oohamuffin [2011-11-27 17:18:03 +0000 UTC]

1. that would be like saying a pencil or a paintbrush or a piece of charcoal does all the work. I say the artist does all thework because they actually come up with the art.
3. probably.
4. if it comes from someone's imagination still, i say it's art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tyris-stark [2011-11-27 14:41:17 +0000 UTC]

As far as question four goes: all art, without exception, is mere daydreams. The "projectors" will just be more obvious about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Imahimonoonna [2011-11-21 17:41:55 +0000 UTC]

I personally think Fractal art is very beautiful. I wish I knew how to do it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hetronicle [2011-11-21 10:27:31 +0000 UTC]

mmmm ...I just had lamb brains for dinner ...lovely
OK ..some of us have answered these questions to our own satisfaction ...should this be enough ...still, ..it would be amusing if someone could collate all the negative responses to these questions ..c'mon dev-gurus give a look-see eheh

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GreatToaNui [2011-11-21 01:25:12 +0000 UTC]

Actualy, as long as it is a picture, it is 'traditional' art no matter how it was made.



U SHAMELESS CONSERVATIVES IT IS A PICTURE, IT IS A PICTURE, IT IS "TRADITIONAL' ART. GET THAT INTO YOUR HEADS



any questions?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GreatToaNui [2011-11-21 01:19:59 +0000 UTC]

It is not the machine that makes the art, it just renders it into picture form.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sracha1713 [2011-11-20 21:43:24 +0000 UTC]

I really like photography. It is my second favorite art. Yes, sad art because i also feel that photography is an art. It is the person who takes the photos and manipulates them and changes the way they look. Some pictures i take are of flowers, but seen in another perspective the flowers looks totally different in the photos. Taking picture allow one t pulte the world into something even more fantastic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BohemiannConections [2011-11-20 12:50:36 +0000 UTC]

Haha! This artwork reminds me a Theory of Chaos.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AndreNiel [2011-11-20 08:46:19 +0000 UTC]

How can there be a difference between brushes or your fingers, or a Steinway and tin can beaten with sticks? If it expresses then it’s art! Live in Africa long enough and it becomes clear. So why should a Mac with Photoshop be dubious, or a Nikon? Art = Expression? The means of expression is the artists choice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

thebinarydragon [2011-11-19 20:01:16 +0000 UTC]

Sure it's art. A computer is a machine. A man made device. So is a camera, a paint brush, a pencil, a marker, and a crayon. They are all man made devices that require a human to make them operate. The actual work of art itself comes from the creativity of the artist. The computer or camera is just a tool that is used to make the physical image just as a paint brush is used on canvas to make a physical image. So yes, I agree that it is art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

1Ukiyoe [2011-11-19 19:06:58 +0000 UTC]

My comment:
The use of a computer to "create ART" is no difference then using a pencil, a pen, a paint brush or a printing press to enable the user to complete their process, ie: the drive to enable the viewer to journey into the mind of the artist.
W.A.CURTICE, 2011.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

1Ukiyoe [2011-11-19 18:59:21 +0000 UTC]

My comment:
The use of a computer to "create ART" is no difference then using a pencil, a pen, a paint brush or a printing press to enable the user to complete their process, ie: the drive to enable the viewer to journey into the mind of the artist.
W.A.CURTICE, 2011.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

1Ukiyoe [2011-11-19 18:58:28 +0000 UTC]

My comment:
The use of a computer to "create ART" is no difference then using a pencil, a pen, a paint brush or a printing press to enable the user to complete their process, ie: the drive to enable the viewer to journey into the mind of the artist.
W.A.CURTICE, 2011.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

YoshiArt24 [2011-11-19 11:47:02 +0000 UTC]

1.Well,I'd respond to the critics who think art is taking too much stress or labor in the computer:Why should we?If you're going to critic on deviations saying it's taking too much on the computer,go ahead,I ain't stoppin' ya but I'm staying on the critic side which has:Art Does Not Take Too Much On The Computers!

2.The extent for n artist's human agency that allows them to create anything that comes into their brain is their brain.Because,without it,we'd do nothing,and our life and doings are meaningless,so would our existence.But with it,We can create anything,think anything,even decide to do anything e want.

3.Yes;Without the programming,then all this metal and chips and bolts are just scrap metal and the programming allows us to do or use the mechanism to do our activities,create and upload stuff and even save a document into tiny parts in the Hard Drive and RAM.Plus,without the mathematics,how would we be able to calculate and carefully get the proper amounts of a special material when building an object or lean to program the mechanism?Without mathematics,We wouldn't EVEN BE ABLE TO do any of this that is existing to today.

