Good point. I completely agree with you. I had a discussion about this on the Fractal Burka blog and I said that the challenge for all innovative artists throughout history was to get people to just look at the image in front of them and think for themselves.

On my new blog I compared a current fractal artist's work with a well known conventional artist from the turn of the century (1900's that is). I found that they had enormous similarities in style. What's the difference? One was made with paint and canvas, the other is made with a computer. They really look like similar pieces of artwork when viewed on a computer monitor.

It looks very new. I read their 3 or 4 articles. My impression is that it seems to have started out as a reaction to other people's opinions in the fractal art community (whatever that is) particularly the old arguements about post-processing and generally what is and isn't "true" fractal art. The latest post is mainly a review of two fractal art sites and I found it very interesting and "fresh." "They" could have chosen a better name in my opinion. However, mystery and controversy are appealling qualities to have a new site "shrouded" in (no pun intended). Looks promising. We can all get a free blog hosted there! I registered just so I could leave a comment and the host, Blogger, gave me my own blog at the same time! Talk is getting alot cheaper.

I guess the different formats may appeal to different groups of people. The gallery audience expects larger works and in that environment it's possible. But would you consider the type of people who go to art galleries, "mainstream?" It's natural to want to appeal to people like ourselves, because they would be the most likely ones to share our appreciation of fractals. But I think the jump to a 'mainstream' audience probably means using a more common medium, and one which might not be as well suited for displaying fine art and is probably lower resolution and higher volume. One possibility I can think of would be corporate Christmas cards (high volume mailing to customers) for high tech or technology companies (computers, electronics, research, medical, pharmaceutical...). They might like something "different" and find the technological, scientific aspect to fractals compliments their corporate image.

I like the greeting card idea. Greeting cards are a great art format. Useful, cheap and great advertising since they get mailed away to other people and you can have contact info on the back. Leave the inside blank and you're only printing on one side. I was just experimenting with some card stock I bought at walmart and was impressed with how easy it is to make your own cards. All I have is a cheap inkjet and the results were quite promising. Of course that sort of desktop printing has some limitations but I found if you kept away from dark (inky) images the results were not too bad. I noticed in a few of the galleries there were some really excellent Christmas themed images that would make nice, specialty Christmas cards. I think Carolsassy made a good point when she suggested small, cheap presentations. Although 6 feet by 10 feet would certainly be much more impressive!

I will rephrase the question slightly. Will fractal images ever appeal to people who have no interest in fractals? Can fractals compete with traditional art for people's attention? For instance, in advertising, art prints, T-shirts, product packaging. Will our moms ever take our fractal greeting cards, frame them and say to us next time we visit, "I loved that card you sent me, everyone asks me about it, where did you buy it?"

I would say yes. But the challenge right now is awareness. Fractals are still rather new and obscure (in my "hard-headed" opinion). There's alot of people out there that don't know what they're missing! I think it will just take some time, but the internet, by being cheap and accessible, is speeding up what would otherwise be a slow process. The mainstream media from which most people are informed doesn't cover much, so people will find out about fractals from the internet.

Up until 2 years ago I was one of those people that didn't know what they were missing. Although my hobby had been computer graphics, I knew little about fractals and thought they were pretty dull, like the plain, flat, rainbow-banded images I had seen in a few magazines, where fractals were presented as having mostly mathematical appeal and the images were just there to illustrate the formulas. But when I stumbled on some cool looking fractals on the internet, my opinion changed very quickly.

Why do we fractal enthusiasts like fractals? Our interest isn't primarily mathematics is it? Isn't it art: images that are interesting to look at, and that we return to look at.

Are we "mainstream" folks? Do any of us like "mainstream" art? Then I think other people who like Van Gogh, Monet, etc... also will be "moved" or stunned by fractal beauty like we have. I don't think we're much different than most people.

Sterlingware and Xaos, 50/50. It's been that way for 2 years. I try out every one I can, but with these two I find I am the most productive.

I think though it takes some time and effort to learn how to use a fractal program and it's easy to stick with a familiar one. I've heard alot about UF and I've seen some really amazing images from it, as well as from Apophysis, but I just couldn't get "handy" with them.

Sterlingware and Xaos are simple to use and I personally prefer simpler fractal programs. I see UF as part graphics program. That's why so much can be done with it but also why the learning curve is steeper.

My main motive for checking out other programs is when I find I can't do anything new with my old familiar ones. But I'm always curious about a new fractal program because it could be better than what I'm using.

Message edited on: 12/25/2004 15:59