WHY FRACTALS DON'T TOUCH YOUR SOUL...
...they are without any doubt beautiful with depth, great color, dynamic lines, always pleasing to the eye, attractive and sometimes a remarkable visual experience. And what is more, the repetition of forms suggests the math of the eternal. But Fractals are also highly recognizable as "formula based" images. The lack of human warmth puts them on a collision course with those that fear mechanization of art.
"I conceived and developed a new geometry of nature and implemented its use in a number of diverse fields. It describes many of the irregular and fragmented patterns around us, and leads to full-fledged theories, by identifying a family of shapes I call fractals. " Benoit Mandelbrot
Trying to combine the cold soul of the harddrive with the sweetness of the human hand and heart is quite a challenge.
NICE MEETING YOU
THINGS THAT MOVE ARE ALIVE
.gif)
Looks great
woooow yeah buddy when you MOVE the digital image it DOES becoem more alive and in touch with the human heart. I wouldnt say "fractal" does not touch the soul as fracal geometry exists in plants in nature. the human soul can not fit into the contruct of a machine, so naturally the soul finds it disturbing. what is more beautiful, a sphere or a cube?
...you are absolutely right concerning nature...only as far as I know, nobody put an Romanesco cabbage in the gallery and declaring this "art"...well, may be Koons has it on his list and of course 10 meters high.
I agree. I'm of the opinion that to speak of anything as "outside of nature" is .. nonsense lol. "fractals," mathematics.. they are just as "natural" as a tree. Which I think is web-gnar's point... that if you break down nature, you will see these exact shapes, fractals, etc.!! So I think it's a mistake to separate things out from nature, when, imo, everything and anything actually falls under this rubric!
a sphere is more beautiful than a cube though
So.. there's an objective "beauty?" @web-gnar? I don't think it's that easy... Some of the most "Beautiful" things out there are quite rugged, raw, jagged--like a cube. As opposed to the smooth nice contours of a "sphere..." no? In other words: Beauty truly is in the "eye of the beholder.."
Your philosophy is very Platonic... with the forms and all... Plato would say likely there is an "objective" (true form) of beauty.. Therefore, for example, a "cube" which I may find as "beautiful," truly contains within it a resemblance (I can't remember the technical term) of the form of beauty.. which is the "purest" and most perfect "form": and called Beauty.. . Plato probably would say that a sphere is more beautiful--(like you said with the "disruption of the soul," etc. which is very interesting) .
I just don't think I agree with Plato. It's a bit too "theistic" imo. (which many later philosophers, St. Augustine being the main one, worked very hard to Christianize Plato--which, given its precepts, probably wasn't all too difficult.))
One more thing about your statement, @web-gnar, that really got me thinking: in line with the idea that certain phenomena have a tendency to "disrupt" the soul due to their being--if I'm reading you right--basically "too complex" for that soul to comprehend. This idea leads me to think the next logical step would be, that, perhaps some kind of evolution would permit "souls" (imo, "mind") to grow and therefore to comprehend increasingly complex structures... In that sense, "beauty" is something constantly evolving and changing, and our "souls" change, too, in order to comprehend it--but also to influence it and add our own perceptions into the milieu.
a copy of a copy of a copy loses its beauty eventually. simple is all encompassing. straying too far from the source becomes artificial
you know, the one who can does...the one who cannot teaches.
Thanks for the "lesson," @whornung ;) What is it here that you cannot do??
Found this through @artzone and wanted to express my appreciation of your work! Congrats on the contest win. I understand the nature of something like this and your time and efforts are appreciated! Followed- I don't want to miss seeing your future work!
Thanks for your feedback, Matthew...the more you practice the luckier you get!
I found U through @artzone and I'm glad I did!
you have to open this in a new tab, to see all the details! OMG!
RESTEEMED
its really great dear @surfyogi sir
thanks...good idea to open in a new tab on one of my future posts...but how do you do this technically?
wooooooooow!!! this is marvelous this is a work from a beautiful mind nice work keep it up
you were featured in today's @artzone
Thanks for your support...
Wowww! The motion really does take the work to a whole new level. You made your point quite effectively.
...thanks, the more you practice the luckier you get
Without a doubt a spectacular art that great work makes worthy to appreciate congratulations friends
I don't think I can even find words to describe how awesome your art is! I found you as a result of @surfyogi resteeming your post. This post deserves more views - I am resteeming it right now 🤗
thanks a lot Lucy!
That's freakin awesome... So is the first image (or I guess both images), is it "digital art?" As in, created on a CPU?? (I'm assuming, obviously, the moving image is lol) So you create the image on the CPU, and then use a program to manipulate the picture to move in certain ways, etc.. Is it like an actual cpu program that is written to loop the movements of the second image? Very cool.
...you got it right, first image is made with digital tools and the animation is done afterwards with some special software. Thanks for your feedback
That's awesome. Thanks for explaining!