As Keith says, anything is art if someone thinks it is ... But really, there is one more element that hasn't been mentioned here, and it should. And that is, art provokes something within the observer, a feeling maybe, or an emotion, or some thoughtfulness, or a sense of "Wow, how beautiful!" The thing is, if there was a beautiful sunset every night we all would eventually stop getting that "Wow" feeling when we saw one. So it is with Apo flames, and spirals and so many other things that seem hackneyed after too much exposure. I can recall not too long ago the first few flames I saved feeling they were treasures. Now looking at them they seem common (well, most of them anyway). That's why artists need to move on to new things. But are they art? Of course. Are they worthy of hanging on my wall? Some of them for sure. Are they crap? Crap is in the eye of the beholder. Is this a good discussion to have? Damn right it is. In fact, it probably is the best discussion to have. So long as we can refrain from insulting each other, or shamelessly promoting ourselves. One other thing, the amount of skill required to make an artwork does indeed enter into the equation. Picking up a beautiful seashell and hanging it on the wall surely makes for a nice decoration. But inlaying that seashell into a table top or a guitar fretboard impresses me a lot more. Stepping down from the soapbox now. Happy holidays everybody. Tim

Hi Kid_Fisto. There is quite a history on this issue, as you might have guessed, particularly on the H20. As someone suggested to me not long ago, you might search the archives for related postings and get a feel for the discussion that has already taken place. Some of it has been a bit, shall we say, lively. Good thought provoking stuff for the most part. As for me, I started out with Apophysis and worked myself all the way up to a semi-informed novice user of UF. But I still use Apo and enjoy a good flame, particularly something that is unique. As for splitting the gallery, I suppose it would help with some issues. But I would then have to troll through two or three galleries to see what's new across all 'fractal' platforms, and I already have limited time to look through one.

Booo everyone! And thanks. Congrats to Jenny and Harmen.

What's that supposed to mean?

Hi Evie, I don't feel personally attacked at all. That is your erroneous conclusion. My reaction was to yours, and to a lessor extent Harman's, unjustified harsh words against Barbara's and Nick's handling of what I believe is a great alternative to the H20. Be cool, Tim

Is it really so important to have the Fractal Vintage Showcase come out more often than monthly? Eveline and Harman are really making a lot of noise about reducing from weekly to monthly. First of all, I support Barbara and Nick on this issue and I don't consider myself a "comment junkie", far from it. In fact, I resent that statement. And I think even the most basic speakers of English can appreciate the implications of using terms like that, so don't try to hide behind the "I'm Dutch so I don't have to be civil" line. Secondly, I find the Weekly Window and Vintage Showcase to be a huge improvement over the H20 as a vehicle for displaying a quality representation of fractal art. Sure, everything can be improved, and as Eveline herself said, nobody is perfect. So why does the tone of her remarks sound borderline abusive? Please do speak your mind, but take a few more moments to make sure your remarks are written so as to say what you need to say but not to be offensive. Tim

I totally understand, as I'm sure we all do. Thanks for your hard work, and great taste!

Out of the endless, literally infinite, possibilities of change in the development of a fractal image, the moment you select a specific change over any other you have moved from the observer to the creator. The same choices apply at every point in the development. So that by the 'butterfly effect' from chaos theory your image is truely unique after only a few iterations. Unfortunately it often looks a lot like countless other flames or spirals or swirls, etc. Therefore to come up with something that not only is unique but also looks unique the artist is driven to go further, to create a unique composition or feel, or sometimes even meaning. This is true for any art form. There be the magic. Tim

I've got two points to add to the mix here. 1) Define the difference between a decoration and an artwork and we will have gone a long way. 2) (And I mentioned this in so many words above,) A plan and some good technique does not necessarily make a good artwork. It's not just luck; there's something else. Let's talk about what that is.

