Jim Muth wrote:
The entire concept of the entities we now know as 'fractals' was invented by human beings, and it is up to each individual to decide what is or is not 'a fractal'. To me, a fractal is something that resembles the images that I first saw in 'Sci. Am.' magazine around 18 years ago. This is my personal decision.
Doesn't "fractal" have a *mathematical* definition? On the other hand, "what 'fractal art' is" would be almost as vague and as personally defined as "what art is" (I guess the one caveat would be that "fractal art" would *somehow* involved fractals.)
Purity as such is meaningless in this context, unless it is part of your message.
'Fractal purity' is also a human invention. No two people will agree on what it is.
I donno. I think you (Jim) define 'fractal purity' pretty well, and I think it *is* part of your message. I see you (Jim) as a kin to Ansel Adams: both capturing a beautiful landscape in a way that is as faithful as possible to the reality while at the same time doing so in an "artful" and creative way. Anyone can take a snapshot; an *artist* makes beautiful photographs, and a big part of that art (IMO) is knowing what makes a "picture" and knowing how to process that picture to bring out its full beauty. Just my 1/50th... -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|