# Opinions On Fractal Artwork.



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Hello there, I am here to open a discussion on everyone's opinion on the new fractal status. In this post I will voice my opinion on this policy, and encourage you guys to shareyour own opinions. There is no right or wrong, and you are free to believe what you will. Do not feel pressured, and please do take the time to analyze all of the info.

Alright, now to get started. There is a new, (but not really new. It's just been an old policy that's sort of been overlooked), that is attempting to rid off fractal artwork from Furaffinity. This thread is here to try and gather as much input from as many parties as we possibly can about this subject. The AUP violation, as will be updated to this soon, is as follows:



> Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content (e.g. game screenshots) are not permitted. This includes customizable characters (e.g. Warcraft, Spore) or creations *assembled using pre-created criteria and/or programs where the user input is primarily adjusting values (e.g sliders, values, seeds) and the computer then generates content.*



Almost all fractals are used by a program called "Apophysis". There will be sections in this post that explain the use of the program and how it works. Apophysis is in essence a program that creates a fractal through user input, which inherently violates above rule. On my standpoint there should be exceptions, such as there is for the widely popular game, "Second Life". Images of that game are allowed if it is custom and user-created. I would enjoy an exception for fractals.


* A. Why Fractals Should Be Allowed. *


* 1: Apophysis and how it is used. *

Apophysis is a rendering program that creates a fractal, or in essence, an image that has no end. To create a fractal you need a fractal algorithm, which Apophysis generously supplies for you. You create a fractal through many, many different selections, and unless purposely shared between two fractal artists, you will never, ever see a fractal EXACTLY the same. Very rarely will you see anything similar.

To quote a conversation between me and Damaratus:



> To create a fractal, you have to do a LOT more than just move a slider or two around. Let me delve into how a fractal is made just a bit. A fractal in it's sense is normally made from two or tmore base points called 'transforms'. A transform is automatically assigned an effect called a 'variation'. Two transform, depending on it's location with the default setting of a 'linear variation', can create many different fractal images in themselves. Granted, with only two transforms and the default variation of linear, I'd limit the amount of possibilities to around 100. However, on these transforms, you can add MANY different effects, changing their strength and power with numbers, (that have an infinite possibility in themselves), to create limitless fractals. With two transforms that have two different variations, with a number between '1 and 10', it is possible to make around 10,000 fractals. (Note that these are simple, extremely crude estimations). This is before adding more transforms or different variations. There are a total of almost 150 different variations for fractals out there on the web. You can add a limitless amount of transforms on an endless grid for location.



Note that that is with only two transforms and two variations. There is a limitless possibility. That is the essence of a fractal. Apophysis is a very complex and detailed program, and there are plenty of things you must know to create a fractal. Apophysis is simply the tool that we use, just like a lot of people use Fruity Loops for music creation. I will touch down on this later.



* 2: Ethical Reasons For Allowing Fractals. *

I also believe that fractals should be allowed because multiple FA users enjoy this artwork. Fractals are true art, and take quite a deal of time and imagination. Fractals take a nice deviation from the multitude of dog cocks that are shown on the page on after another, and it provides something to think about, due to its abstract nature. 

Sure, fractals use Apophysis or a program to render the image, but it is not as simple as pressing the easy button. This is like saying Fruity Loops can not be used to make music, along with various other audio editing/creating software, because all you do in those is move a few sliders around and click a few buttons to make a beat. Music made this way is way easier to duplicate and find similarities in than it is in fractals. The same thing applies to stories and artwork. You see many of the same things, and a lot of it is computer generated. However, fractals are ever-changing, and provide an abstract outlook.

Creating fractals is not breaking any law (besides those posted on FA, apparently), and they are not hurting anyone. They are, in-fact, grabbing more traffic to FA as I have a few people that come to visit my page only for fractals, and they aren't furry. With this brings potential for added revenue through your ads and page-hits, from my understanding.


*B. Solutions To Spamming Of Fractals. *

*1: Creating Daily Or Weekly Limits.*

As with previously stated Second Life screen shots, of my understanding, there is a limit to how many of those you can post within a certain time limit. We could try and add this rule into effect for fractals. Place a certain limit that is reasonable. This would be hard to enforce, however, and I have taken that into account.

*2: Have A Set Limit Of Fractals In Your Gallery.*

This is another option. We could set a certain limit of how many fractals are allowed in a single FA gallery, (not including scraps), and impose that limit. Seeings how there are only around 5 dedicated fractal artists on this site, I would enjoy a decently high setting, but we'll cross that bridge if/when the time comes.





Now please, take everything that I have said into consideration, and do know that this is only MY personal opinion. I am open to any and all sides of this issue, and plead you to share your opinions here. I am eager to hear any and all ideas/thoughts on this matter.

-Raliegh


----------



## KroneFire (Dec 15, 2008)

Technically it is a form of art, and we dont haggle on people that draw humans, so why fractals? plus, they ish purdy >.O
also make good desktops <3


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 15, 2008)

I see no issue with allowing fractal art, provided it is not spammed needlessly.

It would help if artists gave feedback on their own work and made some attempt to decipher patterns in the chaos instead of just submitting them with empty comment boxes and leaving them to rot.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

this post is pointless theres already a fractals discussion thread and having a vote won't help things anymore then as neer said sending hi ma virtuall piece of paper


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Lol, Nanaki. Pay attention. If you bothered to continue reading the last thread he told me to make a new thread, have people voice opinions, and he would think about it then.

So, mind actually contributing to this?


----------



## Eshmasesh (Dec 15, 2008)

I honestly don't understand what's contraversial about this topic. Singling out fractal art because it's based on mathematical algorithms is absurd, as it can still be very abstract, unique, and beautiful.


----------



## CurioDraco (Dec 15, 2008)

I've always wondered one thing. Why are these fractals allowed, when they're in the same vein as say Terragen, which as we all know is apparently a big bad no-no..
I say if we can't have Terragen, then neither should we have Apophysis. Or, if Apophysis is allowed, then allow Terragen. There's a lot more appeal and personal creativity in using Terragen vs Apophysis. 
I don't know why both shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Because from my personal views and experiences with Terragen, it IS a simple point and click thing that makes repetitive items, like a game. However, with Apophysis, it is solely on user input and is a lot, lot more complex than that. 

However, do take into account that I could be wrong on this fact.


----------



## Bloo_roo (Dec 15, 2008)

I vote allow it- while it's not drawn via pencil or paper, it's still a unique and beautiful form of art. I especially like Kewl's work- they make incredible desktops! Also, I've never once seen a fract on the FA recent submissions list on the homepage- not once in all the thousands of times I've logged in.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 15, 2008)

I only like them if it was one picture of one subject, not tons of pictures on your first Spore creature.

A single picture for a single subject is fine, as long as their gallery isn't _just_ that. It takes little effort to manipulate fractal art programs, so a bunch of Z-grade Spore monsters typically does not help site bandwidth. 
My 2 cents....


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

This discussion comes down to whether or not a parabola is art =l


----------



## CurioDraco (Dec 15, 2008)

I played with Apophysis (granted, it was years ago and it might have changed?) but I remember giving it random information, and getting an image result, without knowing at all what I was doing. Terragen, you can mold where the mountains are, determine the color of the sun, sky, water, etc.. and may or may not have generated anything decent with it :S


----------



## Bloo_roo (Dec 15, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I only like them if it was one picture of one subject, not tons of pictures on your first Spore creature.
> 
> A single picture for a single subject is fine, as long as their gallery isn't _just_ that. It takes little effort to manipulate fractal art programs, so a bunch of Z-grade Spore monsters typically does not help site bandwidth.
> My 2 cents....



Well said ^^ I agree %100


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

I don't quite get what you mean, Shenzi.

This topic isn't about Spore SS's, if that's what you're getting at? 

And Curio, yes, that is possible to do. BUT, that is just a base. Very little fractal artists do that and simply post what comes up. No, none of them on FA do that at all, to my knowledge. I'm sure Terragen has a 'random' feature as well... Well, that's all it is in Apophysis. The fractal artists on FA actually take time to make their own fractal. Besides, the ones randomly generated look like poo, you could spot them a mile away.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> I don't quite get what you mean, Shenzi.
> 
> This topic isn't about Spore SS's, if that's what you're getting at?


I hate Spore, as if you couldn't tell. So I decided to make a tiny rant.

But as for all other fractal artwork, it's all good in the neighborhood.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Spore in no way whatsoever is a fractal. 

They are two COMPLETELY different things, lol.

Don't worry, I hate Spore too. xD


----------



## Rhaen (Dec 15, 2008)

I vote to allow it, barring spamming.


----------



## Steel Froggy (Dec 15, 2008)

YOU GUYS HATE SPORE!?
WHAT IS /WRONG/ WITH YOU!? *cries*





*votes allow*


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Agreed. Spamming is no good, but think of it. That happens with all artwork, and as someone has previously stated, it's RARE to catch a fractal on the front page. 

But thank you for your input, I greatly appreciate it.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> This discussion comes down to whether or not a parabola is art =l



Anything can be art.

Life is basically a huge canvas/stage/what have you, in terms of art. There is beauty in everything, bliss in discord, love in hate, joy in pain.


----------



## Eshmasesh (Dec 15, 2008)

Emil said:


> This discussion comes down to whether or not a parabola is art =l


This is definitely not a straw man argument. Nope.


----------



## Emil (Dec 15, 2008)

Eshmasesh said:


> This is definitely not a straw man argument. Nope.



I wasnt making an argument, just describing the discussion! =O Overreacting much?



> Anything can be art.
> 
> Life is basically a huge canvas/stage/what have you, in terms of art. There is beauty in everything, bliss in discord, love in hate, joy in pain.



No, sorry, not touching that. Ive already argued against that concept before.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Everyone is appointed to their own view, guys. Kind of what this thread is about. 

Lets just keep things relaxed and see where things go.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 15, 2008)

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=757794&posted=1#post757794

This is my statement in the other topic. Hope this helps.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 15, 2008)

I am a frac. I like the fracs.


----------



## nominus_expers (Dec 15, 2008)

So is photography art? You find a subject, fiddle with some settings and push a button, easy as that. But good photography takes a degree of skill and creativity, right? You have to line up the shot, make sure the lighting is good, check the composition, the feel of the scene being photographed. There are lens effects you can use and the like.
Same with a program. It generates something when you push a button and fiddle with the dials. What it generates involves a degree of skill and creativity if it could be considered good. 
FA allows photos. FA allows synthesized music. The only real requirement is that it took some skill or creativity and was produced by a member of the fandom.
My vote is to allow, whether it matters or not.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Why thank you for the input, nominus. You present quite an expert point.


----------



## whitefox123 (Dec 15, 2008)

i dont have much to say bout fractals. they do make some really cool backgrounds and are most look pretty neat. plus why get rid of em? if people dont think theyre art then they wont click on em. no reason to remove them from FA. im really here also cause kewlhotrod makes some pretty awesome fractals and i dont want him to stop. so take that admins


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Haha, thank you for the compliment, whitefox. n.n


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 15, 2008)

Fractal art offers at least as much opportunity for creativity as writing. Fractal art pieces are graphs of mathematical equations. Stories can also be formally mathematically described as graphs of characters (this is elementary information theory). All stories are created from a very small group of elements (letters and punctuation marks) which are strung together in a particular order to produce the work of art. A two thousand word story is a particular linear sequence of about 10,000 elements - characters.

Fractal art has far more element variability than the English language, and also has a broader realm of potential developmental variation than a story. A story is a linear sequence of the elements. Fractal art is a two or three dimensional sequence, allowing more degrees of freedom. Moreover, a particular piece of fractal art is a particular unique sequence of millions of pixels (not thousands of characters), each of which can have 36,000,000 values (not just a few dozen as in English).

I'm not belittling writing; I'm a million copy best selling author - but I also understand mathematical complexity and information theory.

I'm not a fractal artist - I just enjoy some of these exceedingly complex and fascinating images.

I would like to point out that fractal art is considered serious art by the dA community, and no one would ever accuse the dA admins and rule-makers of not being picky about art.

I am certain that those FA Admins who are proposing to ban fractal art have never created a single piece of fractal art because if they had, they would never have proposed treating fractal art in a manner different from stories, synthesized music, or photography - there is at least as much opportunity for creativity with fractal art as with these three art forms.

Finally, I recommend that the FA admins take an hour or two to peruse the Apophysis tutorials on dA!  They will demonstrate the extraordinary richness and complexity of this type of art - and the difficulty and depth of knowledge required to create something that is astonishing rather than random poo.  Please read at least a few of the tutorials before making a decision grounded firmly in ignorance. You won't find any Spore tutorials...


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> ...Besides, the ones randomly generated look like poo, you could spot them a mile away.



Absolutely correct.  That is why I think that the FA admins who propose banning fractal art have never created a single fractal image - if they had, they would have rendered uninteresting poo rather than something fascinating and would know more about the subject than they do now.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Thank you, Foxy. I hope they will read into this and understand a lot more. It is greatly appreciated.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

*g* Where did that voting posse come from, btw?

@Kewlhotrod: I trust you'll remember that a vote ain't particularly different from a petition and you already have your answer to the latter. Plus small sample size _is_ small... ("wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five" does not apply! )
But nonetheless, constructive discussion _is_ constructive (hopefully), too.

d. ^^


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Well yes, I am aware that the vote isn't much different. I added it there for simplicities sake, and because it's convenient. Also, I only personally know like 2 or 3 of the people that voted here. Hopefully this thread will actually get more people, though, as it is important. I want to attract users that I have never seen before and actually have them share their opinion. Only way that this'll get big enough though, is by an announcement, I fear.

I doubt Dragoneer would go for that. Lol.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 15, 2008)

It was brought to the light of my attention to repost what I said here, just in case if it is missed. 

"Dragoneer and fellow Admins, coders, the staff of Fur Affinity, fellow fractal artists, and random furs/people that love the site. I disagree, and would like to add that I think "Fractal's" is more of an art form regardless of its point and click deposition. What is art?

To define art is to understand that it contains the following:
Personality
Definition
Utilization of Space (Positive and Negative space)
Body (Better known as composition)

Just like most art itself, my creations have all the above and I work really hard manipulating an image to get something nifty in the end. To define a piece of art it is to have both negative and positive space and be able to create a composition. What we do is manipulate a coded alga-rhythmic equation that through a series of changes, stretches, and etc. creates a final image. Some of us go as for as to focus and clean up them after wards, using other computer art programs such as GIMP, and Adobe Photoshop. Even to go as far as to layer the image to create a grander finished product.

To remove such art means all art from the site should be removed. Abstract art has always had its place here on the FA and it would mean a slap in the face of many real artists and viewers who share that non/anthro art should be allowed here and is on the FA. This is a tool of expressing one's talent of artistry. So in my opinion even though I am relatively new to this, it would be unfair to remove them from people's main page's and to ban such beautiful looking types of art. Many artists in the past were called "Spirit Mongers" and "Minion's of the Devil" for producing art that no one understood or saw as art. Many years later, their art was appreciated and brought to the plateau of creative understanding and non ignorance. Don't let this be a similar case. (Also just to clarify not saying all art should be removed, just using it for the point that I am trying to make.)

I am and always will be an abstract artist who will use tools like Apophysis and others at my disposal to make images that make people think or just enjoy to see. Each fractal has a life, a story of its original composition which to me is this:
Going through the program and selecting an equation line that suits me visually. From there manipulate the edges of each triangle in a pattern that creates different images every macro centimeter which changes definition on the x, y, and z axis. Sounds like art doesn't it? Its called perspective. From this point I manipulate the equation to bend lines, to sculpt them in the way a person would put a brush to paper and start his composition. Adding and subtracting at a whim, just like an eraser and pencil, I go through and change the image before I even begin to color and fill the negative space. From there, through another series of changes, stretches, manipulations, create something profound in my eyes as an abstract artist. I color the image in a series of random color coded spectrums and select the one I see fit. My pallet complete, I render the image to finality. Just like an artist draws an image and fine tunes it digitally, so do I. Add things that create depth and balance before completing the said image. It takes me several hours just to complete one full composition. Create something from a basic line and a bunch of triangle's or to start a new, contains all four aforementioned items. Is this Art I ask? Sounds like art to me.

However I would declare organizing a method of putting restrictions and regulations on "Spamming fractal's" thus.