4.Hmm...It could work or not.But having the computer chips implanted into our brains...I don't it such a good idea because it could cause:A.Abnormal Behavior.B.Out-of-control powers.C.People are going to want to know how they do that and last but not least.It may cause death or permanent brain damage due to brain surgery to implanting a computer chip inside one of our vital organs to maintain life.

One last thing I wanna say before i'm out:LIFE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YoshiArt24,out.Later,DA Team!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

YoshiArt24 [2011-11-19 11:31:55 +0000 UTC]

That's so cool,dA HQ!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hansmar [2011-11-18 20:11:41 +0000 UTC]

I think most of us here agree: fractal art is art.
1. It may be made by the machine, but if that would be all too it, all of these fractal works would be highly similar of non-descript. The choice of result that someone presents is the more 'human' part in the process. And official art-critics generally find that 'concept art' is art, even if nothing is actually produced. So why would something produced with help of the computer nog be art?
Though, I do partly agree with those that state that it is more or less 'easy' compared to more manual works. However, some 'abstract' art is also often called 'easy' ("My five year old can do that"). But, this is NOT true. I know, I am a somewhat experienced traditional hobby artist (painter) and it took me quite some time to create abstract art that I personally like. So it probably is just as difficult to make a 'good' fractal art.
2. See above.
3. I don't think so. I am also not so sure that you need to understand human skelets and muscles to be able to paint very realistic human figures. Realistic painting is all about looking closely. Fractal art is also all about looking closely (and making decisions).
4. Artists for sure! They would be the real conceptual artists, no longer needing many helping hands.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Euxiom [2011-11-18 18:11:08 +0000 UTC]

Fractals have been found in nature, I've watched a whole show on them. Art is often easily seen in the world, is it not? Photography was invented, I'd think, to capture the art that is already there, that only needs a keen eye with a camera in hand to capture and convey it.

Moving back to fractals, they are in the mountains and the tree branches. They're a curious, repeating pattern, made possibly by math. While they may not always be my cup of tea, they qualify as art to me.

Effort was involved, by both the person creating the fractal software, the person using it, even the machine itself, crunching numbers to create something. And if there is one thing I definitely know about art, it is that effort is always involved, no matter how small or how large.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

paulbrittgarcia [2011-11-18 03:53:46 +0000 UTC]

I luv fractal art! Check out my zazzle merchandise at: ([link] )

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

griffinfinity [2011-11-18 03:09:22 +0000 UTC]

Well, Kostabi has machines (assistants) do his work...they paint his 'patterns' and he slaps his name on them. I don't see what the fuss would be over 'fractals'. Warhol did the same with his screenprints. It's the patterns or fractals themselves that ultimately become viewed and interrpreted as art...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LadyKilljoy1313 [2011-11-18 01:22:54 +0000 UTC]

i think that the critics are just too much into one kind of art (traditional) and setting a deffinition of art based only on that one branch.Althrough a machine is doing most of the composition, ther are many skills required to create a masterpiece instead of a mishmask of stuff that doesn't compose well with each other. just learning ho to make such art is impressive.

i realy hope the debate ends soon and those criticks that think only one way will for once stop being so annoying... deal with it THERE IS NO SET DEFFINITION OF WHAT ART IS!!!!!!!!! jeeez... EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEV ON WHAT ART IS!!!
*short rant over***sorry sor spelling**

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DXGr1mReap3rXD [2011-11-18 00:04:10 +0000 UTC]

As much as I believe that everyone is entitled to have and support their own opinion, I despise it when that "support" is merely flaming and trying to push your beliefs onto others. But in this case, I am very much hoping that it will not be so. When someone claims that fractal art is mainly the work of the machine, I respond that that may not be entirely the case, seeing as how the coding for the design is inputted by the person creating it. I would believe that the design becomes the visionary's art when it is used for expressing the way - or an alternative way - the artist sees something. It is when the human uses the skills imprinted into their own essence and combine it with the works of the computer that the fractal wonders become true art. Thirdly, yes, I would most likely think so, seeing as how fractal art is the use of algorithms and calculations to create pieces of still art, animation, and media. As for the last question, well, I quite enjoy the way it makes my thoughts come together and converse as to what should be my answer. I love to think that they will be counted as true artists because they are using their own thoughts, ingenuity, creativeness, and imagination to produce these images. Even if they are the mere result of random-day-dreaming-turned-design, so what? It is still their own works, made by their own brains, with their own uniqueness finely in-tuned into these things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Cassaba19 [2011-11-17 22:32:24 +0000 UTC]

We are already living in the future. There are already many artists who have made the transition from traditional pigments and paper to a purely digital medium, where the only tangible artwork is a print out of those digital files.

