Matt, good points. You have a good memory. I forgot that I have you to blame for all of those spheres. Paul, good to hear from you. Honest, everyone, I don't care what happens. I am not nearly as caught up in this place as I used to be. I just think that some kind of definition for the gallery should be written down. Even if it states that any image from any source is OK. If it's written down then we accept the terms, whatever they are, and move on, or move out if we don't like the terms. When someone complains, we point them to the definition. If the definition has gray areas or it is ignored it doesn't matter, let it go. BTW, I think Paul's example belongs in the fractal gallery. It's as pure a fractal as a fractal can be :) Keith

The interesting thing about this thread is that people seem to keep implying that they are being told how to make their art. That's so far from the truth. Nobody has told a single person how to create an image or stifled anyone's creativity in any single way. All that's been said is that if you "choose" to make a certain type of art, it should be placed in a certain gallery, that's all. Judging by the bulk of comments, people want absolutely no rules to the fractal gallery. I hope people are really weighing the consequences of anarchy, because that's what the gallery will be without clear cut guidelines. I don't care what label you put on it, whether it's "artistic freedom," "non-stifled creativity," or whatever else you label it, it'll be anarchy, and that's a bad way to go.

Anarchy?? LOL These guidelines/restrictions have only been in effect for a couple months and the fractal gallery has been here for years without them. I don't think it was in anarchy. ;o)

I'm actually not opposed to a 'general guideline' (note I didn't say rules) for fractal images as long as it doesn't restrict creativity and drive people away from the gallery. Forcing them to change galleries because suddenly their images don't fit is unfair. I believe the only guideline we had to go by before was "Any and all types of fractal images accepted". I can't remember the exact wording but it was something like that. I think this type of statement with a bit more definition would be enough of a guideline. Don't ask me what it would say though because i've been trying to think of it all day and haven't got a clue... Matt.

Oh for crissakes.

Where is my eyeroll icon?

Get rid of the damn rules and if someone deems a fractal a fractal, or if it has fractal IN it, then let the person post it in the fractal section. My God this is just trivial pettiness at its excruciating worst.

Mindy

Message edited on: 10/08/2004 23:28

LOL...;o)

LOL @ Mindy There wasnt anything wrong with the way the gallery was before. There was a diverse array of images that i really enjoyed. If i didnt like the thumb of a particular image, then i just didnt click. How hard is it to just bypass an image you dont want to look at? The fractal compositions of artists i liked, i dont see anymore because they arent allowed in here. I dont go to the mixed medium gallery, why should i have to go there when i want to look at fractals, no matter how theyve been used. That is what this gallery is for.

Hi all! The voting page will be posted Monday night. Sorry for the delay...it's been a busy weekend. Trivial or not...I see nothing wrong with getting everyone's input as to the content of the Fractal Gallery. If it goes back to the way it was, then at least we know we got the majority vote on it, and any complaints can be directed back to the vote results :) Nick

I think you have the patience of a saint, Nick. You're a good moderator trying to implement the will of the people. The problem is that the pettiness and holier-than-thou attitudes of those fearful of embracing art for art's sake undoubtedly makes your job virtually impossible. Because no matter what is decided, the flat-earthers will whinge loudly, as they always do. They'll see their sacrosanct "pure" fractals as an abomination when tampered with. They know nothing of art, all they know is their own narrow, dogmatic beliefs which have not a thing to do with the meaning of art.

The obsessed concern of some people as to whether or not something constitutes a "pure" fractal makes my stomach roil. This kind of thinking is a bone in the throat of anyone hoping for fractal art to ever attain legitimacy as an art as opposed to a mathematical exercise or ego-driven pursuit. Anyone who deems it necessary to define art by their own narrow standards, or define what a fractal should be and how it should be made should be ignored with a relentless vigilance. All it does it narrow the playing field and frighten away any artist with a scintilla of innovation.

Trying to please the majority in itself is not a bad thing; it only becomes dangerous when the majority are the equivalent of a Mandelbrot Taliban. I hope the true meaning of art prevails, although every time I read a thread like this one, one of many discussions I have seen, my hope for that kind of healthy, logical thinking dwindles to the size of an atomic particle.

