I use the Eye One Display 2 to calibrate my monitor. It is top of the line, easy to use, and I highly recommend it. Janet

You're the one who classified them as "True" or "Flame" -- which implies one is more... um... TRUE, I believe is the word you used.

You also erred in only classifying two types, when there are more.

If you're going to enlighten a newbie, perhaps using accurate information would be best.

In regards to which software to learn, I echo that he should look around and see which images appeal to him.

If Ultra Fractal is of interest, I'm teaching some courses at the Visual Arts Academy which are a great continuation of the Help File tutorials I wrote for the software.

Mandelbrots, Julias, Newtons are escape-time fractals. Flames are IFS (Iterated Function Systems). There are several other types of fractals -- none more true than the other.

My guess is that the icons are blank (and F4 doesn't work) because you're working with a copy of a gradient instead of the actual gradient for an open fractal image. Open an image first and then open its gradient. I'm just finishing up the first fractal course at the Visual Art Academy. I think the students have felt the course is valuable but I hope they'll post their first-hand experiences. The course will be repeated beginning November 1. Class size is limited, so anyone who is interested should probably not wait too long to register. http://visual-arts-academy.com/janet_uf.html Janet

Keith --

• It's been a while since I have seen you in these parts.

Silence does not necessarily mean absence :-)

• I have to ask, how much of selling art comes down to marketing?

Everything. How would a potential buyer know of an artist's work unless it was marketed somehow? If one desires to sell work to people other than family and friends, it is absolutely essential. Marketing takes a huge amount of time and will suck up as much money as one is willing to commit to it.

• What do you consider fine art?

Well I'm not going to attempt to define art, but you asked what I consider to be fine art, so...

To me, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional work, a musical composition/performance, a work of poetry/prose, or a dance is a work of fine art when it does all of the following:

~ demonstrates the artist's technical mastery of his/her medium
~ says something that hasn't been said in quite that way before
~ moves me on a visceral level. This is not definable, but I know it when it happens
~ tells me something about the heart and soul of its creator*
~ makes me want to return to see/listen/read it over and over because I experience something new each time
~ changes my perception of the world around me
~ in some sense, changes who I am

*The one thing that bothers me most about much digital and fractal art is when I can tell what software, filters, algorithms, compositional devices were used. I don't want to see what the software can do. I want to see what the artist is expressing.

• Is there a difference marketable art and real art?

Not necessarily. They need not be mutually exclusive.

Rick --

I don't think Renderosity, or even the larger world of fractal enthusiasts on various lists and websites, are realistic places in which to judge the worth of a fractal image or assess a fractal artist's abilities. We're all still in awe of the medium and particularly of images and artists that employ techniques we haven't yet figured out how to reproduce ourselves.

No matter how many compliments and words of encouragement I received about my art from family and friends (and that is their job, after all!), I didn't start to really believe I was creating Art, with a capital A!, until complete strangers started buying my work -- people who didn't know me, who had no reason to invest in my work except that they liked it enough to want to hang it in their homes or workplaces.

In the end, when digital art as a medium is no longer new or controversial, I don't think it's going to be works that emulate traditional mediums -- digital paintings, photo-manipulation, 3D rendered and photo-realistic scenes -- that define digital art. The computer is just a tool and as long as artists use it to create the same kinds of works, what's the big deal?

I think fractal and algorithmic art have a chance to say something that the other digital techniques don't, because fractals don't exist in any real or sophisticated form without digital technology. We have the potential to do something truly unique, but we're not going to get there by creating "scenes" from flames or mapping fractals onto spheres. (And my recent series of tree images definitely belongs in that sentence too.)

We're not going to get there by emulating anything we've ever seen before. We're not going to get there by creating the same images over and over again. We have to go boldly where no one has even dreamed of going, artistically.

Not everyone is going to want to push the envelope, nor will everyone have the vision and skills to do it -- and that's ok. But those who do will be the ones who define the medium of digital art that our grandchildren will study in art history class.

Janet (jumping down off her soapbox and returning to lurkdom)

Message edited on: 01/02/2005 22:34

• What has to happen for fractal art to become mainstream art? A great deal of time, a huge amount of luck, and truly innovative artists creating works that challenge the viewer and push the genre forward. - If you have been successful at selling or displaying many images, but you don't want to say how then at least say why you do not want to share information, even if it's obvious. For my part, there are several reasons: 1) There isn't a magic secret or recipe for success. What works (or doesn't) for me will not necessarily work for others. 2) I didn't have a fractal (or even a digital) artist showing me the way -- I studied how other artists approach selling their work. If I can do the research, so can anyone else who really wants to put the time, effort, and a fair amount of money into it. -- It's kind of like how people want me to share all the techniques I've spent years developing on my own -- so they can make nice images but don't actually have to spend the time learning on their own. The 20th/21st century approach to everything -- "Show me the shortcuts so I don't really have to exert myself, tax my brain, or risk failure." I have no interest in enabling this kind of attitude. 3) It's not that I won't share what I know with others. Again, it's like when folks ask me for help with their images or ask questions about technique -- if I'm asked a specific question, and particularly if it is asked privately, I'm quite willing to share. - I am convinced that the majority of fractal art has a face that only fractal enthusiasts love. Many of us are impressed with technical mastery, but a technical masterpiece might not impress someone who has never tried to create a fractal image. Most fractal images aren't fine art -- just like most paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. made by folks who have fun playing around in the medium aren't fine art. Just because one owns UF or XD or any of the other fine fractal programs doesn't mean their work is superior -- just like owning a camera or a paintbrush doesn't make one a fine photographer or painter. If one wants to be an artist -- particularly a fractal enthusiast who wants his/her work to be accepted in the mainstream -- one needs to study ART not just fractals. And if one wants to be a successful artist (however one defines success), one needs to learn from successful artists of all mediums. - I can't help but wonder about the images that show up in the calendars Is that what they think that mainstream fractal art is? I don't think calendar publishers feel a great compulsion to educate the public about the finer points of fractal artistry. I don't think they're trying to make any sort of artistic statement whatsoever. They're out to make a buck so they choose images they think will catch the eye of the potential buyer. Janet