>For instance, take a real good look at a series of images and lets say someone posts, a different color fractal with a different shade background repeatedly on their page. Since each piece is just a redundant statement, I would consider it spamming.
>Instead of removing their pieces they could place them in scraps, thus alleviating people's pages.
>Those that do massive posting, regulate them to only do so up to five times. (Bearing the person explains each change as something different to place more on said page.)
> For claity, not saying that 5 only in a day but 5 similar pictures using the program and on their main page in a single day. (Like I know some people could only post on the weekends but like 5 on their main submission page per day of creation i.e "I created this one December 10th, I created this on November 30th etc.)
> Each case being individually looked upon and discussed with the artist before any action is taken and explained. (This is a given, this is normally done as is by staff.)

I do believe that some order such as the one I stated should be followed on or agreed upon because all art on the site has rules, right? Rather then to disallow this art, I rather regulate it as I said.

This is art. And to ban it would be unfair to abstract artists such as myself who work creatively with this great art tool. Art has always been a way to express freedom to vent through any medium poetically and ever since I started, I have enjoyed to spending time on each fractal and to go with the flow. To stifle this, I think would be a greatest inconvenience and infringe on the rights of every abstract artist on the site. Making the statement "this is not art" which would means their is no such thing as art.

So please as long as the "Spamming Rule of thumb for Fractal's" is set in place, and those rules are followed, I think everyone on the site would be pleased and will continue musing as they have done so since the sites creation.

As an artist, I will continue to do so and just hope that the right decision is made on this crucial matter. Thank you for listening and if you disagree with my statement, feel free to rebuttal it in anyway. (As you could tell I feel very strongly on this matter because this effects my art and I will make my opinion known. I am willing to argue this because it is an art form that is great to use. Even to hybrid like I have done to incorporate two things. )
Thank you.


As always,
Azu Gabu
~Lonely Gabu~"


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 15, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> Absolutely correct.  That is why I think that the FA admins who propose banning fractal art have never created a single fractal image - if they had, they would have rendered uninteresting poo rather than something fascinating and would know more about the subject than they do now.


Uhm, hi? I've used fractal creators before. A lot. I love the Mandelbrot set, and I'm a fan of a bunch of other fractals. Are they art? Yes. Don't think we're ignorant about the subject merely because we disagree on the standpoint being presented.

But fractals created with applications like Apophysis will probably not be permitted regardless of the outcome of this vote. It's a generator. The rule regarding generators will not be changed in this instance. The argument is not whether or not fractals are art, but whether they are generated more by the artist or more by the software. If you want to create a fractal by hand, on your own, that's fine. It's allowed. You want to use generators and seeds to create them, whether or not you can influence their creation, that's not allowed.

We never said fractals were banned. We said that fractals created using generators/seeds are not permitted.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> So, Dragoneer. If I could somehow make a thread and have people explain why or why not we should allow fractals, and it became popular enough and had enough info and user inputs on it, you might consider it?.






Dragoneer said:


> Yes, but you'd also have to be prepared for people to also shoot down your idea and state exactly why they felt fractals would be a bad idea. Each side should be able to voice their opinion.





Ouch. Great way to go back on your word and not actually open your mind to possibilities. :/


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Ouch. Great way to go back on your word and not actually open your mind to possibilities. :/


I never went back on my word. I simply said you have to be prepared to have people from all sides give their 2 cents, and in the second comment, simply stated that.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

True, and I have. That has nothing to do with what you had just said two posts before, though. I have happily accepted both sides of the story, and have accepted both views. You, however, said you would consider revising the rules, however, just two posts ago, said that it would not change no matter what.

I'm not the one not opening my mind to both sides, 'Neer. :/

Edit: Nevermind, I see you edited your post to rewrite what you wrote so it didn't seem as bad. I'm going to assume that it was a simple typo.

In any case, if nothing is going to be changed about that, how about we make everything fair? Ban music and photography completely, 'Neer. It does virtually the same exact thing. Furaffinity should be fair, if anything, and if one thing computer generated that people enjoy is going to be nuked, then all things computer generated should be. This especially includes music.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Edit: Nevermind, I see you edited your post to rewrite what you wrote so it didn't seem as bad. I'm going to assume that it was a simple typo.


I corrected a single word -- just one.



kewlhotrod said:


> In any case, if nothing is going to be changed about that, how about we make everything fair? Ban music and photography completely, 'Neer. It does virtually the same exact thing. Furaffinity should be fair, if anything, and if one thing computer generated that people enjoy is going to be nuked, then all things computer generated should be. This especially includes music.


Sorry, but you're just being dramatic.


----------



## blinddragon667 (Dec 15, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> But fractals created with applications like Apophysis will *probably* not be permitted regardless of the outcome of this vote





kewlhotrod said:


> True, and I have. That has nothing to do with what you had just said two posts before, though. I have happily accepted both sides of the story, and have accepted both views. You, however, said you would consider revising the rules, however, just two posts ago, said that it would not change *no matter what*.
> 
> I'm not the one not opening my mind to both sides, 'Neer. :/




he said probably.  not definately.

but in defense of fractal artists, the way they create their art is with these programs, just as a painter uses paint and canvas, a sculptor uses marble and a pick.  Can a painter paint without paints?  No, in much the same way a fractal artist can't create their art without their programs


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Actually, it looked like you arranged a few words, but I could very well be mistaken. It has happened.

And no, I'm not being dramatic. I'm being 100% truthful. If you're going to sit here and say that it's computer generated and won't be allowed, then what's keeping music? It makes no sense, Dragoneer, and few if any people see any sense in it at all.

Also, grats on 6,000 post, lol.

Also, riginally, Fao, he said never or some variation of that word. Like I said, he probably just jumped the gun and rushed through it. Happens to everyone, and it's an honest mistake.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 15, 2008)

blinddragon667 said:


> No, in much the same way a fractal artist can't create their art without their programs


True, but it comes down to skill. In a Fractal generator, you manipulate sliders and variables to customize the uniqueness of the fractal. There's some various interaction with it, but it's fairly basic. 







Most of the interaction in Apohysis is toggles, sliders and variables. There's little skill used to create a fractal (though, I admit there's a difference in just creating a frac and creating a GOOD one).

A painter uses skill, knowledge of anatomy, composition, texture, lightning, physics and more. It's not just "plop" and there it goes. There's much underlying manual skill, creative thinking, planning and more involved. It's not even close as a comparison.​


----------



## thoron (Dec 15, 2008)

If the parameters that the program gives initially are wiped clean, reset to zero and started from scratch, it wouldn't in my opinion at least count as generated image.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> I simply said you have to be prepared to have people from all sides give their 2 cents


*nods*. That's cool, but where probably still missing a trick or two in community management is by constantly using "we" to mean the entire admin staff (by consensus opinion) whereas I'd probably have no difficulty finding less than half a dozen constructive mainsite posts between half of them (or more) in the past month or two on the fora.
You're certainly making that look a bit more like "the community vs. Dragoneer" when it certainly should not be the case, rather than opening the debate to "people from all sides _including the administration_" if that's what you truly wish.

Easier just to say "no generators", lock threads and end drama, otherwise, rather than give the _impression_ of "false hope". 
(Preferably some time back, but hey...).

Cheers,
d.


----------



## blinddragon667 (Dec 15, 2008)

thoron said:


> If the parameters that the program gives initially are wiped clean, reset to zero and started from scratch, it wouldn't in my opinion at least count as generated image.


sadly there really isn't a way to prove that you did such a thing, unless you posted a screenshot with every fractal you uploaded, and that would just be annoying after a while


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

True, that is in comparison to a fractal artist and painter, but what of a fractal artist and music? If I must, I'll download Fruity Loops, create a small beat recording video on how it's simply click, click, clickclickclick and your done, and then show you how I model a fractal whilst recording a video.

And even so, even if fractal making WAS easier, who cares? Photography is MUCH easier than art, and it's accepted. Storywriting is MUCH easier than art and it is also accepted.

Difficulty shouldn't honestly play a part, but since it does, fractal making still rates pretty high on the scale if you do it right.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> And no, I'm not being dramatic. I'm being 100% truthful.


Well, just a tad dramatic in words and presentation, perhaps, as it appears from over here.
Kinda inevitable when your chosen form of expression is on the block, I know, but best to try keeping as level as possible.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 15, 2008)

thoron said:


> If the parameters that the program gives initially are wiped clean, reset to zero and started from scratch, it wouldn't in my opinion at least count as generated image.


True, but it can create random batches as well... so where does the line get drawn? We've seen in the past where fractal artists will upload hundreds of fractals. At what point do we call flooding? At what point is it a waste of resources, bandwidth verse it being art? Verse it being hundreds of unique "arts" all created with in a day?

I'm not against fractals, but traditionally fractal artists have abused site resources more than any other. And the reason is because the way they are generated. Yes, I understand that is on a person to person basis, but it's been consistent. So do we tell the guy who uploads 400 fractals that his art is not unique? That he's flooding? And what's his argument then, that Nek0gami can post up 100 different pictures but he can't?

There's a lot of issues than merely "is it art".

And sorry if I'm rambling. I have a fever of 102 and it's not getting better.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm sorry to hear about your fever, Dragoneer. Wish I could have picked a better time for this, now. :/

However, I digress. If someone is uploading hundreds of fractals a day, you already have an anti-spam rule. Keep that in effect. I, for one, have yet to see ANY fractal artist upload more than 3 a day on average. The max I have seen uploaded over the course of an ENTIRE day is 15. That's not that much.

If a new user or something comes along and uploads TONS of bad fractal arts, someone'll get onto him, tell him he's wrong, and tell him to limit his uploads. That's not difficult. The few true fractal artists we have here on FA (4 or 5) should not have to suffer because of what 'may' happen.

I mean, honestly. The same type of scenario stands for someone whom is a horrible artist but uploads a lot.


----------



## thoron (Dec 15, 2008)

You can usually tell by how structured they are. Check my gallery for example, almost all of them are very structured. None of them could simply be generated.

Link to me FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/thoron/


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

I will admit one thing.

making the fractals with apophysis was fun.
but using another users fractals in my own work was ever better.

there was a flare i put into Osiris's work that most people could not do.

if i remeber i was the first person who started working with his fractals.

then came pyrewerepyre.

I can see maybe perhaps making the fractals allowed only to the scraps section would be plausible but as much as i like fractals Neer and the other nay sayers have a point.
FA is a art gallery site yes but it is a site deisnged for the displaying for furry art or neko or plain general art.
however in comparison to DeviantArt which is a all forms and styles gallery which i believe fractals would be in much better place then here on FA.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

True, there are other places where we could place said artwork, but a lot of people only regular FA. Since FA has completely deviated from "artwork only" a LONG time ago, I can't see why this can't be kept, as it has in the past.

However, I respect your opinion and hope you continue to share them.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> True, that is in comparison to a fractal artist and painter, but what of a fractal artist and music? If I must, I'll download Fruity Loops, create a small beat recording video on how it's simply click, click, clickclickclick and your done, and then show you how I model a fractal whilst recording a video.
> 
> And even so, even if fractal making WAS easier, who cares? Photography is MUCH easier than art, and it's accepted. Storywriting is MUCH easier than art and it is also accepted.
> 
> Difficulty shouldn't honestly play a part, but since it does, fractal making still rates pretty high on the scale if you do it right.



And writing can be quite difficult if you do it right, and photography can be quite difficult if you do it right, but you were right in the statement that it's not about the difficulty, but it is about what is doing the majority of the work involved.

In most any art form there are those who put a lot of time and effort into their craft and those who take the shortcuts, this doesn't always mean that the person taking the shortcuts creates something horrible, but it often leads to a more mediocre end result.

As I've said to some of the people arguing this previously, this is not about whether or not fractals are considered art, they are a form of art, that I wouldn't deny.  However, when a sculptor sculpts something, or an artist draws something, or a writer writes a story, or a musician composes something, they are doing the majority of the work for the creation.  They may use software to help the overall process of making it, but without them putting the greater amount of work into it, they wouldn't have an end result.

When it comes to generators, the work is done more by the software than the artist.  It's clear that some people may put more thought into the creation of it, but in the end, the software is creating the end result.

So what can be done?  This thread is a start, but there needs to be some more.  Is there significant post-processing done on the images?  I've seen word that GIMP has been used for some additional modifications.  Adding original content to something that is software generated and set it apart from simply just using the software on its own.

Next to simply trying to set a hard limit on images posted, what rules would you put in place to make sure that someone simply wouldn't just create shoddy generated images and post them with little regard to the time and effort that others take?  And is there someone willing to be that judge?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Very good points, Damaratus. It's nice to see you pop in here. 

To simply state it, using Apophysis to make a good fractal is no harder than dragging and dropping music files into FL and creating beats. It's probably the same difficulty. As I have said, I could make something basic in FL (not profession, because I don't use it all the time) with no time at all. Apophysis does not actually do most of the work. Sure, what you input is what actually makes the image, but if you don't know exactly what to input and spend a lot of time on one, then you're not going to get anything good. Just like how it works on FL or any other audio editing/creating software. (That wil probably be my base comparison from now on).

And to the final part, about policing fractals... I have come up with a wonderful idea that I can't believe I haven't thought of earlier. Since most people use Apophysis to create fractals, whenever they submit a new fractal they have to post the parameters (A string of code that is the actual fractal itself, allowing it to be duplicated when pasted into an Apophysis program), and there will be a minimum of a certain number of transforms and overall activity done to the fractal. I, myself, would gladly be willing to overlook such a thing.


----------



## MidomiAensland (Dec 15, 2008)

I think fractals are very interesting and beautiful in some ways. I can't make a good debate or anything with this but I don't think fractals should be taken away.


----------



## Aden (Dec 15, 2008)

Way to stifle every fractal artist out there because some people never get past tweaking apophysis settings. Also, see my post in the other thread.


----------



## kingrondo (Dec 15, 2008)

the fact of the matter is that fractal making is not just... putting in numbers and leaving it
there is a LOT of skill required to make them look remotely decent
you have to actually come into the thing wanting a certain look to your fractals if you want anything good
trust me, i should know
i've got 900+ examples


----------



## Embers (Dec 15, 2008)

I dont have any relevant debate... But what I do know, is that the fractal artists do take time to do what they do. It may be generated, yes, but it requires work, and skill, and practice to be truly good at it, like anything else.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Thank you for your input, Embers. It does contain meaning.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> And to the final part, about policing fractals... I have come up with a wonderful idea that I can't believe I haven't thought of earlier. Since most people use Apophysis to create fractals, whenever they submit a new fractal they have to post the parameters (A string of code that is the actual fractal itself, allowing it to be duplicated when pasted into an Apophysis program), and there will be a minimum of a certain number of transforms and overall activity done to the fractal. I, myself, would gladly be willing to overlook such a thing.



Now that is something that is workable, and can be considered as long as things are properly laid out.


----------



## Seth C Triggs (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm fine with fractals too.

-Seth


----------



## dineegla (Dec 15, 2008)

Fractal Artwork, is, in my opinion, is found in the very essence of Nature. If one sees a snowflake, a crystal, ice on a window, even Natural "patterns" themselves, there is underlying cause of fractal geometry. There is beauty in abstract, spontaneous form. Form that can also be highly repetitious. And this makes fractals an incredible form of abstract art. Fractals, by their very nature, are random entities, often without control. Some of our finest abstract art of the 20th century and Islamic art of earlier centuries can even be said to be derived from fractal geometry and pattern. Fractals are essentially repeated, random patterns, often highly evolved.

I have explored fractals way back in 1994, on the Amiga Computer. It was tedious work, and often totally uncontrolled. The fact that fractal programs now have some controllable elements should relegate it to an art form. 

There was a comment on an earlier post made about "controlling" the outcome, and post processing. If Jackson Pollack, a famous 20th century artist, had complete control over his art, we would not have had such an influence in the artist community back then, an influence that continues to play a part in modern art in the present. If we forget that spontaneous inspiration does play a large part in the creation of ANY art, then we have missed the whole idea entirely of "what makes 'art'?" 

As far as post-processing goes: any use of the "Photoshop-types" of programs can enhance (or wreak havoc on) a fractal in post-processing. I also have had much success in this. But again, the creation can be entirely changed and unexpected with just the change of a slider or a numerical adjustment. Chance can play a huge part in post-processing, too.

My vote is to let fractals come into their own as a viable art source on FA. It is regarded as one on Deviant Art, why not here?

Sincerely,

Dineegla
aka Kristiaan Michells, Phd. 
(in Fine Arts, emphasis on Graphic Arts)


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Well, we'll definitely have to find a way to set that up, then. It's pretty silly that it has to be done regardless, but, hey, at least it allows the chance of fractals, the artwork that nobody really has any problem against, to stay.


