I've been thinking about the idea of fractal art becoming mainstream art. I have a pile of different thoughts in my head about it so this might come out looking a little disjointed, but I'll do my best. I guess the fundamental question is: What has to happen for fractal art to become mainstream art? Whenever I ask myself that question I have to wonder what mainstream art is, so that is a fair question too. To me, mainstream art is what you might see in a fine art gallery, like photography, oil or watercolor. It is something that someone would want to purchase and hang on their wall. Perhaps a few of you have successfully placed your fractal art into the mainstream. I would like to hear from you. I have sold a few fractal images, probably less than 10, so I don't consider myself a mainstream plug-in at all (for what it's worth, I have lost interest in selling images). I know that at least one of you is thinking that there is no way that you are going to share your secrets of success with hundreds of potential competitors. I have to ask that person, is that a real threat? I don't believe it is. I have never seen fractal art in any large fine art gallery that I have ever been to. You might be helping yourself by creating a little more competition and getting more exposure for fractal art in general. 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. Maybe you have sold many images on Ebay or from a website. What are people interested in? Why do you think that they are interested? 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. I can't help but wonder about the images that show up in the calendars (I feel like I can talk openly about this because my smiling image is on the front of a 2005 calendar available at your local B&N and other fine calendar outlets). Those images are not technical masterpieces by any means. Some of them, like mine, have me wondering what the publisher was thinking. Why did the publisher (heavy on publisher, not editors) pick those images? Is that what they think that mainstream fractal art is? Like I said, this was a little disjointed. I would appreciate any opinion. Thanks, Keith

Well as a fractal artist for a number of years I have only actually posted them on my web site and here at Renderosity however just like any image art form they have a place. I see the opportunity for the sale of a fractal image as a unique item. But like you said about the publishers tastes in fractal imagery that is a fickle subject to ponder just like entering "any" artwork on a regular basis in a gallery or competition event. It just depends upon the people that it is exposed to at the time and where or in front of what type of audience. I would suppose that most importantly a little thought and planning would have to come into play in order for an artist to get that form of digital art out in front of the selective audience for the purpose of enticeing them to buy. But now-a-days fractals are recognized as anything from cloud formations (objects from life) to 3D layered digitally produced mathmatical algorithms on the scientific level. Then you have fractal geometry translated to pixel color content that look more like they are from the 1970's in the software engineering class but original never-the-less. And then fractal art only stands on its own if it isn't taken to other degrees, there are excellent examples that show up everyday on Rederosity that the artist has not only generated a fractal geometric image in liear and non-linear form but has also encoorporated that into an entirely different thing like any artist might utilize objects, images of objects or images from life in Photoshop collaging all of the parts of which combined still reflect the fractal origins yet dirive at a separate artistic end visually. In my personal opinion thought the word mainstream would actually cause a slight jump back to earlier fractal visual manifestations since they are the most familiar to the "mainstream" in an instant's sence upon sight anyway. The only difficulty with that perspective is the fact that image size and resolutions were slightly limited up until the past five years or so and therefore a lot of it still remains unpublished unless someone gains access to original project files and or renders that can "by plugin" digitally expand the render to print resolution sizes. Congratulations on getting on the 2005 fractal calendar cover. I entered in one opportunity maybe it was the same and tried submitting an ArtMaticPro fractal sample but did not make it into the selection. Its what the viewer at "the moment" likes that dictates the demand and that can vary like the changes in weather here in Colorado. :)

Hi Keith - I think the biggest hurdle fractal art has to jump over is probably the same for other forms of digital art: The erroneous and "unfair"(right word?) misconception of the "mainstream" art world that "the computer does all the work" and it's not "valid" because it wasn't physically made "by hand". No canvas, no paint, no brushes. I think there is just as much skill and work involved in making digital art as there is in painting a canvas - just different skills. Trying to keep 160 layers straight and making and fine-tuning 25 gradients is just as hard as getting just the right shade by mixing paint on a palette, IMHO. (What does the "H" mean? I mean "humble" but I guess it sometimes means "honest"? Maybe I've got it ALL wrong And it means something like "It's MY Hamburger, Ollie"? lol) And most of my gallery stuff has taken anywhere from 4 days to a month to finish, just like an oil painting might.

