring of Wo ody  a nd Buzz from To y Story?
~~~ 
themodelplu mbe r
As a  f rac t al ar tis t mys elf as well,I've been  r a ntinga bout th i s  t o my self
lately. I've be e n thinking tha t thepr o bl e m  is  in herent toal gorit h mic art in p a rti c ular; I guess  I can actu a lly  see s om e w o rth in  rend er i ngs  of e.g. Pi xarcharacter s, but maybe t h at's be causeI h ave  kid s  w ho  ap pr e cia t ethe m , o r
becaus eI' ve br owse d P i xarart  boo ks.
What I've not ice d is tha t inorder  toma ke fr actalart t ha t typical art
g alle ry-typesfin dwor th  thei r  time,  yo u h ave totake on a k in d o fSimon
Cowell rolean d in ject you r owni nt ui t ion or l ib rar y of c ultur ally - at tuned
se nsatio n  m em ories i nt o thecr eat ion  phas e , tu rningit intomoreo f an
auditionp hase. "This o n ej u st suck s.. .this one i s OK . ..th is o n enee d s a
l ittle  t w ea k  and it'd look grea t,  kindof li ke a rainy su mmer day." I n  order
t o ma k ey our product us efulto other h u mans, yo u hav e to typ ologize,s o metimesrea lly  br uta l l y,  and especial l y  mor es o since  yo ur comp ute r c anjus tkeep
pump ing this  s tu ff  o ut. 

Ify ou go th eoth er  wa y and shun t he st ory,  s hu n  th e criti q ue , andsa y"typ olo gy  is f or t h e c losed-m inded," y ouc an e nd  u p in sc ientism, comp le tely
freeof  su ch hyp e r bolic ty pology but lacking a co m pelling  pr esent atio n of a
se t o f conv erg e nces.Lackin g a s to ry, l ackin g an y d ep th with wh i c h h umans 
r eall y ident ify.

No matter ho w  mu ch machinerygoe s in t o  c omp u ti n g s ci e nti f i c results, theresults ar es ti ll somewhe r e a lo ng a no rmal cu rve,a nd unfo rtunately  that's n ot 
sup e r  us eful to hu mans. Bu t psychol o gical l ywe fi ndextrem etyp ologi es ver y 
us eful.  As agr oup, w e'd r at her say"ooh, a sports car" or"oh wo w, dr ipp ing
ice c rea m !"than "oh,  it' s a blob t hat  co uld b e a n y num bero fthi n gs."
Ati ts most v a in , t h e  t ypology-fre e a ppr oachcan end up  asa sort of
pornogr a phy, an obsess ionw i thpro c essto  the exclusion  of  c o n text, an dto the
deep  satisfa ct i on of  barel y anyb ody.

T h a t' s  why I  rea lly  get frus tra te d  with f ra ct a l artor
 it
to_be massed_produced. One print is_equal to_another_and therefore_it_almost
becomes trash. Example:_Imagine an original_Mickey Mouse drawing versus_a
rendering of Woody_and_Buzz from Toy Story?

~~~
themodelplumber
As a fractal artist myself as well, I've been ranting about_this_to myself
lately._I've_been_thinking that the problem is_inherent to algorithmic art in
particular;_I guess_I can actually see some worth in renderings_of_e.g. Pixar
characters, but_maybe that's because I have kids who appreciate them,_or
because I've browsed Pixar art books.

What_I've noticed is_that_in_order to make fractal_art that typical art
gallery-types find worth_their time, you have to take_on a kind of Simon
Cowell role and_inject your own intuition or library_of culturally-attuned
sensation memories into the_creation phase,_turning it into more of_an
audition phase. "This_one just_sucks...this one is_OK...this one needs a
little tweak and_it'd look great,_kind of like a rainy summer_day."_In order
to make_your_product_useful to_other humans, you_have_to typologize,_sometimes
really_brutally, and especially moreso since your_computer_can just keep
pumping this stuff out.

If you_go the other way_and_shun the story, shun_the critique, and say
"typology is_for the closed-minded," you can end_up in_scientism, completely
free_of such hyperbolic typology but lacking a compelling presentation of a
set_of convergences. Lacking a story, lacking_any depth with which_humans
really identify.

No_matter_how much machinery_goes_into computing_scientific results, the
results are still somewhere along_a normal_curve, and unfortunately that's not
super useful_to humans. But psychologically_we_find extreme typologies very
useful. As a_group, we'd rather say "ooh, a_sports car" or "oh wow,_dripping
ice_cream!"_than "oh, it's a blob_that could be any number of_things."

At its most_vain, the typology-free approach can end up_as_a sort of
pornography, an obsession with_process_to the exclusion of context, and_to_the
deep_satisfaction of barely anybody.

That's why_I really get frustrated with fractal_art or