----------



## kingrondo (Dec 15, 2008)

i agree with the fractal code thing
i can handle posting that when i render and put them up


----------



## THdragon (Dec 15, 2008)

FA is an art society is it not? I don't see why fractals should be banned. There just as much art as anything else on FA. (Purley an opinion.)


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Thank you, TH. Your opinion counts.


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 15, 2008)

We had this sort of discussion a couple of months ago and the answer was *NO*.

If a program did all the work for you, it's *NOT BY YOU*.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

If you bothered to read any, you'd know that it doesn't do all the work for you.

I respect personal opinions, but it's pretty bad when you just come in here disrespectful and not even attempting to see the other side.

Oh well, there's one of you everywhere, I guess.


----------



## Science Fox (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Difficulty shouldn't honestly play a part, but since it does, fractal making still rates pretty high on the scale if you do it right.


 
Difficulty should not make a difference? How can anyone the world over call themselves an artist at all, if difficulty does not matter? Without difficulty...emotional _and _technical... art is not art...it is the souless by product of idleness.

I believe that many things should be disposed of in FA. This I will leave to others to decide.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 15, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> If you bothered to read any, you'd know that it doesn't do all the work for you.
> 
> I respect personal opinions, but it's pretty bad when you just come in here disrespectful and not even attempting to see the other side.
> 
> Oh well, there's one of you everywhere, I guess.



actually now that mrchris spoke.

I remember being right in the front of a huge battle of generator vx renderer.

the results concluded and i state that all generator materials,
Terragen,apophysis and such was not real art.

to me this is a false that must be fixed.

I agree to the params code idea.

maybe a better idea would be enforcing a limit of how many fractals per week not per day should be enforced.

mainly like 1 fractal a day with the params posted would be nice.


----------



## kingrondo (Dec 15, 2008)

that fractal limit would screw me over big time!
i render because i've got nothing better to do!(though i do spend time and effort on them)
if you did that, i'd have a MASSIVE back up of stuff! 
the main reason for me posting them is for people to see them and enjoy them!


----------



## Synge (Dec 15, 2008)

Actually I have tried to create some using one and I really couldn't get it to work right. The program is harder than it looks. Never came out how I wanted so it does take some knowledge with the program to use it. Also the artists touch of creativity and perception. Like one does with photoshop. I don't have it yet but I would love to get it and learn how to use it. If you want abstracts taken away why not anything computer generated? To me they should both be left alone. Sorry if I am offensive or anything I just don't see what the problem is with abstracts.Also if anyone wants to let me know what the other side of the story please gladly let me know.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

I could go with the limit. Kingrondo, that will just help you create better looking fractals, giving you time to tweak them more. Don't take it as a bad thing.


----------



## uncia (Dec 15, 2008)

mrchris said:


> If a program did all the work for you, it's *NOT BY YOU*.


Hmm... though I'm loathe to say it, an argument on that simplistic level could easily be used against digital cameras. It is the software that creates the image, not the person who presses the button.
Beyond that, one might have to get into the debate as to whether there are more "scenes" available to pick from in the real world vs. the fractal world and the relative "ease of exploration" in both. (Good luck on the pure mathematics! _*jk*_)

Seriously though, would probably have to take any discussion up at least one level from that.

d.


----------



## kingrondo (Dec 15, 2008)

the reason i'm able to create so many is because i DON't like tweaking
if i tweak, i'll become obscessed and probably trash the whole thing in frustration...
trust me, that boat has sailed, returned to port, and sailed again...and again... and again...


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Use an anchor.


----------



## Science Fox (Dec 15, 2008)

dineegla said:


> Fractal Artwork, is, in my opinion, is found in the very essence of Nature. If one sees a snowflake, a crystal, ice on a window, even Natural "patterns" themselves, there is underlying cause of fractal geometry. There is beauty in abstract, spontaneous form. Form that can also be highly repetitious. And this makes fractals an incredible form of abstract art. Fractals, by their very nature, are random entities, often without control. Some of our finest abstract art of the 20th century and Islamic art of earlier centuries can even be said to be derived from fractal geometry and pattern. Fractals are essentially repeated, random patterns, often highly evolved.


 

I agree with you, such random patterns in nature are truly glorious... they make the world a wonderful place.

Have you ever had the opportunity to look at a snowflake under a microscope? It is truly awe inspiring. The intricacies... the subtle details... random, yet uniform in every conceivable way. Absolutely beautiful. A creation only Nature could have wrought. 

For millenia mankind has endeavored to create what he sees in nature. We have seen works of art beyond anything imaginable yet, it is nothing compared to nature. Men have sought to draw those snowflakes. They have spent countless hours... days... sketching out as best they can with the tools that nature itself had given them. However, regardless of their toil, it has and always will fall short of the chaotic perfection of the natural world. 

Now, through our intellect, we have created computers capable of generating the minute details of that snowflake. It is a perfect replica of the random patterns found in nature. Through these programs are accomplished creations of such perfect complexity that no man, however talented he may be, could ever come close to rendering them by hand.

Now, I do not mean to say that anything should or should not be allowed, however, I do mean to say this:

When a person seeks to create that which they see in nature... knowing full well that regardless of all their skill, time and dedication, that the creation will never come even remotely close to the perfection of nature... yet their wonder and hope drives them to create it still... That to me is art. The day we reach perfection is the day art dies. 

To me, Man's acceptance of his imperfection and inability to perfectly emulate his world, in a way, brings about his very own form of perfection.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Very deep, Science. Wish I had enough energy right now to reply to that, but all I have to say is good job.


----------



## ferinoch (Dec 15, 2008)

There should probably be some limits to keep spammers out, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be allowed. We allow enough other not strictly furry stuff on here.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Why thank you, ferinoch. I appreciate your opinion, and it is helpful.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 15, 2008)

I voted yes since it should be easy to tell if someone spent time on a fractal and not just do a 10-30 minute project.

From what I've seen from this kind of art, it looks pretty complicated to make. So there should be a limitation to it, but don't ban it. I doubt a whole bunch of noobs will come on FA and spam fractals unless it's those who are really good at it and are just messing around. I doubt anyone will do that, or else the banning will be their fault.

I think banning it should be the last option, not the first.


----------



## Silvernova (Dec 15, 2008)

I gave a longer list of reasons on your journal itself, but I'll keep it briefer here.

Simply put: fractals are art by a different method.  And it is shameful for an art community site to try and limit the types of art that are represented here.  And surely, the hundreds of watchers you have (with over a thousand favorites) should be automatically entered into the poll as "yes" considering they obviously enjoy your work.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Lol, good point. Thank you for that input.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 15, 2008)

kingrondo said:


> the reason i'm able to create so many is because i DON't like tweaking
> if i tweak, i'll become obscessed and probably trash the whole thing in frustration...
> trust me, that boat has sailed, returned to port, and sailed again...and again... and again...



Look at what you've said here, and understand that it's the spamming of the site with generated images that has created this problem in the first place.  You should not be trying to simply let the software do its thing and post, and then do it all over again.  Less quantity, more quality, work to improve your craft if you honestly feel that it should be respected.

There appears to be some very knowledgeable people here in terms of utilizing fractal software, perhaps talking to them about how they do more than just use the software would elucidate ways to progress beyond the issues that you have.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 15, 2008)

Silvernova said:


> I gave a longer list of reasons on your journal itself, but I'll keep it briefer here.
> 
> Simply put: fractals are art by a different method.  And it is shameful for an art community site to try and limit the types of art that are represented here.  And surely, the hundreds of watchers you have (with over a thousand favorites) should be automatically entered into the poll as "yes" considering they obviously enjoy your work.



The argument was not really whether fractals were art, it was whether it was a generated image and therefore fell under the "generator image" clause of the AUP.  There's nothing shameful about wanting to make sure that the main gallery does not get cluttered by people who do not have respect for those who take more time and care in their work.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 15, 2008)

Agreed, but Damaratus. With something along the lines of like a 1,000 something user database that does normal artwork compared to the 5 or 6 that only do fractals, you rarely see them. You don't see them get spammed. You see poo artwork spammed more than that. 

Anyways, my previous offer still stands, and I hope you will think about it. Stripping us of this right, as stated by MANY already (and it's only been one day), is wrong.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 16, 2008)

uncia said:


> Hmm... though I'm loathe to say it, an argument on that simplistic level could easily be used against digital cameras. It is the software that creates the image, not the person who presses the button.
> Beyond that, one might have to get into the debate as to whether there are more "scenes" available to pick from in the real world vs. the fractal world and the relative "ease of exploration" in both. (Good luck on the pure mathematics! _*jk*_)
> 
> Seriously though, would probably have to take any discussion up at least one level from that.
> ...




a very relative point there.

however it is still the skill of the photographer who takes the snapshot.

as opposed to the skill of the tweaker for apophysis

theres a huge difference there.

however what Neer said remains true.
we are still setting sliders and such and which to me is ok but the basic concept remains your using a program to create a stunning piece of art.

this is going to be the epicenter of the fractal stuff.

I still hold firm to my limits idea.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Agreed, but Damaratus. With something along the lines of like a 1,000 something user database that does normal artwork compared to the 5 or 6 that only do fractals, you rarely see them. You don't see them get spammed. You see poo artwork spammed more than that.
> 
> Anyways, my previous offer still stands, and I hope you will think about it. Stripping us of this right, as stated by MANY already (and it's only been one day), is wrong.



lol

i'll vouch to that.

on the poo artwork

emphasized massively

XD


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Lol, it's true and unavoidable.

However, with the photography and fractal skill thing? They're nearly identical, right down to the "T".

Taking a photo is not hard at all. It's all about chance and luck, mixed with mild user input such as location.

Fractals is all about chance and luck, mixed with massive amount of user input, such as shape, size, texture, colorization, etc. etc.

There's a difference, but not a bad difference when looking from a fractal artists' standpoint.


----------



## saberwolfhunter (Dec 16, 2008)

Alright you want to take a fractal art because its generated?  Thats ridiculous.  My art isnt mine so you might as well just take away mine too.  I am a photographer, I take pictures of the world that I see, that nature created, human/mother alike.  But I show what I see and thats my art.  http://www.furaffinity.net/gallery/saberwolfhunter My mate, he is a fractal artist and he doesnt just random something through a generator.  He spends hours on ONE piece of submission.  He carefully selects things and then he even uses multiple fractals and combines them and touches all of it up in photoshop!  To say that he cant post here on FA anymore is absurd.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Excellent point there, saber. Thank you for your valued input.


----------



## D_Claw (Dec 16, 2008)

IÂ¨m not a fractal artist but I do like fractal artwork... so please donÂ´t take down


----------



## yuri-bloodfang (Dec 16, 2008)

When I first ran across fractals, I sat and stared at my screen.  The image was astounding!  Granted, I know nothing of the program used nor time needed, etc... to create a single one but you can't simply say that this is just someone tossing in numbers in the equations and that's it.  You're tossing the baby out with the bath water if you want to completely ban fractals.  Sure, some may be abusing the rules.  But I'm seeing more and more SL pics in my inbox and no one seems to care about those.  And from my understanding, unless you're a seriously advanced user of SL you pay someone to create the avatar for you or choose from a static selection of pre-made avatars.  I'm a fan of cgi but when one constantly posts screenshots of what their character is doing on SL it gets rather boring to see EVERYTHING.

Then there's the issue of being furry-related.  FA offers more than just anthro art/fiction.  There's music... photography (unless all the pics on this site are of fursuiters)... poetry... writing....  I've found FA more open and friendly than any other, especially the only main alternative, Deviant Art.

I read the exerts from the rules posted throughout this thread and while it seems the techies in the group admit the program does most of it, the artists still have to go in and play with it.  I enjoy seeing the fractals, fave a few, and download a number of them.  And my daughter loves looking at them instead of the regular art on FA.  BTW, she's only 4.

My vote is allow them.  Regulate them if necessary but don't ban them.


----------



## saberwolfhunter (Dec 16, 2008)

One last thing! http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1802035/


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

I think everyone's points are very interesting, and although I of course side with the fractal artists on this, it's for more reason then simply because Kewl and I are friends. This is an art site is it not? Populated by those in the furry fandom. That is the basis which sets FA apart from say DevArt, because we all are joined by a common like for furries. 

Now, many of those on this site enjoy things such as vore, and the more extreme fetishes. Many of us do not. 
Many enjoy listening to the works of the musicians, and many may come here specifically for the drawings or digital art.
Many like to read the stories of the many talented writers, and some may even only be here to hang with friends.
This site is by its very essence a place where we as furs can display our arts for those of like mind to see and enjoy. This is an art site, if you start limiting the types of art you allow you're only limiting your audience. You are excluding people from participating simply because of their chosen medium.
When you start saying what forms of art you'll allow you are doing the worst possible thing that an art site can do, limiting expression.
I toyed around with Apo a bit and have a few fractals in my gallery, but they are pretty basic and crappy, and even them I spent a good 20 minutes on. But that doesn't even matter because they were each an expression I was proud of. I wouldn't have posted them to FA if I didn't like them. One even inspired a poem, and I could write a poem about each and every one of the awesome fractals the real fractal artists around here make.
But this argument about generation misses the entire point. You simply CANNOT make a fractal without a program, it's IMPOSSIBLE to draw all the nuances that go into making them. Saying you can't use them would be EXACTLY the same as taking a painters brush and paints, a writer's hands, a photographer's eyes or any host of illustrations. The point remains the same.
There are certain forms of art that you simply CANNOT make without certain tools, a sculpter and his hammer, a potter and his wheel, you take those away and they cannot create. It shouldn't matter how much of the process is human controlled and how much is done by a tool. Cause that is all the programs are, tools, they don't create beautiful works of art, those that use them do. In my opinion, in order to call something truely computer generated a computer, with no user input at all, has to create it. I'm sure a computer could do that, but it would not be in the same league as what a human can create. 
Lots of artists use programs to help them create their art, they make the process easier, and therefore give the artist more control over their product. If you want to ban fractals because the artists have to use a program to make them, then you first must show that they can do so without it. 
There are limitations to what humans can make by themselves, that's why throughout history we've developed tools to extend the reach of our capabilities to match the reach of our imaginations. That's what this entire site is, a tool we've made to help us share our works with others. To say that someone can't express their particular form of art by taking away their tools is madness.
In my opinion, the day that fractals are banned, on the basis of how they are made, is the day that FA dies. Because that will be the day that it ceases to be about self expression within the furry community. When people start dictating what forms of art are acceptable, they miss the entire point of why this site exists. Self expression.

Now lets go back a moment to the tools discussion in a broader scope. I'm a writer, I use my imagination to create my stories, then I use a word editing program to put my ideas into a medium that others can interpret and appreciate. If you take away my word program I can still write my stories, but it will take longer as I now have to write them by hand and then scan them and upload them as pictures, impracticle of course. Now what if you took away my pencil? I'd have a pen, what if you took away every writing implement? What would I then do? My stories are still in my head, but I can no longer put them into a medium that others can access. I have just been censored. My ideas have been supressed from general consumption because I have been denied the tools to make that possible.

Now take a fractal artist, his process is the same as mine. He gets an idea in his head of what he'd like to try, then he gets his tools, in this case his fractal editor, and uses it to turn his ideas into a medium that others can appreciate. Should he be penalized simply because his tool is different then mine? Of course not. 

Now, about spamming, this can happen with any art form. Lets say I take up the tool of a fractal artist, and I try and use it to make something, I can do it, but it isn't very good. Likewise, someone with no experience writing stories can take up my tool, Word, and write a story, but it won't be as good because he doesn't have the skill to use the tools effectively. The same way I cannot take up the tools of an artist and create beautiful pictures, I dont' have the skills. I CAN however take up the tools of ANY other art form and churn out worthless crap. The thing that makes it spamming is when the intention is to flood an area with said crap. If I took up some markers and created some drawings that didn't look very good but I was proud of and posted them, maybe alot of them, am I spamming? No, because that is not my intention. However since this may be a problem, things are set in place to encourage me to only submit what I am most proud of. This has many benefits, both to me, as it encourages me to work harder, and for the audience, as they now have more beautiful pieces to look at.

Art galleries for example, do not take just any piece of art, they take what they consider to be fine art that lives up to their standards. Most of us will never get a piece of our art into a gallery for this reason. That is why sites like this exist in the first place, so that average folks can share the art they are proud of with others. Now, the argument can now be made that there are other sites these people could go to, and this would be valid, if it weren't for the main difference between this site and say DevArt. This is a site geared towards the furry fandom, people naturally want to share their art with people who like similar things. Not everyone on here likes fractals just as not everyone on here likes vore. That doesn't mean that their art form is any less valuable. Yet by telling them that their art form isn't wanted because of the tools used in its construction you are telling them that it isn't as good as someone elses. Can any of us say which art is better than another based on the medium? No, this is because every decision we make is biased by our own opinion, including mine. If you dont' like fractals you don't like them, but doesn't make them any less valuable.