Mindy

I agree with you, Mindy. Let's face it: with all the great programs out there (free and otherwise), it is relatively easy to create beautiful fractals. In my mind, where it starts to become art (rather than just the product of an algorithm) lies in what the artist does to and with the fractal beyond that point. (That's my personal take on it: I know that not everyone shares this viewpoint.) :) Cia

Hi Mindy,

I am a purist. But for my own works only. I do like to view works that are post-processed. I just don't like to post-process my own works because I still dream of having them all in a really large format on the wall. Two of my works are rendered and printed to 50x50cm - I love the sight...
What I do not like here at the gallery are images that have no real fractal/algorithmic character anymore. But it is near to impossible to me to define this. Therefore I'd like to have guidelines, not rules for this gallery. I'd like to have this gallery as a meeting point for those who call themselves fractallers/fractal artists/fractomaniacs/... I do not want to have this gallery "spammed" by images that e.g. would better fit to e.g. Digital Comics.
So let us vote and not crusade...

well then your a mathematician, Andreas, not everyone is so gifted and can program a formula which produces a graphical presentation, there are other ways to produce a fractal as well, by combining several programs with each other to get a presentation on their screen, those are called fractal designers .... and for those people is room in this gallery as well, whether you like it or not ... you just gotta live with it, or this gallery will be quite empty... LOL

Reckon I'll put in my thoughts on all this stuff, too. I'm really of two minds about the whole deal. On the one hand, I like the diversity of things being done with fractals but on the other hand it'd be a shame to see the fractal pages become a catchall and just some miscellaneous "other" genre. I agree with Keith about some of the more obvious "mis-postings". I'm certainly not a fractal "purist" and I suppose many more traditional fractallists weren't too pleased to see all those mega-layer compositions that I or Keith, Maria and others have done using all fractals to make scenes with a quasi real-life look to them. The main thing I think that separates fractal art from the others here is the "do it yourself" quality even when one makes fractal scenes. There is no "freestuff" available and we have to make everything "from scratch". Need a sphere? Gotta come up with 4-10 layers of design and shading/masking layers to make one. Need a fractal building or a giraffe like Maria has made so well before? Gotta go and find all the right fractal shapes and make the masks, textures and clips yourself and layer it all. Need a dock? I had to come up with shapes, textures and some flames to the tune of 90 layers just to make that. Took me a month and a half solid to figure things out and make "Vancouver Sunset" last year. Having a vision for an image and taking the time to realize that vision causes one to become more proficient with whatever "fractal software" they use. If we had all sorts of "freestuff" we would never learn really how to use our programs better and would just paste in what someone else took the time to figure out. We see this with much of the Poser and some of the Bryce stuff here where there is this big long list of credits under the image where they used "free" or bought stuff someone else made. Many are stunningly beautiful compositions and amazingly artistic and I enjoy them but they are, IMO, partially the fruits of someone else's labors unless the artist made everything themselves by really learning their MEDIUM. Therein lies any "purity" that fractal art may have - they all have to be made from scratch. There are many places to learn programs like UF, XD, VOC, Apophysis and others and hundreds of great artists who are glad to help, but in the end, one has to "do it yourself". I think that there is a big difference between "post-work" and the use of a second or third "medium" to add shapes to an image. The hair splitting is just "lawyer talk", IMO. Adding texture or kaleidoscoping/mirroring/texturing a flame or other fractal is just post-work or "editing", IMO, and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. When I take a picture of my wife I'm not taking a picture of the background scenery and all the naturally ocurring fractals like trees in it, I'm taking a pic of HER and the background is just there. SHE is the focus, the subject. If I wanted a pic of the scenery, I'd leave her out of it, no? There is a gallery for Poser works and anything that uses that program - or MEDIUM ought to go there since it was set aside especially for the users of that medium to show all the possibilities of that program. When I see an image like that, however beautiful, the first thing that comes to mind is Poser even if there are a ton of fractals in the background. One's eye is drawn first to the Poser figure and later to the background. Fractals and fractal looking images can be made with all sorts of programs. Look at the neat "fractals" Harmen makes with - I think - Artmatic on his Macintosh rig. Makes me want to buy a Mac - if I could afford one! LOL Likewise, many fractal looking things can be done with Bryce - check out "araffaell"! I remember Bryan Smith(smithgiant) being dissed pretty bad for not using "fractal" software to make fractal seeming images and he did some incredible pieces of art. I certainly couldn't tell what was used and the same with Harmen's stuff - they sure look "fractal" enough for me. But when one starts making rooms and furniture, the overarching vibe says Bryce to anyone who looks. There again, a special gallery has been set aside here to show what can be done in that medium as well. Why wouldn't one want to post their images with Poser or Bryce aspects to the galleries where they could be most appreciated by artists familiar with those media and the difficulties and skills required to produce an image with them? I certainly am not an authority on what it takes to use those programs, though I do know when I like an image. Not to mention it would get more of artists exposed to what can be added to those images with fractals and maybe we wouldn't be such a minority after a while. But at the same time there is the question of change or stagnation of this genre. I've enjoyed most of the supposedly "mis-posted" images immensely and to not have seen them would have left my life a good bit less enriched. After the guidelines happened, I made efforts to make sure to periodically check my favorite artists' from the fractal pages galleries and have seen some amazing stuff but it IS a hassle and takes more time than many of us have. Maybe one should not let their creativity be constrained to the boundaries of a certain genre just because they want to post to a certain gallery? I think we should all just "let 'er rip' and make the images that come naturally from our souls and not be so worried about "where do I post this"? or "does it fit in"? Post it where you HONESTLY know it fits and who cares WHERE it is as long as its in one's gallery page? The important thing is THAT IT IS. I guess one problem is there are so many programs to make fractals, too. Maybe change the name of the gallery to "Fractal Art" instead of "Fractals"? To constrain it to nothing but spirals would be a dead end, IMO. How many can you make before they all look the same? It occurs to me the gallery would then display a very fractal-like "self similarity" and we'd miss out on seeing some pretty cool images. Anyhow, Just my couple a cents - I sure hope whatever "guidelines" we come up with will be accepted and everyone can get back to what they do best - make awesome pieces of digital art! I think many of us need to also realize that - at least in my case - we are allowed to post here for free and as such are "guests" in the "house" of the corporation that has given us all this opportunity and, as with any visitors, we have to follow the rules they put forth because they own this web-space. Hope no one gets ticked at me - just my opinions - and I'm in no way dissing anyone's work. Heck, I'd be in the MM and Bryce gallery occasionally, too - if I could figure out how to use Bryce and find a really fierce looking dragon tube! lol I'll be happy with whatever the guidelines become. I lean a bit towards keeping it like it is, but it's really no biggie one way or another. Rick :?)