Personally, I think that what we call art is an end result of the artist applying a decision based process to create something interesting. No one would deny that the patterns made on metal using early milling machines was artistic, all those overlapping shiny circles, but the decision about where to use that technique and how much to use it was an artistic one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yori1976 [2011-11-17 20:28:58 +0000 UTC]

Everything that someone decides to call art is art.
Then worth of this art is in the eye of the beholder, some pieces of art are appreciated by more observers than others.
Fractal images could be created randomly or intentionally, but at the end of the day, IMHO, art involves a decision by the artist somewhere in the process, and a selection of artwork to display. Fractal is just another medium - if some makes (not even creates) a fractal design, and chooses to call it art - it is art!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bvidgo [2011-11-17 20:23:31 +0000 UTC]

It is absolutely art

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

adorety [2011-11-17 18:05:18 +0000 UTC]

I don't need in depth knowledge to know creating fractals is art. Someone is interacting with something and manipulating the media to create an image or vision. Whether it is spontaneous or planned is of no consequence. As long as someone is interacting with the machine, then it is human art. When the computer reaches a level where it "decides" on its own to create fractal images, well...then you have true computer art. But it will still be art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ziroks [2011-11-17 17:58:19 +0000 UTC]

god damn it people its still art, why would someone not think its art? everything around us is art but for some reason or another some people seem to think other wise.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlurWing [2011-11-17 14:45:29 +0000 UTC]

For those who think it is the machine creating the image, please download one of the free fractal programs and see how quickly you can make a fractal similar to those posted by the best fractal artists here on deviantART. Bet it will take much longer than you think. Then check out the winners from the 2011 Benoit Mandelbrot contest [link] ... Some of us who do this on a regular basis may never reach this level of control and expression. Many of the deviants in these pages have a style of their own. Their work can usually be recognized from the thumbnails and previews. It's no easy task to mimic the style of the fractals that catch your eye. If it were just the machine, that task would certainly be easier. There are some in-depth discussions on this very topic authored by the mathematicians who write the formulas that serve as the starting platform for most modern fractals. Ron Barnett's Hidden Dimension Galleries [link] is a good place to start for some basic information. Then find Kerry Mitchel's work and publications and study them. A good starting point might be this link [link] in Wikipedia's pages. Fractals are both a mathematical playground and an art form depending on your interest, but a masters in math isn't needed to create beautiful images. Once one has a working knowledge of how to control or use a fractal generating program, the result is the artistic expression of each individual that simply uses the machine to create it...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AnastasioF [2011-11-17 14:17:21 +0000 UTC]

la diversidad del pensamiento del hombre se ve y siente en esta perspectiva.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Horus78 [2011-11-17 13:47:12 +0000 UTC]

These worlds u talk about are REAL .. there many universes out there , filled with

ANGELS , DEMONS , SOULS OF UNBORN HUMANS , WIZARDS , WITCHS ( who seek power )

etc...... Ray Kurzweil is right BUT u don't need computer chip to do this .

ALLAH already gave everyone of us that CHIP , we call that BRAIN BUT most of us

can't use it WHY.. well ALCOHOL & DISBELIEVE ,, ALCOHOL destroy ur BRAINS NERVE

CELLS and DISBELIEVEING destroys ur SOUL ,, so both MACHINE ( brain ) and the FUEL

( soul ) are gone. this kind of person is an IDIOT , IF U GUYS KNEW ABOUT THE

WONDERFUL WORLDS OUT THERE !! FULL OF MYSTERY , LOVE , KNOWLEDGE , FAITH (+)

most of us r DEAD people, even when we r breathing.


.....................................................

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

robingilby [2011-11-17 13:34:31 +0000 UTC]

digital algorithms, analog algorithms, computer keys, piano keys.

anyone can push the keys on a piano, but not everyone can touch souls when they do so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

jusk2ru [2011-11-17 13:25:50 +0000 UTC]

Creating fractal art is the same as photografing, only you can edit the composition in much more various ways.
It's truly a fractal universe..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DevilDogStudio [2011-11-17 13:05:30 +0000 UTC]

1. You are welcome to your opinion. Don't look. But then again, I never developed an appreciation for Cubism or Modernism. Can we discredit those? Please?
2. I have been playing with 3D since my Amiga days in the early 90's. I don't see any difference in manipulating parameters in one program or another. I don't hear people contesting the legitimacy of 3D anymore.
3. I don't think so. But maybe some programs I haven't tried require more of a stronger math base. This boils down to how well you know the program, and knowing what to when to yield the results you want. Some programs seem to be more random than others.
4. Art is subjective, and it is perspective. Art began as documentation. Later artists were little more than skilled labor fulfilling commissions for patrons. Now art doesn't seem to have any limits, or even rules anymore. It makes for having to wade through alot of crap. But it also frees minds to create in ways not thought of before.