I, too, would like to learn more about "successful" ways to sell my art - what with all the offshoring going on I may be unemployed by this time next year - really!. Something tells me that skills in RF and fiber optic communications won't get me far at McD's - lol. I've had offers of website hosting that I've, thru nervous indecision and complete ignorance of what to do, let slide that might have helped with this, I reckon. There are sites like Zazzle that do it for you but you're buried in a sea of 100,000 other images. There's also a place called "CafePress" that will also make calendars of your images to sell to other members or people you direct there. Does this stuff really work? I've seen some artists asking anywhere from $90 to $170 for prints - do they sell many at those prices?

Here's something that could really help. If a "promoter" or "patron" with ties to the mainstream art world could be found to sponsor a large fractal art exhibition in a large city, with art from the best out there like you, Janet, Etienne, Gilles and the folks here, I'll bet it'd make a decent splash. Problem 2 of digital art is that the only way it is normally displayed is on a computer monitor. Having them physically printed and displayed prominently somewhere - and not just in the math wing of a college campus - would go a long way toward exposing them to the world and show that they're not all just Fractint Mandies made on an old "trash60". I think/hope maybe, in time, digital art will be accepted as the computer age goes on and PC's/the internet become more and more prevalent.

At the heart of it, I guess, is how much work and time one wants to devote to "selling" themselves and their art coupled with the fear - at least for me - that nobody would like it enough to buy it. The "rejection" thing. We all display our stuff hoping folks will like it - just like we used to go running to show mom our latest stick figure "masterpieces" as little kids. This stuff is typically just a hobby, albeit a VERY time consuming one, for most of us.

I do think there could be a "market" for this stuff, though, considering the psychedelic vibe of a lot of fractals and the fact that we - most of us here - "baby boomers" are entering a time in our lives that has some of us looking back with nostalgia (and amazement we have any brain cells left! lol) on our "wild and crazy youth" and these kind of images many times remind me of great blacklight and other posters we had as kids. Shoot - I even get all nostalgic hearing a disco (yuck! lol) tune these days! :?) The "crux of the biscuit" is how to get fractal art exposed to LOTS of people, though.
Rick

Message edited on: 12/30/2004 15:29

Rick, I was wondering if I would hear from you after telling you what I really think of your last image. I am very glad that you are still talking to me :)) I couldn't agree more about the work that goes into a quality image. I hope you don't mind, but let's use your "Silmarillion" as a talking point. I am in awe of that image. It is technical perfection. Anyone who has ever built an image like that in UF knows that every highlight and shadow is "painted" within UF. I am well aware of the time, patients and skill required to build an image like that, but I am not convinced that an outsider would see it as art and hang it in their living room. I do see it as art, but I know what is behind the image. I'll stop picking on you and talk about a few of my own images. When I selected images to print and sell, "Bird", "Humming Bird" and the reef images were not included. Images like that are either not abstract enough or not real enough. I figured that if someone wanted an image like those they would buy a photo or a painting of them. I did sell a copy of one of my first flame flower compositions: http://home.comcast.net/~fractalsbykeith/pgs/frac154.htm That surprised me because I was thinking along the same lines, if someone wanted a picture of flowers they would buy a photo or a painting. That said, my assumptions about "Silmarillion" and "Hummingbird" could be wrong. That's why I am asking these questions. What do fractal outsiders want? What do mainstream fractal images look like? Is there any hope of getting regular people excited about fractal art?

Offering a small bit of input here. I know some local cafes display art from thier locals. I've already been offered to display and mine mostly suck (Don't worry I have no intentions of spoiling fractal art by displaying mine, lol). So the point is I'm VERY sure some of the masters around here could display at thier local coffee shops. They usually offer a very tasteful, gallery type atmosphere and tend to rotate the artists often. It may help some in getting this art form out there and in testing to see what is wanted or popular. Just a thought :).

Nah, I doubt it, Keith. Matt. (No matter how many people tell you Firefox is better than IE, they are lying...At least in IE when you hit the back button the reply that has just taken you an hour to write is still there and has not been deleted!!!).