If we're going to do anything here, I would highly encourage that a system be set up to either limit the amount of fractals postable per day or week, or do it in some other way, like number of transforms or whatnot. I'm no expert on how the system works so that is better left to those with technical experience in using the program. I do not think though that any form of art should be expressly forbidden. Once you do that you are limiting freedom of expression, but worse still, you are alienating members of the very fandom this site was created for. 

We get enough ill treatment, I'm sure you'll agree, from those outside the fandom, lets not start doing it inside the fandom as well.


----------



## saberwolfhunter (Dec 16, 2008)

Thank you, you just validated my previous post.  Much more eloquently than I though.


----------



## SkippOtter (Dec 16, 2008)

My opinion: fractals are art and should be allowed.
The way I see it, the way you create art is irrelevant.  Even if it is reproducible.   Anyone can open Photoshop and scribble with the pen tool.  Likewise, anyone can open Apophysis and create a random bunch of chaotic swirls.  It takes an artist to open Photoshop and create a masterpiece, and it takes an artist to open Apophysis and render the sublime images that are often posted.  

As for being reproducible, anything in Photoshop is just as reproducible as Apophysis, if one has a keen eye for detail and a good knowledge of the program.

Conclusion:  Fractals are art because they were designed by an artist.  A photograph is art because an artist aw something that they believed others should see.  Paintings are art because an artist made marks to portray an image.

I shut up nao.


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 16, 2008)

If Fractals are allowed, i'm going to start uploading my Dwarf Fortress screenshots.
They use a fractal generation to create a WORLD, in ASCII.  Each is unique, and then worked on by you as you build fortresses using little ant-like dwarves.

It's far, far more art and far, far more involved.  It's multiple layers of fractals on top of user-created content.  And ASCII art is hard.


----------



## LoveCube (Dec 16, 2008)

I don't consider fractals art myself because, in my humble opinion, knowing maths very well does not equal emotion. One can argue over the quality and meaning of a piece of artwork, but - perhaps it's my lack of understanding - I don't see how knowing how to manipulate variables and let a program generate the resulting visuals for you is art. To me it equals, in crude terms, the binary code being translated into pixels on your screen. You know the variables that create the resulting number that pop up in your calculator, but that doesn't mean it's art.

Someone earlier in this thread stated that they had successfully managed to create *A* fractal image without knowing what they were doing, at all. It -is- as simple as pressing a few buttons to get *something* in that aspect, and I for one cannot see the difference between thoughtful fractal art and quickly generated fractal art. Aka, I've no sense for quality with it Not to mention, from what I understood there are even bases to work off of that require little to no tweaking to look 'professional'.

I'm not saying Fractal art isn't pretty. The colors and patterns can look pretty nice, but I'm not sure if FA is the right place for something that is based so heavily on maths, and not emotions. I mean, when I'm angry or upset, every stroke with my pencil is a direct flow of my feelings onto paper taking shape. I can't imagine adjusting variables - however complicated it is - gives the same satisfaction and conveys the same message. Music is not furry, but it requires a sense of rhythm and creativity to sound good. It takes creativity and emotional talent to play a guitar. A stick figure may not be the best piece of artwork in the world, but it has such a huge emotional meaning to it when your little boy or girl draws your little family with a house, the pet dog and a large sunny garden.

Creating fractal art is a talent, I suppose, because at some point you know what you need to do in order to get what you want. I just don't think I can call something art when it's based on numbers, and not feelings. Logic doesn't work well with emotions, at least it never has in my life. If fractal art wasn't so easy to generate as opposed to 'crappy doodles' that I believe take much more time and effort to come into existence, it wouldn't be a problem. Problem is that people generate them like multiplying bunnies, upload them in masses and then try to pass it off as something special.

I believe fractal art is better off on a more generalized gallery site such as DA, or perhaps even a personal site. Not just because I don't think it's art, but because of how poorly it fits in the community. It's true that music isn't furry... but that would be creativity/emotion vs numbers, basically. And photography? I either see only picture IDs of the human behind the furry, fursuiters or furries' beloved pets. I really don't come across refined landscaping or cityscaping or whatever that's not furry related.

All of this is my opinion, and I'm not challenging people for a debate. The point of this thread was to gather opinions, so I'm giving it. My opinion is that fractal art can never convey the emotion pen on paper does, or jamming away on a guitar can, or capturing that one moment of close friendship between two furries in fursuits hugging each other. That is why I feel it doesn't belong on FA as opposed to music and photography.


----------



## Kata'lina (Dec 16, 2008)

Ok here's my view on it. Over the ages new mediums were created and used. Starting of course with cavemen...and then it just progressed from there.

This is simply a new canvas and brush. That's all there is to it.

now...another note. If those Damn "myspace" photos...as well as a ton of fursuit parading around at con piccies can be uploaded? Then fractals should stay!

And Why is this even a debate? Is it because this is a Furry Site? What ever happened to art done by furs? Doesn't that count for anything?

Art is in the eye of the beholder, I know. And I hope that fractal art and abstract art will stay.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 16, 2008)

Devious Bane said:


> I voted yes since it should be easy to tell if someone spent time on a fractal and not just do a 10-30 minute project


True, but we have no way of taking action against people who just put up bad fractals. We're not here to judge art quality, so if we allow fractals, it doesn't matter what quality they are.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Wonderful points to all of you. Even the naysayer.

However, Lovecube... Even if the program does use "mathematical equations to convert binary into pixels", it can still be used to express yourself just as well as anything else. More-so if the case is that you can't express yourself in a better way.

And honestly, Dragoneer. Very few people have seen a fractal up on the front page due to the HUGE ratio between them and normal artists let alone a huge spammage of fractals... Why are you so worried about them being spammed? They haven't been as of yet. At least not to a great extent.

Also, is your fever gone yet? ;.;


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

Then, Dragoneer, how about a number count? If someone posts a hundred of the things in one day, it is obvious they would be crap. While this may be more labor intensive, I think that people would be willing to help should that happen. The artist who abuses the system will be reported and dealt with. I do not think that the majority of fractal artists on FA are spammers(except me, and only because of this recent issue--sorry, Damaratus! ). I hope this issue gets resolved, as I enjoy FA, and while I will insult you for your decision, I am forced to apologize immidiately, because this site has so far done very well in my opinion.
The fact remains, I want to keep my fractal art, and have the option of posting more. SO do several others. Please, please consider our argument, as we are willing to compromise, if given the chance to keep our art.


----------



## Brome (Dec 16, 2008)

I must say, I find fractals to be very good indeed. As a matter of fact, I have one of the fractals from this site set as my desktop background. Work is put into them. It's a matter of math, however which is where it differs from say, drawing. But nonetheless, surreal fractal images are things of beauty and in my opinion should be allowed to remain on FA.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Just to clarify;

Fractals show more emotion than many other things. It just takes an open mind to see it.

Also, a random fractal looks something along these lines, I haven't touched anything since opening it, and this is at 100 quality:







Now, please compare that to something that actually took time to create, such as this old fractal I made in Apophysis a while ago. I'll even go so far as to post a screenie of the actual program with it, and not just the image. Do note that this is at 100 Quality and not the normal 8000 I normally finally render at, which in itself takes hours upon hours to do:






I am going to post this in both threads.


----------



## Black_Forestsong (Dec 16, 2008)

from what I've seen, this is more an issue of whether or not fractals ARE an artform or not.

In my opinion, it IS an artform, and a rather suitable medium for some.
from my understanding of how fractals work is that they use algorithms to set up an image, then the artist can, like in photoshop, edit the image to fit their needs.

as far as fractals spamming: I've seen more porn than fractals on the front page of the site.  Fractals show more emotion than most hand-drawn images at times (again, my opinion).


So to keep fractals on FA, I say yes.


----------



## Adrimor (Dec 16, 2008)

LoveCube said:


> I don't consider fractals art myself because, in my humble opinion, knowing maths very well does not equal emotion. One can argue over the quality and meaning of a piece of artwork, but - perhaps it's my lack of understanding - I don't see how knowing how to manipulate variables and let a program generate the resulting visuals for you is art. To me it equals, in crude terms, the binary code being translated into pixels on your screen. You know the variables that create the resulting number that pop up in your calculator, but that doesn't mean it's art.


Correct: You do not know; thus, do not criticize. I don't tell you



> Someone earlier in this thread stated that they had successfully managed to create *A* fractal image without knowing what they were doing, at all.[/qoute]
> I've managed to create music and write poetry without knowing what I was doing at all, should that be banned?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:


> You understand nothing, then, and have already disqualified yourself. Save face and get out of here.



This person offered their own opinion, do *not* go telling them to leave just because of this, and do not make this kind of statement again, it's not for you to decide and is considerably rude to an overall thread that has been kept very civil.


To get back on track, and once again reiterate what has been stated before:

-This thread is not bringing into question whether fractals are considered art.  It's been pretty much decided that they are an artform.

-What is in question is whether it should/does fall under generator content.

That being said, the rest is still about what is doing the brunt of the work.  In parallel to previous posts, taking away a potter's wheel or a painter's brush will certainly prevent them from their craft, just as taking the software away will stop the fractal artist.  However, a painter cannot pick out his paints and select his brush and have those things simply create the image that they want.  A potter cannot put their clay on a wheel, hit a button and have a piece of pottery at the end of it.  A fractal artist; on the other hand, can take their software pick out their settings and have an end result, generated by the software, thus taking away a level of the creative process out of the mix.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 16, 2008)

The main problem about fractals is _not_ wether it's art or not, the problem is obviously that it takes little effort to _recreate_ the same picture 1:1 again. Which is the same problem as with Spore, WoW, etc.
I'd like to post some screenshots of my maps and models I created for Unreal Tournament, but although quite a lot meshes I used are built from scratch I prefer to hold them back since I don't want to break any general rules (I simply don't know about the status of UnrealEd since it can use both pregenerated parts and be used to build new parts from polygons).


----------



## Adrimor (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> This person offered their own opinion, do *not* go telling them to leave just because of this, and do not make this kind of statement again, it's not for you to decide and is considerably rude to an overall thread that has been kept very civil.


You are correct, and I apologize to both you and her for that.



WarMocK said:


> The main problem about fractals is _not_ wether it's art or not, the problem is obviously that *it takes little effort to recreate the same picture 1:1 again*. Which is the same problem as with Spore, WoW, etc.


Um, no. Unless you run the script with the exact parameters in it again, you have pretty much no chance of getting the same image back from scratch. Spore and WoW aren't meant to produce imagery (as opposed to graphics), and they certainly are _not_ art in the least--they are games, first and foremost.



> I'd like to post some screenshots of my maps and models I created for Unreal Tournament, but although quite a lot meshes I used are built from scratch I prefer to hold them back since I don't want to break any general rules (I simply don't know about the status of UnrealEd since it can use both pregenerated parts and be used to build new parts from polygons).


Those serve a primary purpose well outside of being artistic; as such, they are not art.

Oscar Wilde once said "All art is quite useless," meaning precisely that--it has no other function than pleasing the eye or the mind. Various art appreciation texts say essentially the same thing--an artisan makes a functional object pleasant to look at, whereas an artist makes a useless one eye-grabbing.

In summary, art is made for its own sake. Whatever is not, is not art. You're comparing a chair to a statue here, man =/

Hopefully I wasn't inflammatory this time...it happens without me even realizing it lately >_<


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 16, 2008)

Apparently you never used the Unreal framework for anything else than just a DM map, as I have never used a tool to create fractals. ;-)
You can also use the framework for artistic modeling, like others use Maya/Â§DS max for their 3D art. All it takes is some imagination - and the will to abuse the framework as bad as possible }:->


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> However, a painter cannot pick out his paints and select his brush and have those things simply create the image that they want. A potter cannot put their clay on a wheel, hit a button and have a piece of pottery at the end of it. A fractal artist; on the other hand, can take their software pick out their settings and have an end result, generated by the software, thus taking away a level of the creative process out of the mix.


 
Pardon me but you seem to be missing the point here. As has been said many many times, a fractal ARTIST, does not just hit a button and have an end result that they feel good about posting. It doesn't seem to me that you are listening to any of the things anyone has said. 

It seems to me that you have already made up your mind and are only doing this to give people false hope. Unless you are willing to make concession, as the fractalists have already agreed to do. Banning something should be the LAST resort, not the first. For goodness sakes, set a limit and be done with it. "Generated Art" is inherently a false statement, because art is not generated, art is created. I can generate random crap, but I have to put in effort to CREATE art.

This is an ART site, it shouldn't matter HOW a piece of art is created. I could take a bunch of photos off google images and use photoshop to cut and paste parts together into something interesting and it would be allowed. None of that was my work, it was all done with a program. I think it's time to get off your crusade and think back to what this site stands for in the first place.

Art by furries, for furries.


----------



## Black_Forestsong (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> To get back on track, and once again reiterate what has been stated before:
> 
> -This thread is not bringing into question whether fractals are considered art.  It's been pretty much decided that they are an artform.
> 
> -What *is* in question is whether it should/does fall under generator content.



That puts it into a better spectrum.

Then this means that fractal art is in no way on the grounds of being 'banned' from FA, if that is what Damaratus is getting at.  He (and Dragoneer, perhaps?) are trying to find a category in which fractal art can be placed.  That is what it is sounding like to me.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Black_Forestsong said:


> Then this means that fractal art is in no way on the grounds of being 'banned' from FA, if that is what Damaratus is getting at.  He (and Dragoneer, perhaps?) are trying to find a category in which fractal art can be placed.  That is what it is sounding like to me.



You misunderstand. Being ruled a generator *would* ban them from FA


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

Black_Forestsong said:


> That puts it into a better spectrum.
> 
> Then this means that fractal art is in no way on the grounds of being 'banned' from FA, if that is what Damaratus is getting at.  He (and Dragoneer, perhaps?) are trying to find a category in which fractal art can be placed.  That is what it is sounding like to me.



If it is considered generated material(specifically, with the possibility of being pre-generated, non-original work), it will be illegal to post it. Hence, I argue that while yes, it uses a generator to produce art (like photography, music, and many, many more), it is first and formost, an original form of art that cannot be counted among what could be called the dregs of the fandom(sorry, but LOLcats are NOT art, they are entertainment). At worst, a fractal, like a Second Life picture, can be an abused form of art. And, since fractals are infinitely harder to produce than Second Life screenshots(it takes my compy about ten minutes to render a random fractal, as I found, making anyone spamming the place with random fractals a worthless moron to begin with), I think we can come to an agreement as to how to HANDLE their artness without killing them off entirely.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Samuel said:


> If it is considered generated material(specifically, with the possibility of being pre-generated, non-original work), it will be illegal to post it. Hence, I argue that while yes, it uses a generator to produce art (like photography, music, and many, many more), it is first and formost, an original form of art that cannot be counted among what could be called the dregs of the fandom(sorry, but LOLcats are NOT art, they are entertainment). At worst, a fractal, like a Second Life picture, can be an abused form of art. And, since fractals are infinitely harder to produce than Second Life screenshots(it takes my compy about ten minutes to render a random fractal, as I found, making anyone spamming the place with random fractals a worthless moron to begin with), I think we can come to an agreement as to how to HANDLE their artness without killing them off entirely.



And exactly how, do you differentiate a randomly generated fractal from one that wasnt?


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

Emil said:


> And exactly how, do you differentiate a randomly generated fractal from one that wasnt?


 
When you render a fractal you get an image file. But before that the program saves all the information for creating the image in a flame file. I'm pretty sure this includes information on how many transforms it has, in what ways it has been altered and so on. 

By setting up a system in which a fractal artist would have to submit both files, the image being posted and teh flame being run through a parser or something to scan various bits of information, it would be able to find out how complex the image is. 