I choose to express myself through fractals. There is a consumer base ready to purchase such works. Which begs the question: in a country that so boisterously touts free enterprise, if a substantial demographic is buying a particular type of work, does it really matter whether the industry recognizes it or not?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Oscarinas [2011-11-17 13:00:22 +0000 UTC]

Vagauk-
well I actually didnt want to offend you or your work, obviously computers are useful but there is a point when we abusse of them, can be in leisure or art.
We have to see a difference between how technology can help art or if technology will make the art for us.

Also i didnt write Digital art was just punching random buttons, I know is not random and it takes time and knowledge, but It separate art a step more from being a personal creation, for me is cold and far from be the instant representation of our ideas, looks more like a representation of the computer of what we type, not even instantly from our ideas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DarkSelfie [2011-11-17 12:59:30 +0000 UTC]

I don't see what the big deal is, people like different types of art, I don't see fractal art as any kind of a threat. You'd think that the bigger threat would be photomanipulation, because you can't tell some of that art from traditional. Many people prefer the look of traditional art, as opposed to mechanical fractal art, which is why some people are panicking. Mostly just starving traditional artists are panicking, but they have nothing to worry about(at least where fractal art is concerned). I don't have a taste for it, myself. Like photography.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TeeCee451 [2011-11-17 12:58:30 +0000 UTC]

When photography was first created it was a curiosity. The earliest photograph I know of that still exists was done on a plate coated with a type of asphalt that softened and became soluble in alcohol on exposure to sunlight. [ I hope I have that right, it has been a while since I looked that up ] So the dark stuff stayed and where there was light hitting the asphalt the alcohol bath stripped it off in proportion to the exposure. The light was focused with a lens from a camera obscura, which, ironically enough was often used by brush and oil artists to do up a sketch on the canvas that was to be the basis of the finished painting.

So, question one seems a bit self denial since use of this "machine" for creating "art" goes way back before someone mixed up collodion with silver halides and spread it on glass plates, perhaps I am wrong and there was an outcry about paintings created with the camera obscura also came up but, some how, I doubt it.

Number 2 is, honestly, number 2. There are many types of what is accepted as art where the artist takes a snip of this and a glob of that and even might slice bits from an old oil canvas that didn't quite work and by picking judiciously a great collage is made, or not. Often fractal patterns are mathematically manipulated so as to have a third dimension or are mapped onto other shapes there are countless ways to do this. So they are manipulated. So I ask you a favor, look up Jerry Uelsmann's manipulated work and then with a straight face tell me is isn't art.
It would be good to take note here that one of the convincing comments made in a french court was that photography was an art because of the human choices, many of them, made by by the photographer in making the image and its emotional impact.
In the end it is the artist using the machine that makes art.

For 3: I have an AA with an emphasis in mathematics from a local community college. Also, I have spent the majority of my working life dealing with computers, both hardware and software. So I feel confident that I can give you a firm "yes, kind'a sort'a maybe, perhaps, but I really don't know.
On the other hand, I'd wager that most of the masters of photoshop out there don't care about or have a clue what "do-else-if" means or what virtual ram or why blue injection lasers were rabidly wished for for so long.
How many oil and canvas artists know or care how to make their own brushes. They used to before technology came along and brush making got to be a specialty.
I honestly expect that lone of these days soon photoshop with have a fractal generator, if it doesn't already, and tools for manipulating same. So for now, yes, in my weak and flabby opinion knowing about computer hardware and software could be handy, but in the future and soon I expect the tools will be mainstreamed.

ah.. number 4

Once upon a time Benjamin Franklin created what he called his most beloved invention, the glass armonica. He got the idea from that after dinner trick of wetting your finger and running it around the wine glass edge at the right speed to make it vibrate with a clear pure and haunting tone. To Franklin it was a delightful an soothing music, then some curmudgeon spread a rumor that this music drove people mad if exposed long enough and frequently enough.
So the armonica vanished down the rat hole of history and only recently have there been attempts to revive the art of contracting them.
Moral: Any new technology will make those of weak bladder pee themselves first and grab their wallet second and then start working on a way to protect their little slice of income from any threat, real or imagined
Or to be a tad more raw and to the point, "I'm an artist, I KNOW what art is, I don't know or understand what you are doing and I KNOW WHAT ART IS, so that can't be art.
Regrettably, ever it shall be so.
I wish it were otherwise.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0