Ummm...Matt, write in Notepad, copy and paste, lol! Keith, I'm not sure we are the people to ask about Fractal art...we may be just a wee bit too close to it. I am actually thinking about checking out the coffee shops in my area. If I do, I will let you know what happens.

Fractals will always amaze me!

IM*O (insert adjective of choice), mainstream fractal art will be an oxymoron for a while yet. First, for most people fractal is synonymous with psychedelic Mandy, or at least something highly mathematical looking. Others just don't care about fractals, and calling it fractal art is counterproductive. The bottom line is that art has to succeed in its aesthetic qualities as appreciated by the viewer. Fractals have to move out of the realm of 'qualifier' and into the realm of technique; when they can be ignored they will be accepted. Consider fractals as part of a toolbox, a means to an end; let the art speak for itself and it stands more chance, to the extent that it's any good. In summary, for 'fractal art' to become more mainstream it has to lose the label. Let it be subsumed into abstract, surrealism, impressionism or whatever, rather than the other way around. Regards, Garth.

Well said, Garth. I agree that the term "fractal" is sort of a turn-off for people who don't understand or make them. It's maybe what gives the connotation of "computer generated imagery". Probably would be a good idea to not even use the term "digital art" as all these labels give the impression that it's some randomly generated image made by a really "smart", chess playing software program which we, as the folks who do this stuff, know is not remotely true.

I do agree with Keith about images like my Silmarillion maybe not being something that would make a good "wall hanger". Maybe add some text and it could be a poster for some new Conan type flick - "Quest for the Marble in a Cup" - lol. (And of course I'm still talking to you, my friend - because you were RIGHT and your advice is always constructive and helpful!). The whole idea behind that one was to create as good a 3d look as I could. As far as color, composition and emotion, I've got a LONG way to go and will need a good bit more experience with UF and art in general to be able to convey a "feeling" rather than seeing how well I can tweak all the bells and whistles. Some of the most aesthetically pleasing images here are only 1-8 layers max and I need to learn how to create ART rather than just complicated stuff. How to work with color rather than shapes. That's why this site is such good inspiraltion. (wow! is there a such thing as a "Freudian typo"? lol - think I'll leave it:?))I do, however, disagree about Keith's "Reef" images - I think they'd be great prints. Great colors and interesting stuff to look at. Present it like you see lots of prints at places of business with a white band at the bottom with the title and the artist's name and a nice chrome frame.

Anyhow - got off on a tangent - like Garth said, lose the label and find some way to get fractals, ooops, "Virtual Abstract Surrealism"(?) out where a lot of people see it. Actually, Rendo is probably the best ad for our artform there is. The numbers of people logged on have more than doubled in the last year - from around 800-1000 before to as high as 2200 during weekdays these days. I reckon this is the biggest venue to display our art in the world and anyone wanting to see if they could make a go of making fractals a second job would probably do well to cultivate their presence here. But, its probably still mostly "preaching to the choir" since most are probably digital artists themselves. In time, I reckon it'll get around by "word of mouth" as more and more of the images from here appear as snagged wallpapers on folks' PC's at work and home and their friends ask where they got it.
C-ya!
Rick

Message edited on: 12/31/2004 13:04

• 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

i have been reading your thoughts and wishes about fractalling becoming acceptable as a form of art, like paintings, sculpturing, photos a.s.o. I can certainly see not much difference between photoart and fractals, there is a lot good and more awful in both genres. photos seem more acceptable, but only because it exist much longer and everyone makes them. but to be honest, it is difficult to sell it,considering that every household has at least one camera in the house there are just a few that makes a living at selling there work as art. but i saw the newyears concert in vienna yesterday on tv, and i was surprised to see that they used fractal-stuff as background for one of their performances. i must say it lacked quality, even from my beginners point of view. but all i want to say is, that i think there is a future for computer-art. all you need is time. monica