I think that this thread has expanded into something I have been tempted to discuss here for a while now: what is the difference between 'good' and 'bad' art? Or art and non-art? This I know is a very delicate topic, but something we all have ideas about. First I'd like to comment on the "anyone who makes art is an artist" idea. And following on: "If the artist creates a 'work of art' who's to say it is not good? Anyone who does so is being cruel and arrogant." Well I agree that all personal expression is 'worthy' so long as it is honest. But is it art? or good art? Not necessarily, says I. There's got to be vision, and a certain amount of technique, and other things that would be good to discuss. My background is in music, particularly improvisational music, call it jazz if you want. And I will tell you all that some people can make a horn screech at the right pitch and timing and it will cause the hair on the back of my neck to prickle. (I mean that in a good way!) Art for sure. But there are very few who can do this. Most of those types are just screeching. Horribly screeching. Definitely not art! But the great improvisational musicians can do wonderous things with their instrument, some melodic, some rhythmic, and yes, sometimes very rarely screeching, but definitely art in the most honest form - that of expression of a facet of the human condition that others can then feel. Improvisational music is not planned, at least not anything more than the overall vibe and the chord pattern behind it. It is in this that I disagree with the link that was supplied earlier in this thread. There is no requirement for a philosophical component in art. Those who choose to put one into their art can do so if they like, and if it helps to convey a feeling then this has advanced their art. But philosophy is just that - philosophy. Not necessarily art. And not a necessary component for things that comprise an artwork. This is why I have no objection to the 'looking for seashells' approach to fractal art, or photography for that matter. To some a certain shell may contain a glimps of heaven that can be honed and presented to convey this vision, and to others it is just a shell. One type of artist is one who can use a raw natural material and create something that enhances or even transends the basic idea, be it stone or seashells or musical tones or paint or fractals. And another will have the vision to spot a wonderful thing and simply present it. An Ansel Adams landscape photograph can almost bring tears to my eyes, and nobody can tell me that because he doesn't create the image himself it doesn't constitute art. That's arrogant snobbery. But not every seashell or landscape contains a 'glimps of heaven' (if I can use this hackneyed expression). And here is where I'd like this thread to go, if possible. What makes one artwork more valuable(?) than another? Surely there is something there. It's not just technique. I've heard some incredible musical technicians who couldn't make a work of art to save their lives. There has got to be some spark of inspiration, some vision, some artistic sense, and thinking about and defining that would be a useful thing. Tim

VB: Can't say I agree much with what you say here, in fact it sounds like the same arguments tdierex was putting forward over and over and over a short time ago. But there are two really nice flames in your gallery that I like very much.

My philosophy is that if one is honestly trying to be helpful through his/her comment then good will come of it, even though someone may get offended initially. I don't think stopping commenting is the answer (and I hope I haven't offended you ;).

Lookin' good Linda. A terrific collection.

tdierikx, Maybe I've missed something here but I don't recall anyone in the fractal community ever explicitly or implicitly saying what you claim them to have said, i.e. that "their work is so much more superior than anyone else's" and that others "want everyone to vote for their work "just because"". Perhaps you can point out an instance or two. Because if not, I would be very relieved if you would keep those types of remarks to yourself because I, for one, am totally fed up with your accusations. You, of all people, who claim never to have voted for anyone's work, are being incredibly phoney in scolding people for not voting. You say you don't care who is in the H20 list, then why don't you just butt out of the discussion. We all know your opinion, we don't need you to keep repeating it, with more insulting remarks each time. And furthermore I, and probably most others here, could care less how many images you have in your personal gallery. If you don't care about the Renderosity community, as you imply, than kindly stay out. Tim

Sorry for the lame suggestion. It's funny how out of date technically one can become in a very short time. To AnnaKirsten, please don't get too disheartened about the H20. I quit looking at it and voting some while back, but recently decided to give it a go again and vote for the images I find are better than the average. Most people here, whether pros or dabblers, are decent and dedicated artists. And to tdierikx, your continual implications of self-serving behaviour for anyone who is dissatisfied with the H20 are unnecessary and annoying.