Some Notes on Fractal Art

Preface

I've been asking opinion of various people and groups on DeviantArt and in the
wider Web as to their views about the evaluation of fractal art. People (dA
names) who have replied include: Mario837, SiradLah, Nura-Kinekaomi,
Plantinus, f-l-a-A-r-k, bjman. Sites whose members have kindly responded
include: FractalForums, and Orbit Trap. I have also carried out some searches
concerning fractal art and related topics on the internet, via Google.

I would have liked to include links and images in this work, but I really need a
different forum in which to do that. There may be issues of breaking dA rules
and of copyright from other sources. Thus, use the Web to find the artists I
mention!

Introduction

Having been re-introduced to the world of fractals after several years, I have
found many changes from the days when I played with UltraFractal and Bryce.
Software has become more powerful and more diverse, 3D imaging has
become a norm, and the quantity of images being made is enormous and
continues to grow. Nevertheless, there does not appear to have been any
systematic or serious attempt to look at Fractal Art from an historical or
evaluative point of view. I may well be wrong, there may be dozens of learned
texts and quizzical forums devoted to just this, but I've not yet found them.
Therefore, I am attempting to put together some ideas, based on my own small
knowledge of art and its histories and upon the views of contributors. Initially, I
was going to consider only how one might evaluate fractal art, and a
subsequent essay may follow on this. However, I quickly came to the
conclusion that an overview of some aspects of fractal art might be important,
at least to me, to provide a framework for understanding the complex and
diverse nature of the subject.

Art in General, Appreciation in Art

There is, unfortunately, a problem at the outset. The problem is “art”. Even the
word itself is slippery in meaning with any attempt at a cogent definition being
assailed by all and sundry as meaningless, hopeless, and totally subjective. I
have some sympathy with such views, but nevertheless believe a working
definition is useful, if only to provide a focus or starting point. My definition is
very simply stated, but has immediate and powerful ramifications, some of
which become apparent when assessing fractal art.

Art is the making of an image for a purpose.

There are immediate implications from this definition. It applies to all art forms,
not just visual. It implies that there is a maker (an artist); it implies that there
are images; and, most importantly, there must be a purpose to the making of
the image. There are also some aspects of art that are not immediately
included: no mention of aesthetics or beauty; no mention of style or taste; no
implication of subjectivity; no prescription of how an image is to be made; and,
importantly, no proscription on the purpose or purposes for which an image is
made. In short, there is no reference to value judgements.

I have no intention to go into the wider aspects of this view of art, except for
two points that will help when looking at fractal art. First, throughout the
history of art there have been many strands of opinion that weave in and out of
view. Often these strands appear to oppose one another although they often
are the different sides of the same coin. One such duality came to the fore
during the Renaissance when two groupings of artists emerged. On the one
hand there were painters such as Annibale Carracci and his school who
believed that Art (note the capital “A”) should reflect the ideal world, an
Arcadia, of Light, Truth and Beauty. It was the duty of the artist to promote
these ideals to which everyone should aspire. This school of art could trace its
roots to the very beginnings of then modern art – Giotto, Titian, Raphael and so
on. The school of thought continued into the 19 th century through the works of
Poussin, Claude and David. It continues today in some form, particularly
amongst those who see Beauty as the mainstay of Art. On the other hand,
there was the school of thought represented by artists such as Carravaggio, the
Netherlandish painters, including Rembrandt, into the English school associated
with Hogarth and others, the Impressionists and so on. This school also thought
that art (small “a” ) should reflect truth, but the truth of reality – sometimes
harsh, uncompromising aspects of every day life, along with pleasant
reflections of happiness and good times, and even the humdrum . Of course,
this is a very, very broad brush stroke view of what was going on over several
centuries. Many artists were happy depicting whatever they were
commissioned to do; Rubens enjoyed great patronage from the Catholic
Church, but was not averse to throwing in the odd social commentary or two.

The second point comes from the first. In the Renaissance an artist called
Vasari wrote what was the first real account of what becomes Art History. Ever
since then artists, art historians, and numerous others have argued about
subjectivity versus objectivity in art. Societies and academies were set up to
decide upon such matters (amongst other things), rules laid down, styles
approved and disapproved. The controversies continue. Nevertheless,
arguments lead to debate, and debate to development. To my mind, many
commentators today would agree that it is possible to separate, to some
reasonable degree, personal views of art with their inevitable subjective
components (value judgements) from more general or rational views of what
art (the making of images for a purpose) means.

