I just read a (what i think) a really good article: petapixel.com/2013/10/07/insta…
I really enjoy learn about the history of photography. For me, fractal and photography have a close relationship by the way they were received by the art community on their early day.
I don't know, but I still think that fractal haven't got a serious appreciation from the art community. I think the reason is because fractal is somewhat looks very abstract for some people. And the abstraction of fractal can't say much things unless the creator say something about their creation or what they want to say with their creation. But on the other hand, abstract painting and painter already have the appreciation they deserve, and that's because the painter did not only paint. They have something to say with their painting. If so, then I think art is more about thought than creation.
Artists are fortunate to be able to put into reality what starts out as thought. It takes a person who is willing to explore the corners of his or her thoughts and express them to others. Not everyone will be open to the experience upon viewing the image, but those who will expand their outlook will be rewarded when they perceive something extraordinary.
Nowadays I feel all "modern art" needs explanation otherwise to the uninitiated eye it is just form and colour, and fractal art is a relatively new media. But one can nevertheless appreciate the interaction of these attributes, and for the uninitiated eye that is all that is required. Explanations have become a big and necessary part of the art world and yes they do help you to view a piece from the artist's perspective. But others may see things that you do not and connection comes from the emotions invoked by the colours employed.
I tought I taw a putty tat!!
interesting title - thought or taught (tought??) before creation. Much of the basics of art can be taught - learning to see relationships (light/postion/proportion/line/perspective - color/shading). Thought aka imagination makes for a bending/transformation of "rules" to drive a "message - view point" to the forefront in no uncertain terms. Does it evoke a response - yes? then maybe it is also "art".
Soooo, make fractals look like paintings and we're all good, right?
...wait, no, we're not.
I've designed lots of fractals, some of which have been compared with Van Gogh or Turner's artwork. It could be that it has the tag "fractal" to it that makes some people instantly avoid it because "oh hey it'll be some trippy shiz," or people think that fractals "require no effort to create," or something bogus like that...
Art is a combination of thought and creation. Fractals are too. I'm willing to consider /nearly anything/ with artistic justification as artwork -- my own biases towards quality may be a different entirely -- but if the artist can convince me why something is artwork, then I'll have no issues considering it as such.
So it's just the inability to understand, lack of a desire to understand, and thus manifestation of this to a rejection of this type of art, so I'd imagine.
i really think you're onto something with the label "fractal". people have preconceived notions about what a fractal is, and one of them is that the computer does all the work. very similar to how photography was treated ("the camera does all the work"). no consideration is given to the artist whatsoever. fractals wouldn't be art without the artist. anyone can pull up a mandelbrot formula, apply a random coloring algorithm and gradient, and make a fractal. but for it to become something truly special requires a great deal of effort and artistic vision. so i think, essentially, that there's a rather large difference between "fractals" and "fractal art".