Martin Krikorian wrote:
Well, EVERY fractal that comes from fractint meets that description. The question is, what else do they look like? I look at my creations/discoveries and have given them names that had meaning - because the pictures inspired me. Many of them still exist with the generic fractint filename, because they have not inspired me.
Yet for me their simple beauty might be enough. Does something need to have meaning to be beautiful? My art major daughter would agree on one hand, and disagree on the other. To her, art without meaning is fine, but art that doesn't communicate is (as she describes it) a "spot on the wall" She has a very low opinion of many pieces of "modern" art for that reason, including some famous ones hanging in some big art museums in Paris like the Pompidou Centre.
As I sift through the fractal plane, looking for interesting things to render, I toss aside many images, glancing at them for a moment and going on, as they hold no interest. For a fools errand, one could look through seahorse valley and try and find the most boring scene, I suppose. As soon as you put a title on it and called it 'Boring', though, you would know that it inspired you in at least one way. ; )
And you're communicating something of yourself, how you view things, and at least hinting at what you consider non-boring. I sometimes wonder what a psychiatrist who interprets Rohrschach tests might make of some Fractinters' choices for titles! ;-) david authenticity, honesty, community gnome@hawaii.rr.com
On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:47 AM, david wrote:
Hmm, I've seen fractals that were just that (graphical representations of iterated formula), but were still beautiful to look at.