Janet, I am a little surprised but happy to hear from you. It's been a while since I have seen you in these parts. I was thinking of you when I started this thread because I know that you have sold quite a few images. If there is such a thing as mainstream fractal art, we can probably find it on your site. I was hoping to hear from others. I know that several artists on Renderosity have sold images. I have to ask, how much of selling art comes down to marketing? I am pretty sure that the calendar is more about marketing than about fine art. This year, like past years, it was placed right below the beefcake firemen calendar. Now I suppose there are a few who would consider beefcake firemen fine art but they don't do much for me. Maybe the calendar publishers know the market better that the rest of us. What do you consider fine art? Is there a difference marketable art and real art? Keith

Deep thoughts, Janet - thanks! I agree with what you said at the end of number 2 and it's something that has troubled me a lot, especially about some kids these days - "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." My nephews, and especially the teenage son of a good friend of mine, absolutely refuse to play a video or pc game without the "cheats" enabled. They can't conceive of actually spending days to beat the game "fair and square" like I do - or "did" b4 my current fractal obsession took me away from first-person shooters. Says disturbing things about their upbringing and their future as adults in the "race of life"..... but that's sorta off topic - just a thing that bugs me. Especially when I ocassionally detect and have to tamp down traces of that in myself. Or maybe I'm just getting to be a grumpy old guy with less tolerance for youth - lol. You're right about the outlay of time and money, too. Good prints aren't cheap and one would have to put together a fair number of them in large sizes to show at art fairs and the like. There's a guy in town here that makes and sells these huge 5ft x 4ft(approx) "simple" Fractint fractals - frames them and asks like $800 a pop. Though, the frames look like they were at least a few hundred themselves. Gave me his card - said he's some sort of "art promoter" but I think he just "promotes" his own stuff. He works in finance at Northrop/Grumman - reckon that's how he affords the frames.(now THAT was a pretty bourgeois statement - lol) Gave him a link here and never heard from him again. Don't know how many he sells, but heck, 1-2 a year would be fine with me at that price! lol I've only sold 4 - made on this huge, junky inkjet printer at work. And only asked 5-10 bucks for 20x15 because the print quality isn't so hot. I was pretty jazzed, though! It was just co-workers who'd seen them hanging in my office and I wasn't trying to sell anything - just wanting to see how they looked printed. Probably one big thing would be having to change a fun hobby like fractalling into....WOOOOOORK! yikes - Dobie Gillis! lol Personally, it's what I do for "escape" from the stress of....WOOOORK! And finding the time when you're at WOOOOORK! 8-10 hours a day would be tough, too. Sigh.....I guess I'm just an old hippie "me generation" kid of the 70's :?) c-ya! Rick

Keith - Unfortunately, I think the operative term is "marketing". There is a market for anything that is "pushed" strongly enough. It's what starts lemming-like behavior in society where, for instance, a U-2 album that is nowhere near as good as their first few goes double platinum anyhow. Because the band is heavily marketed and advertised and people buy their records out of habit, some kind of loyalty or because they've been told it's "cool". Its why I have EVERY King's X album, even though their last 2 suck, they're clearly just fulfilling their multi-album obligation and have lost their "fire". Elton John hasn't put out a great album since his second, IMO, but he sells like hotcakes anyhow. Kansas is a hundred times as technically good as the Backstreet Boys, but look who got rich. And I think if one knows how to do such things, they could probably market themselves as some ecclectic, bohemian "artiste" and sell fractals, as well. How did Thomas Kincaid get to be so HUGE? Granted, his paintings are wonderfully done but why him and not Joe Schmo from Idaho? This isn't to say everything marketed is "trash" or anyone who has sold a lot of prints is merely a huckster. Far from it. Image, presentation and simplicity is everything. You do have to have some pretty good artwork but the way you present it is important. When I was at a Digital Light Productions open house, they presented the display of some fractals by the guy I mentioned above like it was some really whiz bang big deal and everyone went to look. They were nice but really simple fractals - great colors. Digital Light makes the nifty kiosks you see at tradeshows and stuff like Star Trek conventions and pc game conventions. I guess how he got the gig was by somehow "promoting" himself to them and maybe he "knew somebody who knew somebody". There's a lot of time and work involved I'm sure but, with determination, cojones and the right entrepreneurial mindset, it's probably doable. The "cojones" part is the intitial outlay of $$ for sample prints and the belief your work is good and perseverence. There probably is some difference between "marketable" art and "real" art as relates to fractals. Maybe that's not a good term - maybe "technically impressive" art? All art is "real", IMHO. Like here - if you allow yourself to detach and look at the images as someone who doesn't know fractals, I think some of the most "marketable" stuff on the fractal pages is not usually the mega-layer opuses, it's those one or a few layer simple and uncomplicated images that have a not too involved shape and colors that people can get their arms around and are really well composed within the "frame" or bounds of the image. My stuff is always complicated but maybe that's why I feel the compulsion to almost always stick a sphere in there somewhere - a simple, recognisable shape my tiny melon can focus on and process amid the chaos and abstraction. Just look at your own work. Other than the reef's, I'll bet your most viewed images have a sphere in the composition or some other, defined or "recognisable" scene or form like flowers or butterfies. I don't think we have 300-400 fractallists here so I assume it's a lot of non-fractallists looking, too. I reckon it's like Janet said - to sell your art "successfully" (in quantity) you have to first figure out how/where to go about it and then you have to put in some pretty good "sweat equity" and get into the mix where you can get "noticed". And yeah, "Beefcake Firemen" don't do squat for me either - Joie, on the other hand, probably would argue the point! - lol. Rick