Randomly generated fractals are very simple, they contain few transforms and it doesn't take long to render them. Fractals in which the artist put a good amount of work into will have been transformed many times, zoomed in and out on and manipulated. This would be preferable to banning them entirely and is well within capability to set up.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

I believe this was discussed over and over again. Number one, there is such a thing as fractal quality. How do you differentiate a good Cubist painting from a bad one? Same way. A good fractal will have a recognizable pattern or form that pleases the eye, will in some way descibe an emotion, idea, or concept, etc. There are countless possible answers to that question--since it IS a question of beauty. Hence making the idea quite useless. So, here is what I think...
While I will not make any accusations or say anything against my fellow artists, there is a simpler way to determine the quality of fractals that uses pure mathematics. If you post 24 or more a day, you should be banned, because, far as I see it, you are not even putting an hour into their creation, out of the 24 you have. Hence, the quality would suffer. Further, unless you are a genius, you could not produce more than 16 anyway, for every hour a normal human being is awake. Now, account for the time it normally takes ME to create a fractal (about two hours), and you have 8 fractals. Simply put, for quality's sake, do not post any more than ten a day--this will both limit the number of fractals one can post to how much they produce a day(realistically, we know some artists post stuff they did before, but no single artist, unless they wish to spam FA, post more than ten at a time anyway) as well as create some quality control from the artist themselves, as they must choose which ten will be featured each day. It is a win-win situation for both the fractal artists and the Administration as it insures that useless spamming does not occur, and if it does, it is punishable beyond the arbitrary and unfair "generator" policy currently in place, and creates an atmosphere where fractal artists are free to continue working.


----------



## Adrimor (Dec 16, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> Apparently you never used the Unreal framework for anything else than just a DM map, as I have never used a tool to create fractals. ;-)


I never used it at all. However, by your own admission, you used it _for maps._



> You can also use the framework for artistic modeling, like others use Maya/Â§DS max for their 3D art. All it takes is some imagination - and the will to abuse the framework as bad as possible }:->


Okay. Did I say the tool was at fault?



Emil said:


> And exactly how, do you differentiate a randomly generated fractal from one that wasnt?


Smoothness, for one thing. If you just generate, render, and post, it'll just be a scattering of pixels. Also, Apophysis uses very few default color palettes for the basic randomly-generated fractals, if memory serves, so anything using those default colors (which, might I add, look hideous together more often than not) would also pretty likely be a "fire-and-forget".

This explains it in two images, by the way...


----------



## SnowQueen_TigerClaw (Dec 16, 2008)

I understand that the question here is not the art itself, but the fact that a generator is used to create it. Hence, the art is not entirely original. 
So, what about Fruity Loops? Isn't that a music generator? How many musicians use that? And, continuing with music. How many musicians just recreate a piece by another artist, like FoxAmoore just did with a song by Cold Play. That wasn't original. But it was expected by all as his own. I'm not knocking Fox. I think he's an AMAZING artist. I'm just using him as an example. 
How many of us have used references for our art? Does that make it not our own? What's the difference?
My son makes fractals with Apophysis. I've watched him. There is nothing easy or just point and click about it. I couldn't do. He has a passion for his art. A passion that he doesn't have for anything else. This possible ban is not only a blow to his art, but a blow to his ego.
If fractals are banned because of generators, then a lot of other art needs to be banned as well.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> When you render a fractal you get an image file. But before that the program saves all the information for creating the image in a flame file. I'm pretty sure this includes information on how many transforms it has, in what ways it has been altered and so on.
> 
> By setting up a system in which a fractal artist would have to submit both files, the image being posted and teh flame being run through a parser or something to scan various bits of information, it would be able to find out how complex the image is.
> 
> Randomly generated fractals are very simple, they contain few transforms and it doesn't take long to render them. Fractals in which the artist put a good amount of work into will have been transformed many times, zoomed in and out on and manipulated. This would be preferable to banning them entirely and is well within capability to set up.




All that for something you said "may" exist. First, you have to *prove* that there is a way to differentiate. Can these files actually do the things you are saying?

I really dont care either way what happens in this matter, but your reasoning here just doesnt compute to me without actual proof.



> Smoothness, for one thing. If you just generate, render, and post, it'll just be a scattering of pixels. Also, Apophysis uses very few default color palettes for the basic randomly-generated fractals, if memory serves, so anything using those default colors (which, might I add, look hideous together more often than not) would also pretty likely be a "fire-and-forget".



My excuse for that if I was the one posted would simply be that I suck at making fractals and need more practice. Or that such "is my style" Its not really proof at all.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

Hey Emil, I can't say for certain because i don't know the program all that well. So since I'm not an authoritative expert, I qualified my inferences based on that. It's called not wanting to seem an expert when you're not.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 16, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:


> I never used it at all. However, by your own admission, you used it _for maps._



It's used for maps, models, machinimas, you name it. And btw, those things are considered art by quite a lot people ,too. But that's not the point of this thread, so back on topic.

The question is: could you (re)produce fractals if someone took your "fractal creator tools" away? Could you find a substitute for it?

The painting artist could replace Photoshop or GIMP with a pencil.
The modeling artist could replace Maya and 3DS Max with clay.
The musician could replace the synthesizer with his guitar.

The fractal artist could replace his renderer with _______________________________


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

Emil said:


> My excuse for that if I was the one posted would simply be that I suck at making fractals and need more practice. Or that such "is my style" Its not really proof at all.



If you suck at making fractals, and you wish to improve, you would not just start spamming the site. So, look at my suggestion for limiting the number of submissions to a certain number a day. That will force some quality control on the artist, so if it IS their style(that would suck immensely), they are not being treated unfairly. Simply put, if you need an assurance we fractal artists will not take you away from your fox cock for too long, the ten-a-day policy seems a better fit than trying to say that Apophysis is a generator. As we stated, if it is a generator, so are a lot of other things that CAN be abused, but are not, because if someone posted a lot of low-quality junk using them, they'd get mobbed.


----------



## Adrimor (Dec 16, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> It's used for maps, models, machinimas, you name it. And btw, those things are considered art by quite a lot people ,too. But that's not the point of this thread, so back on topic.


The definition of art is at the very core of this topic, sir. If it is spammed, it is throwaway and _not art._ However, as countless people have pointed out, fractals are a very ineffective thing to spam. I highly doubt anybody honestly considers machinima art, but then, I never saw the appeal of SecondLife, either, so perhaps I'm just utterly offbase there.



> The question is: could you (re)produce fractals if someone took your "fractal creator tools" away? Could you find a substitute for it?


That question is utterly irrelevant, actually.

Could you post your art anywhere if somebody took away your hands?



> The painting artist could replace Photoshop or GIMP with a pencil.
> The modeling artist could replace Maya and 3DS Max with clay.
> The musician could replace the synthesizer with his guitar.
> 
> The fractal artist could replace his renderer with _______________________________


Logical fallacy. Just because you can paint doesn't automatically mean you can draw, and vice-versa. That goes double for digital artists trying to work in real-life media. I can vector an image down to its soul using just a mouse, Illustrator, and several hours alone, but that doesn't mean my drawing abilities are nearly as noteworthy.

I'd like to see you recreate all your UT maps and models in clay. Do that and provide photographic proof. I guarantee it won't be nearly the same process, and one set of results will be clearly superior.



Emil said:


> All that for something you said "may" exist. First, you have to *prove* that there is a way to differentiate. Can these files actually do the things you are saying?


Apophysis lets you save the instructions it uses to generate the fractal in a separate script file from the image itself. Yes, they can.



> I really dont care either way what happens in this matter, but your reasoning here just doesnt compute to me without actual proof.


If you really don't care, why are you still here?



> My excuse for that if I was the one posted would simply be that I suck at making fractals and need more practice. Or that such "is my style" Its not really proof at all.


You've been on FA for over a year and have yet to post anything. If your profile is to be believed, it is because you feel you are not particularly great at art, yes? If somebody else believed he/she sucked at making fractals, why wouldn't he/she have the same modesty?

And even if it were tried, anyone who used that excuse could be immediately called on it. You see, fractals aren't something you can get better at by asking people, any more than any other form of abstract art. Making a good fractal is like composing a symphony for instruments nobody's ever played before--you have to train your own sense of aesthetics, because nobody can know exactly what you're trying to accomplish but you.

Also, since it's entirely digital, there's no reason for anybody to cite poor image quality as his/her "style". I highly doubt anybody likes grainy, pixelated images of salmon-and-mint blobs.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Samuel said:


> If you suck at making fractals, and you wish to improve, you would not just start spamming the site. So, look at my suggestion for limiting the number of submissions to a certain number a day. That will force some quality control on the artist, so if it IS their style(that would suck immensely), they are not being treated unfairly. Simply put, if you need an assurance we fractal artists will not take you away from your fox cock for too long, the ten-a-day policy seems a better fit than trying to say that Apophysis is a generator. As we stated, if it is a generator, so are a lot of other things that CAN be abused, but are not, because if someone posted a lot of low-quality junk using them, they'd get mobbed.



-FA has no quality control, why should there be a standard specific to fractal artists? Thats just plain unfair. Its also impossible to enforce.

-This isnt about spamming the site, its about generators. One can use a generator without participating in spamming. And one can make bad fractals that have every appearance of being "random" without actually *being* "random", and as yet, no one has come up with any idea to differentiate between the two.

-Mobbed? By who? The general consensus around here seems to be everything is art. And users who mob other users are violating site rules, and should be treated as such.



> If you really don't care, why are you still here?



Youll notice, Ive never stated my opinion on whether or not I think they *are* generators. Ive only asked you to provide proof that they are not. That is, in fact, your  (those who dont think so) burden in this argument.



> You've been on FA for over a year and have yet to post anything. If your profile is to be believed, it is because you feel you are not particularly great at art, yes? If somebody else believed he/she sucked at making fractals, why wouldn't he/she have the same modesty?



No, because modesty is not a quality all people have. And in my case, it is more or less a crippling self esteem issue.



> And even if it were tried, anyone who used that excuse could be immediately called on it. You see, fractals aren't something you can get better at by asking people, any more than any other form of abstract art. Making a good fractal is like composing a symphony for instruments nobody's ever played before--you have to train your own sense of aesthetics, because nobody can know exactly what you're trying to accomplish but you.



But, I admitted to making bad fractals. Just cause you dont like it isnt a reason to eliminate it, especially since you cant prove it is a generator.

And we allow plenty of other "bad" art on FA. Not allowing bad fractals would be a double standard.



> Also, since it's entirely digital, there's no reason for anybody to cite poor image quality as his/her "style". I highly doubt anybody likes grainy, pixelated images of salmon-and-mint blobs.



And why would poor image quality be an excuse for a non digital artist? It isnt the medium, its how you express yourself with it. How many "horrible", ms paint drawings are favorited on FA a day? Alot.



> Apophysis lets you save the instructions it uses to generate the fractal in a separate script file from the image itself. Yes, they can.



Does that mean it records every button press you make while creating something? If not, and if what your talking about is like what was in those screenshots earlier, that isnt really any proof of generation. Just that the user doesnt do that many actions.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

-FA has no quality control, why should there be a standard specific to fractal artists? Thats just plain unfair. Its also impossible to enforce.
The standard is the number of images posted. If someone is showing up on teh frontpage because all their resources go towards posting blobs of color, they ough to be banned. I think it should be clear that if someone posted nothing but stickmen for a straight hour, even if they are NOT generated, he'd get banned. WHy, you may ask--because this artist is being rude to others, and if he does not stop, he will get banned.

-This isnt about spamming the site, its about generators. One can use a generator without participating in spamming. And one can make bad fractals that have every appearance of being "random" without actually *being* "random", and as yet, no one has come up with any idea to differentiate between the two.
This is about spamming, as we have clearly presented our argument as to WHY it is not SIMPLY a generator, any more than a camera or music software is SIMPLY a generator.

-Mobbed? By who? The general consensus around here seems to be everything is art. And users who mob other users are violating site rules, and should be treated as such.
Ok. Post up something offensive, rude, stolen, or just plain illegal on the site. Within an hour or so, you will get enough messages telling you how wrong you are to print them and use them to light your fireplace for a year.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Samuel said:


> The standard is the number of images posted. If someone is showing up on teh frontpage because all their resources go towards posting blobs of color, they ough to be banned. I think it should be clear that if someone posted nothing but stickmen for a straight hour, even if they are NOT generated, he'd get banned. WHy, you may ask--because this artist is being rude to others, and if he does not stop, he will get banned.



Since when has quantity = quality? :confussed:

And again, this thread is about fractals as generators, not spam.



> This is about spamming, as we have clearly presented our argument as to WHY it is not SIMPLY a generator, any more than a camera or music software is SIMPLY a generator.



Generator =/= spam

They are two different things, two different rules



> Ok. Post up something offensive, rude, stolen, or just plain illegal on the site. Within an hour or so, you will get enough messages telling you how wrong you are to print them and use them to light your fireplace for a year.



Irrelevant. Stolen images and pics of real illegal activities are to be removed from the site, because they violate the rules. And harassing comments on something you dont like are still harrasing comments, and should be treated as such. Just because an image is rude or offensive, does not mean it violates any site rules.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

Since when has quantity = quality? :confussed:

Are you deliberately ignoring what I say, or are you just...incapable of understanding me? I know it can be hard, you know. I used to be bad at ENglish, too, what with being a poor immigrant from Europe. But, enough drama for today. What I mean to say is--if someone posts a hundrd fractals, it would be like posting a hundred stickmen, usually. Overwhleming, and generally meaningless. Also rude to other people that wanna post stuff.

Generator =/= spam

They are two different things, two different rules

You suggested that I debate one thing right there. I simply refuse to debate one thing, if people insist on attacking my art from several different sides. My art is not a generator, because of the above statements. Thus, the ONLY problem that can realistically exist is that fractals can be spam.

Irrelevant. Stolen images and pics of real illegal activities are to be removed from the site, because they violate the rules. And harassing comments on something you dont like are still harrasing comments, and should be treated as such. Just because it is rude or offensive, does not mean it violates any site rules. 
Nevertheless, this happens nearly every time someone decides to troll FA. He or she gets told off by the general community for being rude and offensive. Then, they are usually banned by the Admins.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 16, 2008)

*facepalms*
Since I feel like I'm talking to a wall right now I'm gonna quit this conversation as it obviously is pointless to discuss this on the level it should be discussed.

@AdrinNoMa:
- machinimas are officially considered art, deal with it.
-if they take your hands away, draw with your feet.
-a real artist doesn't care what medium he uses, even if it means that he may not get the results he usually gets when using another medium.

See you!

Oh and btw: I like fractals VERY much (I have dozens of them as wallpapers), but if their creation voilates the rules - there still is DA.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Samuel said:


> Are you deliberately ignoring what I say, or are you just...incapable of understanding me? I know it can be hard, you know. I used to be bad at ENglish, too, what with being a poor immigrant from Europe. But, enough drama for today. What I mean to say is--if someone posts a hundrd fractals, it would be like posting a hundred stickmen, usually. Overwhleming, and generally meaningless. Also rude to other people that wanna post stuff.



Im only commenting on the fact that youre arguing about something that has no connection to this topic at all. The thread is not about spam. So stop talking about spam.



> You suggested that I debate one thing right there. I simply refuse to debate one thing, if people insist on attacking my art from several different sides. My art is not a generator, because of the above statements. Thus, the ONLY problem that can realistically exist is that fractals can be spam.



But your above statements havent proved anything. Just because you say it doesnt make it so. Then only thing Im asking you to do is provide proof. In fact, Im not even so much doing that, as I am asking you to provide proof that what is fake and real can be differentiated. Im not fundamentally against you posting fractals. But, it becomes an issue that since the tools to create them are so easily abused, that you should have a way to tell what is real from what is fake. Especially since, as some people have hinted, the program itself may be able to provide the answer. But you understand, I cant just take someones word for it. You have to actually prove it, and explain it.



> Nevertheless, this happens nearly every time someone decides to troll FA. He or she gets told off by the general community for being rude and offensive. Then, they are usually banned by the Admins.



Its still irrelevant, and you have to prove that their intent is infact to troll. Posting bad art is hardly the same or as obvious as spamming the front page with guro and shouting "YIFF IN HELL FURFAGS!!!"


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

This whole discussion is actually irrelevant, banning something should NEVER be the first course of action for ANYTHING.

If the admins are really SOOOOO worried about fractal spam and that is their reason for doing this, as they have already agreed that it is art this is the only logical reason they would be doing this. Then the first thing they SHOULD do is impose a limit to the amount of fractals a single user can post in a day. It isn't about quality vs. quantity, it's about using less extreme methods to control what they feel could become a problem.

However lets talk about fractal rendering, I have one fractal in my gallery that I'm proud of, it isn't very complex, just an explosion of color. But even that took 10 HOURS to render. That isn't an exageration. Therefore, how could you spam fractals? It can take days to render one fractal if you really put alot of work into it. Kewlhotrod once told me he was rendering a fractal which would take over 100 hours to render. I think this makes fractal spamming, WHICH I HAVE YET TO SEE HAPPEN, a moot point.

