Re:Emergence
by j2kun on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @03:07PM
(#13429822)
I guess, the point of a fractal is not to be imaginative, but in that the object itself is interesting. If you're saying people's unimaginative renderings of fractals are dumb, I'd be inclined to agree, but I don't think there are necessarily "good" renderings of fractals either, or that the bar for such hasn't, in my opinion, been met.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Emergence
by marssaxman on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @10:13PM
(#13432661)
There are a good many fractal renderings which meet the bar as far as my taste is concerned. Have you seen any of the videos by Julius Horsthuis, for example?
See I'd say these are unimaginative because they're all too similar. Once you've seen one you've seen them all, and they're all the same degree of gaudy. It's like the McMansion of fractals, intended only to overwhelm you with the impression that the creator has a really good rendering engine.
Maybe I'd be more impressed to see the process, but every time I watch one of those videos of someone making fractal art, it's just them tinkering with settings on some fractal rendering engine they bought online.
Of course, this all just shows my standard for good fractal art (and good art in general) is orthogonal to "using a powerful rendering engine."
Re:Emergence
by jbpetersen on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @09:27PM
(#13432452)
I think demoscene has met my bar for "good" rendering of fractals. Hopefully worth a quick search for anyone not already familiar with that corner of esoteric programming.