Characteristics of Fractal Art

The Elephant in the Room

There is one obvious common feature of all the fractal art works displayed in
DeviantArt, FractalForums, and many other similar sites. It is so obvious that it
hardly needs stating: all the fractal images are computer generated. Why
should this need stating? Because, the fractal artist needs to convince the
wider world of art that the images produced are not merely contrived
constructs of the mathematics and computer, but are the products of the
artist's insight, skill and purpose, and that they have a relevance to wider
issues.
The matter has been addressed by some fractal artists; I note f-l-A-r-k on his
web site discusses these matters, pointing out the levels of skill required to
manipulate images to produce what he sees as important. Having
experimented with most of the current software such as Apophysis and
Mandelbulb, I can assure the non-fractal world that the techniques,
understanding and experience needed to make unique fractal art are
impressive and extensive and not easily acquired. The ability required to carry
out manipulations requires detailed knowledge of the effects of changing, often
by minute amounts, a myriad of parameters. The change of one variable has
unpredictable effects on all the others, but the fractal artist's skill and
experience can circumvent this problem. The level of expertise needed is
arguably as great as that required by those who manipulate traditional artistic
media, and by those who work in photographic and other digital art spheres.
Overall, the extent to which the fractal artist can exert control over the images
that are being made is a measure of the quality of the work being produced.
However, I am not convinced that most of those who work in the fractal field
see their way in this regard.

History

In the wider world of art, being able to relate your own work to other areas (in
whatever manner) is generally a good thing. For example, although fractal art
as we are discussing has come about since the theories of Mandlebrot and the
advent of computers and software languages capable of calculating and
displaying fractal images, there is an earlier history. Further, there are copious
examples of fractal art displayed in other ways. From my researches however,
there is evidence that fractal artists are either ignorant of the past, or ignore
and even actively discourage reference to non-computer generated fractal art.
This, in my opinion, is a mistake. Artists in every field have something to learn
from the past.

By way of example, consider some of the work of the late Jackson Pollock. He
was described as an “action painter” and was seen as a founder of the
American style of Abstract Expressionism. He made a series of very large
canvases covered with paint applied by splashing, dribbling, sloshing and
throwing. (He's reputed to have used a bicycle to travel around the canvas
while applying the paint!) You can find illustrations on the Web, or better still
find a gallery that has one. If you stand up close to such a work and then walk
backwards to see the entire canvas you will be struck by how similar the close
and the distant views are. Self-similarity at different scales is a defining
characteristic of fractals. Thus, without any knowledge of the mathematics,
Pollock was making fractal art. In addition, usually, Pollock used only a few
colours of paints, white, black, and browns – a restricted palette. Compare that
to the almost infinitely polychrom palettes often used in fractal art. Is there a
lesson here?

The illusion of space is important in fractal art. However, the manipulation of

2D space by artists to imply fractional dimensions has a considerable history.
For example, Renoir, one of the Impressionists, used the idea in some of his
paintings (e.g. Le Moulin de la Galette, 1876). In these works Renoir used the
same level of detail and colour in the foreground, mid-ground, and background,
again self-similarity, to produce the feel of the image, in effect, a 2.5D space.
(The art historian and critic Rene Berger commented extensively on this in his
essay on Renoir in “The Language of Art”, Thames and Hudson, 1958/1963.)

Others, such as Picasso and the German-American artist Lyonel Feininger, used
geometric manipulations to produce work similar to that generated by simple
manipulations in UltraFractal. The world of Islamic art is full of recursion and
repetition in geometric design with 3D real world fractals in what are called
“murqanas” - stalactite-like polychromed plaster decorative art found in
mosques and other Islamic buildings

Of course, in these and other examples, the concept of a “fractal” or “fractional

dimension” is never mentioned, the terms coming into existence only when
Mandelbrot produced his seminal work in the 1970's. Yet, a good century before
at least one European artist was making use of the ideas.

Regarding natural fractals, photographs can show examples. Some of my

efforts that can be seen in my DeviantArt Gallery “Abstracts”, particularly the
rock abstractions are fractal in nature; so are the sea flows. I am sure perusal
of many a photographic gallery will show numerous examples.

This leads to a point to ponder. Looking at the photographs we would not

mistake the images for computer generated ones. But, why not? The reason is
that the fractals in the photographs are not perfect images with smooth
surfaces and the feel associated with the computer/artist made images. They
can be rough and ready, identifiable as objects in reality. So the point is: are
computer generated fractals too good, too clever? Another way of thinking
about it is to ask if the introduction of some noise or faults might not enhance
their appeal. There could be a new class of fractals – “frayed or faulty fractals”
with which to play.