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

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.

Okay, I tried to read all of these, although I note the people I know best have the longest messages here. lol q-: Why not just start with easy stuff. Everyone loves t-shirts. You can buy cheap iron on sheets for your computer, print some of the fractals you think people would like, iron them on some t-shirts, and maybe just try selling them from your website to start with. Or maybe your kid's friends or nieces or nephews... Heck! Just make one for yourself and wear it around! If people stop and ask you where you got it...there yuh go=an opening. Another thing is at the hobby store you can buy key chains with little round plastic circles on them or even pins that you can put things in the middle. You could print some to fit the inside of them. Give them as gifts. One more thing. You could buy a small package of very nice stationery, print a fractal on it, then buy an inexpensive frame and a pretty matting to match and stick it in there. You might get a bite that way, and it's a cheap date. That's my 2 cents worth. (:

Carol aka Sassy
If you can't stand the heat,
Don't tickle the dragon!

Attached Link: http://www.artbycomputer.com

Good subject. The main problem I've had selling is getting the art in front of the buyer. I like to work huge and I'm sure i could have my own show easily (there's about a million galleries here in L.A.). The problem I'm really faced with is $. LightJet prints aren't cheap and a 6x10 footer is more than $1200. I don't have $15,000 sitting around for printing. Coffee shops, etc., are great places to get it seen and even sold, especially if the store gets a cut. The chances of it getting thrashed is fairly high, especially if they rotate the stuff through. Of the dozen or so I've sold, it's been through personal meetings. Me, the buyer and my "portfolio". I then take an order and the production house delivers the product, since they have a truck that can hold it. I've taken my books (13x19 ring-type binders) to several galleries. The owners expressed interest, but I have to HAVE the art to hang, and they won't commission any. I'd leave the books, but the 60 or so pieces I have in that format cost nearly $1000 and I'd need a bunch of books to cover even some of the galleries. Later this month I'm taking 12 printed as greeting cards to the gift show convention to try to find a publisher. Anything to try to get it out there. Just a few thoughts. Dave Reed

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!

Janet, I appreciate your vision but I am not sure how anyone can accomplish it with a fractal. I think that we find fractals interesting because they remind us of things that we have seen before. They exist everywhere in reality. I don't doubt that there is an envelope to push - there will be another Picasso or Van Gogh - but I doubt that it will be born in a fractal. But who am I to say? In the mean time we don't even know what the envelope is in the fractal world. All of us are students and we are slowing branching out in many different directions with fractals. For example, Rick is pushing his technical skills to create reality. Who knows where that will lead to 5 years down the road? Others are studying texture, light, perspective and color, often by creating scenes and geometric objects like spheres. Those things could be the means by which the envelope is pushed - anything could. I think Dave has an interesting thought in building large images. You don't see too many 8 x 10 inch masterpieces. Most are much bigger. In The Louvre, the room that has the Mona Lisa in it has paintings as big as a small house. Maybe fractals would get more attention by emphasizing their infinite resolution with a larger size. Our computer screens could be a road block. Keith

Attached Link: http://www.artbycomputer.com

Keith is right. Size is very important - one of the reasons I go big. The difference between an 8.5" x 11" print and a 13" x 19" is enormous, at least for the attention people pay when looking! When I show people my 3' x 5' "Big Green Cat", they just stand and look at it for 5 minutes. They step closer, they step back.