A well-reasoned and thought out response, Rick. Glad you posted it. :) Cia

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12416&Form.ShowMessage=1962805

i am sorry Andreas, i misread your intentions, so please ignore the following phrase: and for those people is room in this gallery as well, "whether you like it or not ... you just gotta live with it", or this gallery will be quite empty thanks Rick, sometimes i do think that my designs belong somewhere else, for some of the things i can do with Artmatic can be done in Bryce, Terragen, Mojoworld etc as well. What my space images in the Mixed Media gallery are concerned, under my alias 'darkchrystal', those are a mixture of everything in Bryce, Terragen and Artmatic, and therefor i can't upload them in here... i do love to post-process quite a lot, i am not satisfied with what artmatic or some other programs i use to make fractals, alone gives me, my latest designs show the fractals i use, on the bottom to make them big ones sometimes i get apo images from my Sharon and manipulate them intensively in photoshop lol ya can even scan a wishbone and make it look like a fractal in photoshop, there are various tricks to make anything ya want i admire those who makes fractals out of a formula... lol i was writing this and saw when refreshing the post of Nick time to vote, i reckon :D

Rick, thanks. You have stated my feelings exactly.

I think this sentence of Rick illustrates my point quite nicely: "I've enjoyed most of the supposedly "mis-posted" images immensely and to not have seen them would have left my life a good bit less enriched." I think enlarging the fractal umbrella, instead of restricting it, embraces the true meaning of art. I have no argument with those who eschew post processing. That is their choice. I don't judge it, I just enjoy the end results of whatever methods they choose to employ. I don't care what tools they use, their vision is what counts to me. I don't care about the limitations they put upon themelves---artists do that--it is the limitations one puts on others that bother me. I think we are so obsessed with terms and names and titles and rules that the art gets crunched underfoot.

What a fabulous post, Terry. Very eloquently stated.

Andreas,

I think we'd have a hard time defining what "digital comix" mean to each of us. They used to call Warhol's art "comics", too, and look down their noses at it. Now you'd need to have a hefty bank account to even touch one of his scribblings on a cocktail napkin.