Visual Splendour

Anyone coming across fractal art for the first time will be immediately struck by
the visual splendour of many if not most of the images. Words like “stunning”,
“astonishing”, “amazing” are common in comments, along with occasional
religious references from those that way inclined. Indeed, it is very hard not to
be impressed with the visual impact that fractal images can have. Coupled with
splendour is variety of image. There are full-blown eye and mind numbing
profusions of curling, twisting, almost vibrating, shapes with Gothic arches,
creepy caves, graceful domes, setting suns, rosettes, volutes, all captured and
coloured via mono or poly tonic gradients. Such drama is matched by other
more subtle images, sinuous shapes, delicate balances of forms and colour.
Many show their mathematical pedigree with patterns sharply delineated,
geometries of circles, ellipses, triangles and polygons. Yet others hark to
natural subjects, flower heads and plants.

I defined art as image making for a purpose. With fractal art the most obvious
purpose appears to be the creation of visual splendour. The creative challenge
for the fractal artist seems to be to make images that command visual
attention. In that they succeed. However, to me, this seems both a strength
and a weakness of fractal art.
Why a weakness? Just as visiting an art gallery where there may be hundreds
of exhibits vying for attention, the sheer volume of fractal images causes visual
fatigue. There is considerable difficulty in looking at more than half-a-dozen at
a time. The eye and brain cannot take them all in. With the gallery, one can
always be selective and go again to see other works. However, with fractals, as
soon one's back has turned another thousand images have appeared. The way
in which fractal images are made, the variety, sophistication and development
of software, and the number of people producing such work all lead to this
profusion. The process of fractal image production has become, with some
software, effectively automated. I can set up Apophysis to create a batch of,
say, 100 images; these can be processed according to any set of parameters I
care to use, rendered and stored without my intervention. True, that full
rendering of 100 images to any substantial size might take a few hours even on
a powerful machine, but then Rembrandt painted only about 400 works in a
lifetime.

There is a second, more sinister, strand to the weakness argument. In

summary, “Where's the beef?”. Although I defined art as the making of images
for a purpose, there is no implication that all made images are equivalent. The
history of art shows that some images rise above their face value, become
something more than they seem. Those are the pictures that we seem to value
most. What is more, great artists know how to do this with their work. Some
may strike lucky, but most can blend their composition, their forms and
subjects, their harmonies, rhythms, colour, details with the intent of making the
work transcend its immediate visual appearance. Now, where is that in fractal
art?

The answer to this charge may lie outside the virtual world of fractals. We need
to look at where fractal art lies in the general world of art and which other
areas may relate to it, as per my comments about history above. Such other
areas may show ways in which the “beef” may be found.

Related Areas

Surprisingly to me at least, fractal art can be linked immediately to many areas

of visual art. These areas include Op Art, Abstract Art, Decorative Art, “Found
Art” (Object Trouve), Still Life, Impressionism, and so on and on. I shall pick two
examples only. First, with abstract art, the general idea of building up a
personal visual arena into which the artist places motifs, develops
interconnections, allows space for the mind to explore, and adds his/her own
insights seems to fit the attributes of fractal art to perfection. The work of an
artist of considerable renown, Joan Miro, would be a model for those following
this path. Second, with Op Art, there is considerable scope, and many fractal
examples in deviantArt show this, for the exploration of optical effects in
pursuit of wider goals. Playing with perception is and has been a long-standing
subject of visual art.

There is also a strong bond between fractal art and photography. Both of these
allow personal art to flourish, a point that “art purists” do not usually consider.
The use of art for personal pleasure, improvement, intellectual development,
and sheer fun should not be underplayed. A humble snap of Aunt Agatha
relaxing after a Christmas dinner, wine glass in hand, may not be the greatest
photograph ever produced, but if it brings pleasure to the family (even Aunt
Agatha), then it succeeds in its purpose and should be applauded, even if to
professional photographers it has no artistic merit. Fractal art also fulfils this
personal creative urge and gives insight to wider matters, at least to the people
making the images - evidence the large amount produced.

Landscapes are a cross-over area in that creative fractal art can produce its
own version of vistas with components matching those from the real world.
Broad plains, mountains, gorges, caves, trees, and what have you can all be
generated in virtual equivalents. The cross-over theme is also apparent in the
use of more than one type of software to generate images. For example, Bryce
can be used explicitly to create a fictitious but “real” landscape, upon which
fractal experimentation can take place.