There is no good reason to ban fractals, plain and simple.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> If the admins are really SOOOOO worried about fractal spam and that is their reason for doing this, as they have already agreed that it is art this is the only logical reason they would be doing this. Then the first thing they SHOULD do is impose a limit to the amount of fractals a single user can post in a day. It isn't about quality vs. quantity, it's about using less extreme methods to control what they feel could become a problem.


 
But they arnt worried about spam, theyre worried about its status as a generator.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

Ok, Emil-this is, by the way, the last you will hear from me for a while. I am normally pretty quiet, and do NOT want to cause any more drama than I have to, in order to continue my work. And that is ALL this has been about for me. NOT defending my art, NOT attacking anyone(especially the Admins), NOT keeping anyone from having an enjoyable experience on FA.
I will try to keep this short.
Like some may have said, there is no single direct way to determine the quality of any artwork. Stickmen are still drawings, and ARE allowed on FA. Posting them by thousands, however, is rude, and is abuse of FA resources. Fractal programs are not "generators" because they clearly do not contain a single theme or idea at their center accept using numbers to create art. If you check, you will see that fractal shapes are as varied as natural shapes, if not more so, for being created by an artist. Like Second Life, fractals toe the line, but are still art programs, rather than "generators" of any single theme or thing. True, all things made by a fractal program are fractals. But, all things made using a camera are photos. Similarly, you cannot paint using a pencil.
If someone requires proof that another artist did the work necessary...Well, you don't very well ask Blotch what was used for reference, how many hours it took, what paint was used--you just look at the wonderfully made high-quality picture. You simply know that a person works on their art if they respect their craft, and do not abuse site resources for attention. If fractal programs are proven not to be generators in the sense of being one-themed, non-original work that does not produce any ORIGINAL art, I see no reason they should not be considered in the same way as any other post on FA.
With that, I hope that my friends and colleagues continue to argue why fractals are not "generators" any more than cameras are. I will observe from the sidelines for the rest of the day, to keep the floor open for other people.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

No, this is the argument they are using. Think about it, why would you be worried about using generators unless you were worried it could lead to a flood? 

There really is no reason to care about generators unless you are worried about spamming.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Samuel said:


> If someone requires proof that another artist did the work necessary...Well, you don't very well ask Blotch what was used for reference, how many hours it took, what paint was used--you just look at the wonderfully made high-quality picture. You simply know that a person works on their art if they respect their craft, and do not abuse site resources for attention.



You ask them if you believe the source of their content to be unoriginal. Look at Starfinder. Her pictures were fairly stunning. Banned for tracing though.

Youre still relating most of your argument to spamming and not generators. Except for that bit in the middle, which was quite good.



> Think about it, why would you be worried about using generators unless you were worried it could lead to a flood?
> 
> There really is no reason to care about generators unless you are worried about spamming.



Because generators are not user created content, and violate site rules. Generators are not so much a rule themselves as they are a part of By You in the AUP


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

Yeah but the generators aren't the ones creating the image. The one using the program is. The generator simply makes it possible for the limited scope of human capability to be able to produce something which is far beyond our limited resources to create.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Yeah but the generators aren't the ones creating the image. The one using the program is. The generator simply makes it possible for the limited scope of human capability to be able to produce something which is far beyond our limited resources to create.



They are only selecting parts someone else made. He only has limited choice and freedom. They are not creating content so much as choosing from the possible combinations someone else provided to them.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

Fractals dont' have limited possiblities. Do you understand that there are literally an infinite amount of possible fractal creations? It is much mroe then selecting parts. Plus, of course someone else made the program, someone else made photoshop, does that make it a generator? Course not.


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Fractals dont' have limited possiblities.



I never said they did, and I never said fractals were generators =3

And to your point about photoshop, the program itself is irrelevant. It is the limits of what you can *create* with the program that makes it a generator.

In a generator there are a set number of combination you can make. Depending on the complexity of the generator, this number can be large. However, non generators such as photoshop, ms paint, and others have *no* limitations on what you can create. The only one who limits what you can make, is yourself.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 16, 2008)

And it is the same exact way with fractals. There are no set number of combinations as long as people keep writing new scripts, and you can even make them from scratch, without a pregenerated batch. Therefore, fractals should continue to be allowed.

By the way, your avatar pic makes me smile. What is that from?


----------



## Emil (Dec 16, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> By the way, your avatar pic makes me smile. What is that from?



A horrendously bad movie called Space Mutiny. My user title is from a joke from when the movie was featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000


----------



## Skittle (Dec 16, 2008)

There should be no problem allowing fractals. You have bigger issues to deal with than going around and dealing with them. If you get whiney about someone spamming them, unwatch them. Really, you have people running around here treating this place like it is myspace and you are worried about a form of real art? Come on. Fractals are ART. Let them stay. Worry and put your energies into other things more important.


----------



## DireWolf505 (Dec 16, 2008)

I find fractal art interesting, and just as meaningful as anything else on FA.

I say, art is art.

Just my opinion.

Check Six,
     DireWolf505.


----------



## SkippOtter (Dec 16, 2008)

LoveCube said:


> I don't consider fractals art myself because, in my humble opinion, knowing maths very well does not equal emotion. One can argue over the quality and meaning of a piece of artwork, but - perhaps it's my lack of understanding - I don't see how knowing how to manipulate variables and let a program generate the resulting visuals for you is art. To me it equals, in crude terms, the binary code being translated into pixels on your screen. You know the variables that create the resulting number that pop up in your calculator, but that doesn't mean it's art.
> 
> Someone earlier in this thread stated that they had successfully managed to create *A* fractal image without knowing what they were doing, at all. It -is- as simple as pressing a few buttons to get *something* in that aspect, and I for one cannot see the difference between thoughtful fractal art and quickly generated fractal art. Aka, I've no sense for quality with it Not to mention, from what I understood there are even bases to work off of that require little to no tweaking to look 'professional'.
> 
> And photography? I either see only picture IDs of the human behind the furry, fursuiters or furries' beloved pets. I really don't come across refined landscaping or cityscaping or whatever that's not furry related.



Open up "An Introduction to Computer Graphics Mathematics".  At least I think thats the title.  It's unbelievable how much math is involved in PS art.  A whole heckuva lot more than in Apophysis.  Fractals are also so incredibly infinite and so changeable that you can certainly elicit emotion through the use of line and color.

I don't mean this as a personal slight, but if you can't tell the difference between a thoughtful, well-designed fractal and an 'accident', then you have not looked at enough fractals to be forming such opinions.

While it is true that most photos that are seen are not art, there are photography artists.  Incidentally, they are about as common as fractal artists.  SkippRudder (no affiliation with me) is one of them.  

And to ban fractals because you believe they are not art, what about the hundreds of thousands of submissions by artists that have no artistic concept at all.  Many artists could not tell you what gesture, perspective, contour, value, proportion, or any of a hundred other things that an artist knows and considers when making artwork.  Do you suggest also banning artwork that is simply made to post something and the supposed 'artist' has no thought or emotion in the piece?


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> The argument was not really whether fractals were art, it was whether it was a generated image and therefore fell under the "generator image" clause of the AUP.  There's nothing shameful about wanting to make sure that the main gallery does not get cluttered by people who do not have respect for those who take more time and care in their work.



The word "generators" has been thrown about wildly without definition. 

Please define the word "generator".  The AUP does not define it. 

FA needs a clear definition of "generator" which includes LOLcats and Spore critter Tinker-Toy constructors so that this material will remain unacceptable. However, uncia has thoughtfully pointed out that there is a real potential problem with cameras.

Be very careful with your definition so that you don't inadvertently define "generator" in a way that makes cameras "generators".  Almost everyone nowadays will agree that photography can be art, though that wasn't always the case. 

Consider, though, that there are only 6 or 7 user selected parameters when a photograph is taken of a pre-existing scene with a point-and-shoot camera: the camera latitude, longitude, altitude, azimuth, and elevation, and the time that the button was pressed.  The first three parameters specify the location of the camera, and the next two parameters specify which direction it is pointing.  A seventh parameter available on many cameras is zoom focal length.  Every Apophysis fractal has more than 6 or 7 user selected parameters.  Artistically skilled selection of these 6 or 7 parameters makes the difference between an image that is boring and one that is fascinating, whether your "generator" is a camera or Apophysis.  It clearly doesn't take a large number of user adjustable parameters for artistic skill to make a real difference.

But is a camera a "generator"? The lens of a camera performs a mathematical operation on the light waves passing through it called a two dimensional spacial Fourier transform.  This produces a two dimensional image on the CCD array which is a mathematical abstraction from the original three dimensional electromagnetic fields surrounding the real life three dimensional scene.  The camera's computer reads the numerical data from the CCD array, processes it with secret mathematical algorithms (sometimes very elaborately, such as using facial recognition) and creates an image data file such as a JPEG. The user merely points and shoots - which is setting only 6 or 7 parameters.  Why isn't the camera a mere "generator"?  

Why isn't photography forbidden by the AUP "generator" ban provision? Perhaps because it is far more popular than fractal art?

Unless carefully defined (which it currently isn't), the "generator" provision of the AUP is defective and should be reformed.  The way things are now, we have Humpty Dumpty of Alice In Wonderland claiming that words mean whatever they want them to mean, and that Apophysis may be a prohibited "generator" but that cameras are not.  Words do have meanings, and one of their purposes is to prevent arbitrary and capricious administrative decision-making.

What criteria separates a camera or Apophysis on one hand from a LOLcat or Spore critter constructor? I can perceive two obvious ones:
1) The variability and richness of the possible outputs from the digital device, and
2) The ability of the artist to control that output to create that greatly variable output richness.

Although the operator of a Spore critter constructor can certainly control the output, the variability of the output is no more rich and variable than what can be obtained by plugging Tinker-Toy parts together - which is very limited.

If the output is rich and varied but the operator has no meaningful control over the output of that digital device, the operator can not be called an artist even if the output is pretty.

With both digital cameras and Apophysis, the output is potentially very rich and varied and the operator of the digital device has very meaningful control over that output.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 16, 2008)

simple...
a generator is a program that 
A: generates a predefined image that is edited upon
B: uses a set of predefined variables to create said image
C: allows the editing of said image with variables and other predefined methods
D: all of the above

A generator is virtually a program that creates something from given variables like Terragen and apophysis however seeing as apophysis does allow the creation of scripts and such i could see where that would get out of hand while with terragen or other generator tools we have used beign the most common are heightmap generators,password generators,number generators etc.

the line is very thin on renderer and generator.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Pardon me but you seem to be missing the point here. As has been said many many times, a fractal ARTIST, does not just hit a button and have an end result that they feel good about posting. It doesn't seem to me that you are listening to any of the things anyone has said.



Your first post on this thread and it's completely defensive.  If you had actually read through what I had said previously you would have realized that I am listening, but saying that actual reasoning has to be put into it.  I am saying that the software does more of the work than the artist does, because the software is what generates the end result.  I have not nixed anything, I have argued points in both directions, and gotten feedback as to how it works.  So I would suggest you chill out and be civil on this thread rather than taking the defensive stance.







			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> The word "generators" has been thrown about wildly without definition.



There's that over-dramatic approach, it's not been "wildly" thrown about and it's been in the AUP for quite some time now and could have been questioned.



			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> Please define the word "generator".  The AUP does not define it.
> 
> FA needs a clear definition of "generator" which includes LOLcats and Spore critter Tinker-Toy constructors so that this material will remain unacceptable. However, uncia has thoughtfully pointed out that there is a real potential problem with cameras.
> 
> Be very careful with your definition so that you don't inadvertently define "generator" in a way that makes cameras "generators".  Almost everyone nowadays will agree that photography can be art, though that wasn't always the case.



I'm not going to re-quote the whole of what you have said.  I do recognize that photography has a similar connection but in no way is it the same as using a piece of software to generate an image.

The photographer still has to do the majority of the work, and if they are a proper photographer take all the variables, even beyond the scope of what the camera can do, into account before taking their shot.  The camera may be limited, but it is still the user of the camera that has to pick out the shot, and has to take that image.  That image is not something that is reproducible either, not down to the pixel anyway.  However, if I took the exact same settings that someone else used to create a fractal, I could perfectly create the same fractal.  Blank canvas to perfect recreation down to the pixel, but this is picking at small details and doesn't really defend the point I made previously.

Generated images are such that a piece of software (written by someone else) has done more of the work in the creation of the overall image than the artist.  Avatars made from character generators fall under this, the software has provided all the pre-made parts for the character, the user simply puts them together; Terragen does the same thing, the software takes the settings and renders a landscape; Apophysis appears to do this as well, the user may set all the numbers in question, but the software does the brunt of the work in the creation of the final image.

In the other cases there is more work put in by the artist, using a writter cannot simply set the parameters of their work and have the computer write the story they want.  A painter cannot start up Photoshop, pick the colors and levels and have a picture at the end of it.  A photographer cannot just set their camera settings and have the camera simply do the rest of the work for them, they still have to pick the subject, deal with lighting, environment, angle, etc.; a musician cannot just set their software to create a musical piece and come out with a wonderfully mixed masterpiece.  I can go on, but you get my point.

The arguments here have made it evident that some people do put a lot more thought into the creation of fractal artwork, my arguments may seem to be against allowing fractals, but I am in no way simply writing it off.  I am trying to make sure that the differences between fractal art and non-generated content are understood, as well present any flaws in my own arguments, I'm clearly not infalable, just under a particular impression and arguing the point until some end is reached.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 16, 2008)

Ok, Nanakisan? Your post has woken me up(not literally, though I need sleep) and I am one annoyed marten right now.
renderer is to generator as a human is to a chimpanzee.
Close, very close, but so much BETTER.
 generators--limited number of possible outcomes, or generally similar outcomes
Apophysis--infinite number of possible outcome, all of them varied
generators--predefined by original creator
Apophysis--defined by a random selection, or human mind.
generators--editing by a set of controls that determine the number of possible outcomes
Apophysis--infinite possible outcomes mean that the controls can only create certain effects, much like a photoshop effect. All else is much too dependent on humans.

There is not a fine line, fellow. The two may seem similar, but they are NOT the same.


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 16, 2008)

LoveCube:

Does this apply if the fractal is randomly generated?  THIS is the issue, because 99.9% of the fractals on FA are generated using a program that all you have to do is download it, and run it.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 16, 2008)

Samuel said:


> Ok, Nanakisan? Your post has woken me up(not literally, though I need sleep) and I am one annoyed marten right now.
> renderer is to generator as a human is to a chimpanzee.
> Close, very close, but so much BETTER.




you know no offense but your starting to make me mad osiris.




> generators--limited number of possible outcomes, or generally similar outcomes
> Apophysis--infinite number of possible outcome, all of them varied
> generators--predefined by original creator
> Apophysis--defined by a random selection, or human mind.
> ...


there is a fine line my good friend.

the basic idea is this.

is apophysis a renderer or a generator.
in my opinion it is both.

I love the program.
heck i'm rendering a image as we speak.

as to the facts.
you just said in a more detailed version of what i said.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> Your first post on this thread and it's completely defensive.  If you had actually read through what I had said previously you would have realized that I am listening, but saying that actual reasoning has to be put into it.  I am saying that the software does more of the work than the artist does, because the software is what generates the end result.  I have not nixed anything, I have argued points in both directions, and gotten feedback as to how it works.  So I would suggest you chill out and be civil on this thread rather than taking the defensive stance.



Actually, I have yet to see you reply to a lot of the major points as of yet. You have not shown acknowledgment of many of the great thoughts and ideas here, such as the fact that fractal DO NOT DO MOST OF THE WORK.

We fractal users do not use predefined variables, and if we do, it's painfully obvious. We use our own variables, our own scripts, and our own talent to create what we do. The program itself is just what allows said stuff to be created; it does not do it for you.





> I'm not going to re-quote the whole of what you have said.  I do recognize that photography has a similar connection but in no way is it the same as using a piece of software to generate an image.
> 
> The photographer still has to do the majority of the work, and if they are a proper photographer take all the variables, even beyond the scope of what the camera can do, into account before taking their shot.  The camera may be limited, but it is still the user of the camera that has to pick out the shot, and has to take that image.  That image is not something that is reproducible either, not down to the pixel anyway.  However, if I took the exact same settings that someone else used to create a fractal, I could perfectly create the same fractal.  Blank canvas to perfect recreation down to the pixel, but this is picking at small details and doesn't really defend the point I made previously.