I say that if someone puts a mandelbrot in the middle of Spiderman's cape, it should be embraced in this gallery. Even if someone thinks it's crap. And even if it is.

M

Message edited on: 10/12/2004 23:20

This thread isn't about making more restrictions. In fact it was created because some thought they were too many restrictions. So if you think the gallery shouldn't be restricted, why not express it as a vote? I mean, that way you opinion will count for the results. I know this topic is tiring (believe me, WE know), but if we don't do anything about it, we get complaints. And if we listen and try to get the community involved... we get complaints as well. I think this is a wonderful place and we should start seeing the bright side of it. Barbara

You're right, Barbara. A moderator's job is a thankless one: no matter what you do, you're blasted for it. :)

I think Renderosity is a wonderful place, too. That was never the issue....not to me, anyway. This forum and website is just a microcosm of what goes on in all fractal and/or art communities.

I hope that this vote or exercise results in lessening the restrictions, which some people do unfortunately seem to favor. That was the concern, and about which some of the commentary was based.

@Terry: I wish you wouldn't complain, but again show your art here... The top lists are lists of friendship and fashion. Just ignore them. I left them all because my images have not enough popularity... But my making fractals does not aim at entering those lists... At least not very much :-)

Terry, It's your call. I have already left this place twice (maybe 3 times?), if that makes any sense. What I found out is that the world still turns, or in other words, nothing changes. I would think that there is some place here for you to display your art. With all of the different topics and genres I can't imagine anyone allowing Renderosity to narrow their creativity, but do what you need to do to be happy. Don't be too proud to come back if you want to. Another thing that I learned is that the turn around in this place is so quick that after a few months only a few people even knew that I was here and left. Whatever you do I hope it is good for you. Keith

It was a very close vote and because of that we will have 1/2 our population happy and 1/2 not so happy (understatement I know). All communities struggle when trying to find their "norm" and/or acceptable zones. We don't always like the results but if we're up to it we stick around and try to keep the "other" opinion in view and on friendly coffee talk status. I too also understand the need to get away from things here for a time - I've done the same thing myself. Sometimes it is a good thing! However, I found out that guidelines I like or dislike not withstanding, I really do like the community we have here. The diversity, the lively discussions and the willingness to share. Those are the things that hold the appeal of renderosity to me, this forum/gallery in particular. I can post art anytime in many places completely to my own specs and guidelines. But it gets lonely out there. Good luck to you cruelanimal and I hope you find what you're looking for. Perhaps that journey will one day bring you back again like it did me.

Hi again Terry, it seems that you are right to some degree. But as far as I know your abstract images would be very nice under "2D & Fractal" like many of my geometric images soon. I just miss your art here and since FractalWorld at Yahoo no longer stores attachments I only have the choice between a crowded inbox and/or no longer seeing your images. So my wish is - please come back and accompany me in the 2D gallery. Kind regards, Andreas

I've not seen anyone complain about Terry's or Andrea's images, so I fail to see the need for some self-imposed exile. The argument that I've seen is not about fractal purity, or post-processing, but having something like a poser image with a fractal in the background. Hasn't it been said that images done in fractal progams, with or without, post-processing are fine for the fractal gallery? If there is a need to worry about fractal "purity", then one might as well argue about what is "good" art, for all the good that will do. As has been said, no images will be moved without the author being contacted first, so why not live daringly and challenge authority and post your images anyway if you think they belong in the fractal gallery? Ken...

Hi Ken, convincing words IMO. Andreas

Ken "The argument that I've seen is not about fractal purity, or post-processing, but having something like a poser image with a fractal in the background. Hasn't it been said that images done in fractal progams, with or without, post-processing are fine for the fractal gallery?" Thanks :) I don't know why this post-processing issue keeps coming up. I have never discouraged post-processing. Post-processed fractal images are very welcome here. But, if you throw in a Poser babe, fairy, 3D object or whatever into it, and the focus turns to those added items, then they belong in 'Mixed Medium' or elsewhere. Terry I looked at the images you posted in 2D, and they would have been welcome here. Nick

Hi Terry, I have seen your comeback. And now with Nick's answer you could perhaps come back tro the fractal gallery... And then - welcome back :-)

Glad you care about the community enough to stick around Tery :) You're needed here!