The greatest problem for fractal art is in the arena of figurative or

representational art. Portraiture would be difficult to assimilate into fractal
work. History and narrative painting are also tricky to relate to fractal images,
but not entirely so when we look at religious art. I was struck by comments
about some works to be found in deviantArt referring to their religious
overtones. Widening that view slightly, the idea of the “Sublime” is one found
in art, for example in some English 18th and 19th century painting and in
German romanticism of the 19th century. There is really no great leap to see
some of the fractal images in this light. The visual splendour relates to feelings
of awe and wonder and then to Mankind's place in the wider scheme.

Nevertheless, splendour and awe are not sufficient when it comes to the
expression of emotion in art. The lack of a figurative base means that human
and related subjects cannot be used in fractal art to convey the darker feelings
of shock, horror, disgust, sadness, pity and so on. This seems to me to be a
challenge for fractal artists to overcome.

Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Fractal Art

There appear to be three general strands of opinion held by those respondents

to my questions about the evaluation of fractal art. One strand questions
whether there should or can be any such assessment. This “art as unknowable”
view is not without merit, but art historians have shown that some form of
overview of artists, their work, movements and developments is needed and is
possible, however incomplete. Thus, I am not going to consider this strand
further.

The second general response is along technical lines; the feeling is that effort
and control reflects ability in fractal art, and that detailed knowledge of
software and how to use it is essential to making a “good” piece of art. There is
a great deal in this view. Looking at painting, sculpture, mixed media work and
so on, the craftsmanship or technical aspects cannot be overrated. There is a
direct comparison between, say, the ways in which paint is applied to a canvas
and the ways that parameters are used in fractal art. Techniques in both areas
can be used to enhance the image, and the methods taken up to be used and
refined by others. In this context, the role of competitions appears to have an
important part to play, allowing at least some form of assessment to provide
feedback for development of fractal art.

The third strand follows – fractal art should be assessed or evaluated along the
lines used for other artistic works. Main themes in this regard are:

context – historical, personal, group, social;

subject, theme, genre, movement – e.g. narrative, historical, religious

portraiture, still life, social commentary, abstract, Op Art, DaDa;

form, composition – elements as individual items, interactions, integration;

colour – “use of light”, tonality, palette, harmony;

balance - harmony, rhythm, movement;

technical aspects (as above);

and “feel” - timelessness, transcendence, meaning, purpose.

Not all of these elements apply to all images and some are more important in
different contexts. Nevertheless, we could build up a group of such ideas to
apply to certain styles of fractal art. For example, a group of artists may use a
common software suite, say, Apohysis, to develop images that have visual
impact including optical properties such as seen in some Op Art. An evaluation
might run along the following lines:

“The various elements of the form of these images may have strong
connections with arabesque curves harmoniously placed on lines and
in positions associated with “rules” such as the Golden Mean. The
colours used may be of a limited palette, say yellows, golds, ochres,
that reflect the overall feel of the images – a feeling of opulence
reminiscent of the décor or items found in regalia or in palaces.
Overall, however, despite the visual appeal, the harmony of the
image and its technical accomplishment, the image may not stand
the test of time or whether it is any more than the sum of its parts
might be open to doubt.”

To my mind, it is the development of assessments or evaluations along these

lines that should be the basis of and norm in evaluation.

The Role of the Artist

I have left this area to last for it brings me full circle back to my definition of
art: art is the making of an image for a purpose. The definition implies that
there has to be a maker of the image – the artist. Another of the generalities
that is apparent from even a cursory study of art history is that it is the artist,
not simply the work, that commands and drives the development of art. You
might say that some artists are born great (Picasso), some achieve greatness
(Cezanne) and some have greatness thrust upon them (whoever painted the
images in the Lascaux caves in France). Most artists, however, come to
prominence through hard work, a little luck, talent, and perseverance. A further
skill that the successful have is that of self-promotion, either absolutely on their
own or through groups or by social networking (as it is now called). Here fractal
artists have an advantage in that much of the necessary interactions in this
day and age are done on and through the internet. Fractal artists work in this
medium and should exploit it to the full. Self-belief is yet another characteristic
of successful artists. The lesson from the Impressionists, who were derided in
their day, is that novel ways of working, new goals and purposes, and fresh
ideas in art do, eventually, come to the fore.

Some of the fractal artists currently on deviantArt and related sites are going to
achieve success in commercial and artistic terms, some no doubt already have.
I have not sought out who the main players are. I do note, however, that f-l-A-r-
k is proposing interviews with those he considers leading fractal artists – a
venture to be supported. However, whether fractal art itself goes on to be a
main stream area of art is not so certain. Much more needs to be done to
promote the work and the ideas, to develop commercial projects, to infiltrate
main stream galleries, to influence key people in the art world, and to develop
a sense of purpose.