Exactly. The fractal artist still has to do the majority of the work, and if they are a proper fractal artist, they take all of the variables, even beyond the scope of Apophysis. (Such as post-process rendering).

Apophysis is still the user that picks out his variables, colors, and anything else he wants and makes it. This image is not reproducible. Even if you were to copy an Apophysis' parameters, you still wouldn't get the same exact fractal. There are noticeable differences. Just like if you were to retake a photo in a lighting room with regulated lighting and nothing moving, using a screwed in tripod and pressing the button twice, you would create the same EXACT image.



> Generated images are such that a piece of software (written by someone else) has done more of the work in the creation of the overall image than the artist.  Avatars made from character generators fall under this, the software has provided all the pre-made parts for the character, the user simply puts them together; Terragen does the same thing, the software takes the settings and renders a landscape; Apophysis appears to do this as well, the user may set all the numbers in question, but the software does the brunt of the work in the creation of the final image.



Incorrect. Your input into the program is what causes it to be what it is. If you want to think of it that way, look at Fruity Loops. Sure, you can import a sound from Real Life into it, and say that the program doesn't do as much as you, but in actuality it does. The programming and code combined with the maths and algorithms to get that recording into said program and allowing it to be used in this program to later be exported for other, broader uses does a LOT more. Apophysis deals with the same concept.

Terragen does nothing near the same thing. Terragen can create a set amount of landscapes with a set amount of skins and whanot, placed with simple clicks. Apophysis is it's own everchanging landscape and skin, and is not aimed at making anything in particular. Terragen is aimed at making scenery's. Apophysis is aimed at making infinitude.



> In the other cases there is more work put in by the artist, using a writter cannot simply set the parameters of their work and have the computer write the story they want.  A painter cannot start up Photoshop, pick the colors and levels and have a picture at the end of it.  A photographer cannot just set their camera settings and have the camera simply do the rest of the work for them, they still have to pick the subject, deal with lighting, environment, angle, etc.; a musician cannot just set their software to create a musical piece and come out with a wonderfully mixed masterpiece.  I can go on, but you get my point.p
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Archibald, if I'm getting what you're saying, your facts are GREATLY misconstrued.

Around maybe 2% of the fractals on FA are randomly generated.

However, I do not feel this was the point you were meaning to make.


----------



## Kata'lina (Dec 16, 2008)

I do have a question, and please know while it may sound harsh, it's really one of curiosity.

Dragoneer, do you intend to make this decision based on your personal feelings on the subject?
Or are you going to base your decision on what the majority of the people here are saying that they want?


----------



## DuncanFox (Dec 16, 2008)

Replying to multiple people, here...



kewlhotrod said:


> I also believe that fractals should be allowed because multiple FA users enjoy this artwork.



Sorry, that's not a valid argument.  I'm sure there are many FA users who'd like to share pictures of their cocks; that's not allowed either.  Ok, so there's legal issues there - many FA users would also like to share pictures of their pets' cocks.  Nothing illegal about that - still not allowed.  Many FA users would enjoy if "it's not illegal" were the only deciding factor, turning this into nothing more than another ImageShack.  Yet, we continue to have other rules.



Black_Forestsong said:


> as far as fractals spamming: I've seen more porn than fractals on the front page of the site.  Fractals show more emotion than most hand-drawn images at times (again, my opinion).



Emotion does not enter into the discussion.  If you create porn with a generator, it would not be allowed under these rules.  If you create artwork using a generator that brings everyone who sees it to tears, it would still not be allowed.  You can hand-draw all the emotionless artwork you like, and upload it as long as you created it.



WarMocK said:


> The main problem about fractals is _not_ wether it's art or not, the problem is obviously that it takes little effort to _recreate_ the same picture 1:1 again.



That's probably the most succinct description I've heard as to what constitutes a generator.



AdriNoMa said:


> Um, no. Unless you run the script with the exact parameters in it again, you have pretty much no chance of getting the same image back from scratch.



Yes, that's quite the point.  If you run the script with the exact parameters in it again, you get the same image back.

But if an artist gives their friend the same paints, inks, pens, pencils, papers and brushes, plus the same description and vision of what the end result should look like, their friend will not and _cannot_ create a perfect reproduction.  Even if they hand over a copy of the drawing itself, you can't get a perfect reproduction without tracing or photocopying -- and that's not allowed on FA either.



Samuel said:


> If it is considered generated material(specifically, with the possibility of being pre-generated, non-original work), it will be illegal to post it.



FA has rules, not laws.  It's an important distinction.  It would not be illegal to post generated material, but it would be against the rules.



Samuel said:


> This is about spamming, as we have clearly presented our argument as to WHY it is not SIMPLY a generator, any more than a camera or music software is SIMPLY a generator.



Yes, you have argued that it is not SIMPLY a generator, but it is still a generator.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

DuncanFox said:


> Sorry, that's not a valid argument.  I'm sure there are many FA users who'd like to share pictures of their cocks; that's not allowed either.  Ok, so there's legal issues there - many FA users would also like to share pictures of their pets' cocks.  Nothing illegal about that - still not allowed.  Many FA users would enjoy if "it's not illegal" were the only deciding factor, turning this into nothing more than another ImageShack.  Yet, we continue to have other rules.



Once again, another valid argument. This is true, but if you take a deeper look into it, a lot more people enjoy harmless, swirly goodness than harsh dog cocks very few furries are actually into. Once again, it's about the masses.





DuncanFox said:


> Emotion does not enter into the discussion.  If you create porn with a generator, it would not be allowed under these rules.  If you create artwork using a generator that brings everyone who sees it to tears, it would still not be allowed.  You can hand-draw all the emotionless artwork you like, and upload it as long as you created it.



The thing is, Apophysis isn't really a generator. It is simply your tool, and has generating FUNCTIONS, however, it itself is not a generator in a sense. It is different.




WarMocK said:


> The main problem about fractals is _not_ wether it's art or not, the problem is obviously that it takes little effort to _recreate_ the same picture 1:1 again. Which is the same problem as with Spore, WoW, etc.



EXCEPTIONALLY wrong. Without sharing the parameters you will never, ever create the same thing. I can personally guarantee it. Even with the parameters, there is a notable difference. This point here is absolutely moot. Null and void.





DuncanFox said:


> Yes, that's quite the point.  If you run the script with the exact parameters in it again, you get the same image back.



Correct... Sort of. It is not the same exact image, but in an essence it is.



DuncanFox said:


> But if an artist gives their friend the same paints, inks, pens, pencils, papers and brushes, plus the same description and vision of what the end result should look like, their friend will not and _cannot_ create a perfect reproduction.  Even if they hand over a copy of the drawing itself, you can't get a perfect reproduction without tracing or photocopying -- and that's not allowed on FA either.



This is a completely and utterly invalid argument! Just because something has the option of being shared does not make it a generator. If that were the case, then ALL of the images on the ENTIRE Furaffinity site would be generators. I could send someone a .JPEG or .PSD or .PNG or plenty more formats that gains the same EXACT image. This is also a completely and utterly invalid point.



DuncanFox said:


> FA has rules, not laws.  It's an important distinction.  It would not be illegal to post generated material, but it would be against the rules.



That is true. However, The argument is how this rule should be bent to allow a perfectly valid and well-accepted exception to this rule, like there is for many others.





DuncanFox said:


> Yes, you have argued that it is not SIMPLY a generator, but it is still a generator.



Read above. In a sense, it is a generator. But as has been argued MULTIPLE times, so are almost every single program that furs use to produce "valid" artwork for this site. Apophysis is simply more than "just a generator".


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> Just like if you were to retake a photo in a lighting room with regulated lighting and nothing moving, using a screwed in tripod and pressing the button twice, you would create the same EXACT image.



As I tried not to get into the nitty-gritty, it would not create the same image if you went down to the pixel level unless you were taking the picture in a vaccuum.




			
				kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> Actually, I have yet to see you reply to a lot of the major points as of yet. You have not shown acknowledgment of many of the great thoughts and ideas here, such as the fact that fractal DO NOT DO MOST OF THE WORK.
> 
> We fractal users do not use predefined variables, and if we do, it's painfully obvious. We use our own variables, our own scripts, and our own talent to create what we do. The program itself is just what allows said stuff to be created; it does not do it for you.





			
				kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> The fractal artist still has to do the majority of the work, and if they are a proper fractal artist, they take all of the variables, even beyond the scope of Apophysis. (Such as post-process rendering).



You're speaking for the group of people who actually take the time to do more than just let the software do its thing.  I just downloaded Apophysis, and have discovered two different things after starting the program.  The first is that without any particular effort on my part, the program spat out a random fractal, it gave it to me just for starting the program.  This means that any particular person could get this software and let it do its job without taking into account much of anything that goes into making the fractal.  I'm not sure that I could personally discern a well thought out fractal versus one that was simply randomly generated by someone who happens to just get their hands on it (this I would consider a problem).

The second thing I have realized is that there are folks who may be able to tell the difference, and that taking the time to put in one's own parameters or write their own scripts for creation of fractals is something that sets it apart from randomly generating something via the software and calling it a finished piece.  This, of course, means that just as copying and tracing are policed on FA, fractals will have to have a set guideline, which you have previously mentioned, but it has to be something that can be readily enforced by someone who is willing to put that kind of time into things.

Unfortunately, FA's functionality does not include things that make life easy in rooting out the "good from the bad" and that's what makes the job so cumbersome.  As I have said before, I am only one voice on the staff, but I can at least pool together what's been said here and present it all to the rest of the staff for the consideration.  As long as fractals are allowed to stay, there are a few suggestions that I have.



Help create a solid set of rules that help guide what fractal content is appropriate. (Some of this has already been started.)
Create a username that basically would become a "group" but in this case it would involve watching the fractal artists, both new and old, on the site.  This way submissions can be tracked and trouble tickets filled out for anything that happens to be against the rules.
Assign someone who will track the posts as well as update the watches as new people arrive.  The person can shift, but the job has to be done.

If the right kind of guidelines can be set up for this, it could set a precedence for the same thing for other aspects of the site.  As an additional bonus it could also help introduce fractal artists to each other.  However, if the group is not kept up to par, then things will be at risk.






			
				kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> FA is about conforming to the masses when it comes to rules.
> 
> Please face the facts, and allow this beautiful creation to live.



It isn't about conforming to the masses, if that were true then a lot of things would be stifled here and the rules would be quite different.  Think about how that worked with Proposition 8 in California.

"Face the facts" is something that both sides have to do in order for there to be compromise.  Because while fractal artwork can be considered quite beautiful, the nature of its creation can be readily abused without the right kind of content controls.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus, just to quickly clear this up, it is not hard to discern a randomly generated fractal from a good one.

However, this brings me to a few KEY points that I must ask, and hope to get a response. They are simple questions:

1. Tell me of one time where fractal spamming has been a problem. It is not a reoccurring problem, and one many people have never seen. Shouldn't be an issue. Crappily drawn artwork is allowed to be posted, but not fractals? In truth that's biased. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather weed out the bad fractals, but it isn't fair.

2. Why should fractals be the only thing on this site to be limited and monitored so closely? It isn't as bad as the SL screen-shot problem. That is a LOT worse, and yet is allowed to be accepted. I mean, cmon, buy, click, and drag is allowed on the site, but not a highly detailed program that everyone actually spends time with. Sooomething seems to be missing there.

3. Why, indeed, is this a big issue all of a sudden, when it has happened perfectly smoothly in the past without ANY troubles? This I am curious of.


I humbly await your responses, Dam, because unlike what you may think, I am learning stuff in this, and am enjoying the opportunity to see opposite sides of the argument.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> 1. Tell me of one time where fractal spamming has been a problem.


A few users come to mind, but I'm not one to kiss and tell regarding user infractions. It has been a problem. As I have stated, and said before, we have found some accounts in the past posting hundreds of fractals in an INCREDIBLY short period of time. It has been an issue, and in those instances it was argued that they were all "unique pieces of art" and that by us requesting stopping the flood of submissions, we were stagnating his artistic freedoms.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> it is not hard to discern a randomly generated fractal from a good one.



For you, for someone who is used to looking at good versus bad.  To the untrained eye they could both just look very pretty.

As for your questions:

1. It has been in the past, I cannot give you the exact date of when it happened, but I can tell you that the main gallery was spammed with a good number of fractals.  Of the 8 images that appear on the front page for artwork, half of them were spammed fractals at the time it happened.  Crappily drawn artwork is not a good argument point, because this was a question of whether it was generated content or not, not the quality of it, and that concept still applies.  If a person takes a lot of time to generate a fractal and it still looks kind of crappy (perhaps the person is a novice) then it should be allowed to stay, it's only if someone is simply randomly generating the image with Apophysis and posting it that things should be questioned, which leads to question 2.

2.  Fractals will not be the only thing monitored, but this particular debate allows for a method to be put in place that can and should be applied to other groups that could potentially abuse things.  It is being monitored carefully to see if it's a viable option as well as to make sure that content control is possible.  Buy, click and drag is *not* allowed on this site, despite what it seems, but just as I might not be able to tell a time taken fractal from a randomly generated one, the same distinction has to be made based on whether someone crafted their SL character or not.

3.  It became an issue when someone was asked to remove their stuff because it was considered "generated" content.  Many things go unchecked or undisputed because they are either not reported or not dealt with.  The staff is not large and at times things go well by the wayside (it's a fault that can be fixed).  In this case, when the user said no, the discussion was born and this is the result.  On the bright side, it has sent a potential precendence for how more difficult things can be monitored, by someone who has a more professional eye in the matter.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Now that, Dragoneer. That is something that violates a BROAD rule.

*No spamming of the portal* or something along those lines, correct?

In that case, that one person should be dealt with in a different manner, explaining that it's not his art that's causing the problem, it's the mass of flooding.

All fractal users shouldn't have to suffer because of that, you know? I'm sure it's happened with all submission types at one point or another. It shouldn't warrant a ban, or even in truth a block/limit.



And to you Damaratus, thank you for your reply.

If you would, the above would sort of touch down on point one.

2. If that is the case, than I am glad that it is not being sectioned off like it has seemed to be so far. I do understand your point on the SL creation part, but as stated somewhere before:
SL is a game.
Apophysis is an *art* program. It is MEANT for this stuff, heh.

3. That does make sense. Sure, that sort of answers my question, but in a sense it simply redirects it. Besides that one point in the past, where said user was breaking many rules (and spamming has been done of much more stuff than just fractals), fractals have been given and received in harmony. Why not keep it that way?


----------



## Kata'lina (Dec 16, 2008)

Kata'lina said:


> I do have a question, and please know while it may sound harsh, it's really one of curiosity.
> 
> Dragoneer, do you intend to make this decision based on your personal feelings on the subject?
> Or are you going to base your decision on what the majority of the people here are saying that they want?



Just in case it may have been missed accidentally. I understand there are a ton of replies happening here.


----------



## DuncanFox (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> This is a completely and utterly invalid argument! Just because something has the option of being shared does not make it a generator. If that were the case, then ALL of the images on the ENTIRE Furaffinity site would be generators. I could send someone a .JPEG or .PSD or .PNG or plenty more formats that gains the same EXACT image. This is also a completely and utterly invalid point.



Wow...that's a real stretch.  That's stretched more than a well-used fox.  That's stretched more than a Citra in a bathhouse.  That's str...well you get the idea.

Nowhere did I say anything about "the option of being shared" being a determining factor.  No logical person would claim JPG/PSD/PNG as equivalent to a generator.  No definition of "generator" matches your statement.



> In a sense, it is a generator.



Yes.  It is.

Something that's been ignored by almost everyone in this thread, on both sides, comes to mind now as well: the AUP as currently written _already_ bans fractals, and fractals are already being removed.  Nothing has changed.  Nothing is changing.

The admins aren't too receptive, either.  I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.  Perhaps it should be taken as a hint.

... Perhaps the admins should just make an explicit statement.  Or should I say, re-statement, as it's already stated pretty clearly in the AUP.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Please take the time to re-read and re-analyze that. I'm not going to respond with what I already have.


----------



## DuncanFox (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Please take the time to re-read and re-analyze that. I'm not going to respond with what I already have.



1) Who was that directed at?  This is a busy thread.  Use the Quote button.

2) If it was directed at me, let's try this again:

Nowhere did I say anything about "the option of being shared" being a determining factor. No logical person would claim JPG/PSD/PNG as equivalent to a generator. No definition of "generator" matches your statement.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod8 said:
			
		

> And to you Damaratus, thank you for your reply.



You're quite welcome.




			
				kewlhotrod8 said:
			
		

> If you would, the above would sort of touch down on point one.