The crummy small ones on my website at 800px x X, just don't do it justice. I have a 3' x 7' "Two Guys' Eyes" hanging in the living room where it can be seen from the street. People have come to the door asking about it. You can't do that with 1024x768.

Dave Reed

Message edited on: 01/08/2005 20:39

I think the main thing is that many people just have not ever heard of fractals. However you can get them out to the public or bring them to the attention of as many people as possible in some way, then maybe more and more people will love them like us. You have to do it the best way you can afford to do it. I would have to start small. I put some of my fractals on my address labels. I use the ones that are a little bit larger: 1" by 2 & 5/8" (these would make great gifts.) Most of the ones I've used printed out nicely on my inkjet printer that is none too fancy. I'm getting ready to do some keychains soon. I want to do some test printing on some of my fractals before I print out a whole 8x11&1/2 inch iron on thingy. I would hate for it to smudge up and look crappy and unwearable. Good luck with all your efforts! (:

Carol aka Sassy
If you can't stand the heat,
Don't tickle the dragon!

The Mona Lisa is approximately 21 inches X 30 inches.

Fractals will always amaze me!

Go to an art gallery. Go to several. Mostly what you see is very large. 3' x 5' would be considered mid-sized. I looked at DEAGOL's incredible "To Good Friends". He couldn't stock enough if they were 4' square, rendered Hi Rez. dr

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.

Attached Link: http://www.geocities.com/astrokeith/paris/louvre.html

The Mona Lisa is strikingly small compared to the other paintings in that end of the wing, but still, 21 x 30 would be a monster fractal image.

I know it's small in comparison, I was just pointing out that great art is great art, no matter what size, shape, etc. :)

Fractals will always amaze me!

Attached Link: http://www.artbycomputer.com

Is there something I don't understand about big images? I may be the only person working on a Mac and maybe its that I don't use the same software... . I don't mind letting my computer run for 3 days on a single image. Is UF or the other PC software so hardware intensive that the images can't be run at 4'x4'@300dpi? A mere 14,400px.... And yes, the content is what's important

Dave, UF can produce any size image you want. Some have run 900+ hour renders. The problem (or situation) is, IMO, that most making fractal images never print their images, or if they do, they print them at 8x10. Getting a 4'x4' print is very expensive, especially if framed. Most making images aren't willing or able to go through that expense, not to mention the issue of having a place to hang it. Ken...

i wonder if there are alternative ways to bring digital art to the real world - can computers run air brush technology and control a mural? I would like to see some of the images I see presented in a different format, like a billboard or wall mural or airbrushed onto a van - i suppose that does not make it mainstream, though invidiosa

Attached Link: http://www.artbycomputer.com

Interestingly, just yesterday I was wondering how much a vehicle wrap would be. They're plastic and are printed with a big inkjet. That would certainly get it seen be a lot of people. A couple months ago, in the L.A. Times, was a long article about people having custom wallpaper made. Fractals would be perfect for that, since they can go on and on! BTW, just what is "mainstream" anyway? dr

Invidiosa said, >>>i wonder if there are alternative ways to bring digital art to the real world - can computers run air brush technology and control a mural? I would like to see some of the images I see presented in a different format, like a billboard or wall mural or airbrushed onto a van - i suppose that does not make it mainstream, though<<< Back when the earth was flat (1997), I had the good fortune to license an image for a permanent public installation in the Arizona Science Center in Phoenix. The image is about 12' long and was printed via lasers exposing photographic paper. So the technology is certainly available, if there is someone will to spend the money.

Attached Link: http://www.artbycomputer.com

Laser on photo paper is done by LightJet, Lambda or Kyocera. Lightjet does individual sheets, currently up to 10' x 6'. Lambda and Kyocera use paper off rolls, currently 4' x <150'.