HOME | DD

krigl β€” Keyhole surgery

Published: 2010-07-08 20:46:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 310; Favourites: 14; Downloads: 29
Redirect to original
Description Created this after getting through Jimpan1973's shape isolation tutorial. I don't like Julia Spirals With Orbs much, and I didn't want to just copy his work, so I gave it my own chaotic twist
Thanks for the awesome tutorial though Jimpan, I learned something new again!
Here's the tute!
Related content
Comments: 15

robwahl [2010-07-30 22:49:59 +0000 UTC]

Locked yourself out of the house?
Nice work!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to robwahl [2010-07-31 21:16:13 +0000 UTC]

Out of my head....sooo frustrating!
Thank you!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

robwahl In reply to krigl [2010-07-31 23:01:52 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

inObrAS [2010-07-09 12:49:11 +0000 UTC]

Amazing work!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to inObrAS [2010-07-09 16:45:38 +0000 UTC]

Cheers!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

winklepickers [2010-07-08 21:09:59 +0000 UTC]

I like it.

I've never seen a tut for masking with a texture. From what I see in the tutorial, clouds are added. So considering what we sad yesterday, that is a manipulation. Clouds are not fractals. I don't care a bit but I think the purists are pushing things a bit far by claiming that everything is a fractal.
I hope none of them read this!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to winklepickers [2010-07-08 22:10:59 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! The clouds are created with a fractal colouring formula though... I think, lol. If a cloud of particles (a fractal flame is this, right) is a fractal, then why not call the clouds that make this texture a fractal. However, mixing several different fractals together by blending, masking etc is a manipulation in my book, and UF is basically a programme that enables such manipulations via transformations, layers, transparency etc, but like you I don't care if people think otherwise. It only bothers me when people get on their 'I know better than you' bandwagon and try to limit others unneccesarily.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

winklepickers In reply to krigl [2010-07-09 07:59:17 +0000 UTC]

Over a year ago there was a sort of campaign among younger fractalists to tell people they must do their best. I can't remember the exact words. It was rather offensive for a number of us who bumble along with our programme and use scripts etc. I got angry with one person about it, very stupidly I'm afraid.

Well, I'll now shut up about it all.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to winklepickers [2010-07-09 12:09:24 +0000 UTC]

I can imagine how irritating that was...

Some fractalists have a bee in their bonnet about their 'art'
not being taken seriously, and think that the fact that
so many people are pumping out 'mediocre' work (like me)
makes it look as if anyone can do fractal art.

Unfortunately for them,it's true - with a decent interface like UF a
nd/or the ability to logically extend from tutorials anyone can do fractal art
at least to some degree, because the computer generates the
image for you, and you just 'press buttons'. It's like photography - anyone can take a picture of a nice flower or building (which someone actually artistic designed). REAL art (IMHO) is about using your hands to create something real like a pot, sculpture, drawing or painting.Fractal art is more a skill than an art form, even though the output looks like art and you need talent to create the best work.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

winklepickers In reply to krigl [2010-07-09 12:16:16 +0000 UTC]

Yes. They did say they were tired of being accused of just pushing buttons. Painters don't consider fractals to be an art form. I think it was the same with the beginnings of photography.
I don't pass any judgement on that but fractals are open to anyone. It's a democratic activity. It gives a lot of pleasure, and it's nobody's business what other people do.

I have texts about kitsch, which is what we do in my opinion. Good kitsch sometimes. The author said that he thought that kitsch could lead people to appreciate other more serious art forms.

Vive la libertΓ©!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to winklepickers [2010-07-09 16:54:05 +0000 UTC]

It depends how you define art I suppose. The painters
would be rightly concerned if fractals started appearing
in art galleries next to their work as items of equal value.

I'd make a distinction between 'high art' and 'popular or democratic art'.

I think also that painters may feel threatened by the popularity of digital art and the ease with which some of its forms are created. To be honest, I'd far rather look at a good fractal than at a dusty 'old master', particularly because the fractal is something I can imagine producing myself one day...Digital abstracts look better to me than painted ones. It's a new age.

It saddens me too when I think of the popular fantasy/sci fi artists I knew of as a boy, who created their work traditionally with paint or at least manually with airbrushing. Dean, Matthews, Foss - if they submitted their work to DA now I think it wouldn't hold up too well against the digital masterworks created today - by people who no doubt were inspired by those same artists...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

winklepickers In reply to krigl [2010-07-09 17:40:40 +0000 UTC]

Everything moves on doesn't it. It's sometimes sad but often great fun.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to winklepickers [2010-07-09 22:39:45 +0000 UTC]

Yes.... the ups and downs of life

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Jimpan1973 [2010-07-08 20:56:35 +0000 UTC]

Glad it worked!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

krigl In reply to Jimpan1973 [2010-07-08 22:05:28 +0000 UTC]

It did, thank you!!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0