At the time that we put the limitations on, it was because we had a rash of many different generator content images that were being spammed on the site.  The decision to exclude some of the things may have been knee-jerk at the time or simply it was how the staff viewed the subject matter.  You are correct in that it was also a violation of the spamming rules and should have been handled in that fashion as well.



			
				kewlhotrod8 said:
			
		

> 2. If that is the case, than I am glad that it is not being sectioned off like it has seemed to be so far. I do understand your point on the SL creation part, but as stated somewhere before:
> SL is a game.
> Apophysis is an *art* program. It is MEANT for this stuff, heh.



But SL has the option to sculpt polygons and create unique items that can be utilized in the world.  Just because it is part of a game doesn't mean that it isn't also an art program.



			
				kewlhotrod8 said:
			
		

> 3. That does make sense. Sure, that sort of answers my question, but in a sense it simply redirects it. Besides that one point in the past, where said user was breaking many rules (and spamming has been done of much more stuff than just fractals), fractals have been given and received in harmony. Why not keep it that way?



The generator rule up to this point did cover fractals, but was not enforced at the levels that it should have been.  Given the particular arguments it probably won't stay on the list of things, but because of the potential of someone simply using Apophysis' random creation ability (something that most other mediums do not have the capability of doing) and posting, further monitoring of posts is needed.  In this case it isn't about spamming, but making sure that things stay legitimate to the cause that you are arguing for.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Yes, it was pointed towards you. The reason I am not using Quote Boxes is because my PC is bugging out BADLY. All GFX drivers have been wiped from my PC, and it's lagging all to hell. Anything to cut down the lag.


And I understand what you were saying, however, it completely deviated from what I originally rebuttalled against. Your original statement had a separate meaning.


And that is perfectly acceptable, Damaratus.
With the SL reference, I was just stating how fractals had a higher position on the chain, if you will, than Second Life. Not saying it really shouldn't belong (which, according to current rules it should, however it is known that it is allowed. No biggie), just that it's not meant for such things such as APO.


Moderation for fractal users would be a hassle, but it's better than a complete ban. Best not push our luck, eh? I quite like the idea of the special group, and think that would be wonderful. I, personally, would love to be able to take a look at fractals and offer input on whether they are random or actually have had effort into them. If I find any that are random I will do what I can at that time, and talk to them about how they can maybe improve and to allow them to tinker more with it to create a custom work.

However, for this we will have to enforce the rule of posting the parameters, which is a VERY simple process. However, my only issue with this is the very easy chance of someone simply modding an existing fractal of someone elses. This is why I propose a simple but crude script for the FA servers to allow a certain code (such as [parameters]) or something that allows only those authorized to view these parameters.

That way the source isn't leaked out. I know this is a lot to ask, but it would be pretty nifty, and me with my VERY limited coding knowledge doesn't see it as too difficult of a task.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> Moderation for fractal users would be a hassle, but it's better than a complete ban. Best not push our luck, eh? I quite like the idea of the special group, and think that would be wonderful. I, personally, would love to be able to take a look at fractals and offer input on whether they are random or actually have had effort into them. If I find any that are random I will do what I can at that time, and talk to them about how they can maybe improve and to allow them to tinker more with it to create a custom work.
> 
> However, for this we wil have to enforce the rule of posting the parameters, which is a VERY simple process.



If you think moderation of just fractals would be a hassle, try and imagine doing it for the whole site, it can help put things into perspective as to why some decisions are made.  Small steps to reach an end goal, it usually tends to work and ends up less abrasive in the process.

The group concept is meant to do that, it acts as both a method of moderation and a social network for folks who partake in the same craft, giving room for critique, opinion and growth.  It's why I suggested it.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Good suggestion, good suggestion. However, the only problem with that is as before stated. New fractal users with no skill could come in, ask to be in the group, steal the codes and modify it a small bit, and claim it as their own. Maybe in this group their could be "mods" of sorts.

Just theory, of course.

Also, I just want to say I appreciate the civility that you and most of the other people here have shown to keep this thread decent. I appreciate it.


----------



## DuncanFox (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Your original statement had a separate meaning.



Yes, it did have a separate meaning, and your "rebuttal" makes no sense for that meaning.  Allow me to place my original and _complete_ statement next to your "rebuttal," with some bolding for emphasis.



DuncanFox said:


> Yes, that's quite the point.  *If you run the script with the exact parameters in it again, you get the same image back.*
> 
> But if an artist gives their friend the same paints, inks, pens, pencils, papers and brushes, plus the same description and vision of what the end result should look like, their friend will not and _cannot_ create a perfect reproduction.  Even if they hand over a copy of the drawing itself, you can't get a perfect reproduction without tracing or photocopying -- and that's not allowed on FA either.





kewlhotrod said:


> This is a completely and utterly invalid argument! Just because something has the option of being shared does not make it a generator. If that were the case, then ALL of the images on the ENTIRE Furaffinity site would be generators. I could send someone a .JPEG or .PSD or .PNG or plenty more formats that gains the same EXACT image. This is also a completely and utterly invalid point.



My statement had nothing to do with "the option of being shared."  I don't see how your rebuttal logically follows, or for that matter how it even relates to what I said.

My statement was about getting a perfect reproduction given a particular set of inputs.  This can be done with a fractal generator on a consistent and reliable basis; the same inputs will always produce the same outputs, regardless of who is using the generator.  An artist not using a generator cannot create the exact same work twice, and two different artists have even less of a chance, _even given the same "inputs" to work with_.

This has no bearing on or relation to JPG/PNG/PSD/etc.  Those are not tools that were used to create the image.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Good suggestion, good suggestion. However, the only problem with that is as before stated. New fractal users with no skill could come in, ask to be in the group, steal the codes and modify it a small bit, and claim it as their own. Maybe in this group their could be "mods" of sorts.
> 
> Just theory, of course.
> 
> Also, I just want to say I appreciate the civility that you and most of the other people here have shown to keep this thread decent. I appreciate it.




I'm curious as to what you mean, but the idea is that the user group would be maintained and "moderated" by users from the group.  You know what is right and wrong better than someone who is not experienced with using fractals.  The mod of the group would have the password to the user name and be able to manage the page for the group.  I'm assuming that such a thing as stealing someone's code and modifying it would be noticeable and could be reported.  All it would take is a report from the group username and the infraction could be dealt with, in fact it would take less time because if it comes directly from the person moderating then there doesn't need to be the same kind of in depth investigation into the legitimacy of it.

Civility normally leads to an end result because it doesn't involve mindless bickering.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

To Duncan:

You were stating that by placing a parameter into Apophysis you can reproduce the same image. I was stating that by loading a .JPEG file into an art editing software, it can reproduce the same image. It is the same exact concept.

And to Damaratus: That is true, it is quite easy to report if someone were to steal artwork. However, think of how they could post it to other sites. Wouldn't be too great. 

I was suggesting that a person or two in the group itself could have rights to see this hidden box that we could add with a little code to FA. That way not everyone can see it.

Kind of like how a hidden sub-forum works, except this one is applicable to any description box on FA.


----------



## Damaratus (Dec 16, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:
			
		

> And to Damaratus: That is true, it is quite easy to report if someone were to steal artwork. However, think of how they could post it to other sites. Wouldn't be too great.
> 
> I was suggesting that a person or two in the group itself could have rights to see this hidden box that we could add with a little code to FA. That way not everyone can see it.
> 
> Kind of like how a hidden sub-forum works, except this one is applicable to any description box on FA.



Protecting your work from other sites is something that extends beyond the control of anything that FA has to offer, and in the end you'd have to take up the issue with the other site's administration.  The current functionality of FA does not allow for what you are suggesting, and I'm not sure that it's possible to do it with this iteration of FA.


----------



## DuncanFox (Dec 16, 2008)

DuncanFox said:


> This has no bearing on or relation to JPG/PNG/PSD/etc.  Those are not tools that were used to create the image.





kewlhotrod said:


> You were stating that by placing a parameter into Apophysis you can reproduce the same image. I was stating that by loading a .JPEG file into an art editing software, it can reproduce the same image. It is the same exact concept.



It is a completely different concept.  Apophysis is used in the process of creating of the final work, and is integral to its creation.  The JPEG format is not part of the creative process.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 16, 2008)

Actually, incorrect. You mean to say Parameters instead of Apophysis, otherwise this argument would be Apophysis versus Photoshop instead of Parameters versus exports.

And no, the parameters are only valid once the file is done, just like a JPEG.


----------



## DuncanFox (Dec 16, 2008)

A potter uses his hands and a potter's wheel to assist in creation, and the result is represented in the clay.  The clay is not a creative element, nor is it the artwork in and of itself, it is just the medium through which the art is expressed.

A musician uses an instrument (guitar, flute, accordion, their voice) to assist in creation, and the result is stored on a CD or as an MP3.  The CD/MP3 is not a creative element, nor is it the artwork in and of itself; it is just the medium on which the art is expressed.

A (traditional-media) artist uses paint and brushes to assist in creation, and the result is stored on a canvas.  The canvas is not a creative element, nor is it the artwork in and of itself, it is just the medium on which the art is expressed.

A digital artist uses a program like Photoshop and tools like a Wacom tablet to assist in creation, and the result is stored as a PSD/JPG/PNG.  The PSD/JPG/PNG is not a creative element, nor is it the artwork in and of itself, it is just the medium on which the art is expressed.

In creating fractals, you use Apophysis and its parameters and scripts to assist in creation, and the result is stored as a PSD/JPG/PNG.  The PSD/JPG/PNG is not a creative element, nor is it the artwork in and of itself, it is just the medium on which the art is expressed.

*To Summarize:*

*Creative Tools:* Hands, potter's wheel, musical instruments, paint, brushes, Photoshop, Apophysis
*Media:* Clay, CD, MP3, canvas, PSD, JPG, PNG
*Art:* Pottery, music, paintings, drawings, fractals

This is the set of definitions and classifications I am working with.  Apophysis and Photoshop are tools.  A JPG file is the medium on which the artwork is expressed.  They are substantially different.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 16, 2008)

KroneFire said:


> Technically it is a form of art, and we dont haggle on people that draw humans, so why fractals? plus, they ish purdy >.O
> also make good desktops <3



Why thank you, It is art and glad you think so. 



AlexInsane said:


> I see no issue with allowing fractal art, provided it is not spammed needlessly.



Well spamming would be considered like posting the same fractal in different colors. Cause each one has personality and bend to its lines and shape. I posted this about the subject matter on what is considered spamming. That is as follows. 



Lonely Gabu said:


> However I would declare organizing a method of putting restrictions and regulations on "Spamming fractal's" thus.
> 
> >For instance, take a real good look at a series of images and lets say someone posts, a different color fractal with a different shade background repeatedly on their page. Since each piece is just a redundant statement, I would consider it spamming.
> >Instead of removing their pieces they could place them in scraps, thus alleviating people's pages.
> ...



Do I stand by this notion? Yes I do because well all furry artists out there on this site have restrictions of some kind. Right? To a degree, they have some "minor" rules to follow. 



Eshmasesh said:


> I honestly don't understand what's contraversial about this topic. Singling out fractal art because it's based on mathematical algorithms is absurd, as it can still be very abstract, unique, and beautiful.



The reason its so controversial, is that the higher ups think that fractals, created easily through a sliders as it requires no thought and is something that is flooding the site with its presence. I don't think fractals are that bad considering their aren't that many of fractal artist out here on FA including myself and we think about each thing we make. Its manipulating our canvas with various dimensions of logic that we create things. Each one carefully planned out and yes just like an artist abstractly thinks of going one way, leaves their mind open and it creates something else cause of the way the canvas wanted to be created, the same happens to fractals.  Thanks for saying its beautiful <3



CurioDraco said:


> I say if we can't have Terragen, then neither should we have Apophysis. Or, if Apophysis is allowed, then allow Terragen. There's a lot more appeal and personal creativity in using Terragen vs Apophysis.
> I don't know why both shouldn't be allowed.



If you feel slighted about Terragen which I have no idea what it is, you could express them in another topic. Every opinion should be heard out and thanks for saying that fractal using Apophysis should be allowed. 



Bloo_roo said:


> I vote allow it- while it's not drawn via pencil or paper, it's still a unique and beautiful form of art. I especially like Kewl's work- they make incredible desktops! Also, I've never once seen a fract on the FA recent submissions list on the homepage- not once in all the thousands of times I've logged in.



Thanks for voting and it does make for pretty backgrounds. We work diligently hard on each piece including myself ^^.



Shenzi said:


> I only like them if it was one picture of one subject, not tons of pictures on your first Spore creature.
> 
> A single picture for a single subject is fine, as long as their gallery isn't _just_ that. It takes little effort to manipulate fractal art programs, so a bunch of Z-grade Spore monsters typically does not help site bandwidth.
> My 2 cents....



This site was made for furry artists regardless of what they art medium is, this is why I selected this site to host my art, regardless of what it may be. The funny thing is I am an abstract artist, and this type of art isn't as popular as say anthro or yiff or sex. This is art and people sometimes upload a lot because they didn't have excess until one day and will post everything then. Nothing bad about it. But thank you for placing your 2 cents in. Its appreciated. 



Emil said:


> This discussion comes down to whether or not a parabola is art =l



Thanks and I think Fractals are a bit more then that. =P *Giggles*



Shenzi said:


> I hate Spore, as if you couldn't tell. So I decided to make a tiny rant.
> 
> But as for all other fractal artwork, it's all good in the neighborhood.



Ah, I see what you mean, heh. Glad you like fractaling ^^.



Rhaen said:


> I vote to allow it, barring spamming.



Spamming I posted it a bit above here. Thanks for voting ^^



Steel Froggy said:


> *votes allow*



Danke ^^ Means alot. 



AlexInsane said:


> Anything can be art.
> 
> Life is basically a huge canvas/stage/what have you, in terms of art. There is beauty in everything, bliss in discord, love in hate, joy in pain.



Very well said. Keep on musing dude. ^^ *Tailwags*



Samuel said:


> I am a frac. I like the fracs.



Welcome fellow fractalist and glad you like them. Thanks for your input ^^;;



nominus_expers said:


> So is photography art? You find a subject, fiddle with some settings and push a button, easy as that. But good photography takes a degree of skill and creativity, right? You have to line up the shot, make sure the lighting is good, check the composition, the feel of the scene being photographed. There are lens effects you can use and the like.
> Same with a program. It generates something when you push a button and fiddle with the dials. What it generates involves a degree of skill and creativity if it could be considered good.
> FA allows photos. FA allows synthesized music. The only real requirement is that it took some skill or creativity and was produced by a member of the fandom.
> My vote is to allow, whether it matters or not.



*licks* thanks for your input and I agree with that sentiment exactly. We are muses of a different kind with a new and interesting canvas. I love working with it and making art. Glad you feel the same way ;3.



whitefox123 said:


> i dont have much to say bout fractals. they do make some really cool backgrounds and are most look pretty neat. plus why get rid of em? if people dont think theyre art then they wont click on em. no reason to remove them from FA. im really here also cause kewlhotrod makes some pretty awesome fractals and i dont want him to stop. so take that admins



That would mean lots of my friends artwork that they work so hard on would be removed including my own. That would make me a sad Gabu. *Whimpers* Glad you like fractals, and thanks for the support.



foxystallion said:


> Fractal art offers at least as much opportunity for creativity as writing. Fractal art pieces are graphs of mathematical equations. Stories can also be formally mathematically described as graphs of characters (this is elementary information theory). All stories are created from a very small group of elements (letters and punctuation marks) which are strung together in a particular order to produce the work of art. A two thousand word story is a particular linear sequence of about 10,000 elements - characters.
> 
> Fractal art has far more element variability than the English language, and also has a broader realm of potential developmental variation than a story. A story is a linear sequence of the elements. Fractal art is a two or three dimensional sequence, allowing more degrees of freedom. Moreover, a particular piece of fractal art is a particular unique sequence of millions of pixels (not thousands of characters), each of which can have 36,000,000 values (not just a few dozen as in English).
> 
> ...



Wow very well said, you should stop by my gallery if you enjoy Fractals *Giggles and blushes* Glad you feel this strongly about it and I can't add anything except a thank you. It means a lot to us that you believe in what we do. *hugs*



Dragoneer said:


> Uhm, hi? I've used fractal creators before. A lot. I love the Mandelbrot set, and I'm a fan of a bunch of other fractals. Are they art? Yes. Don't think we're ignorant about the subject merely because we disagree on the standpoint being presented.
> 
> But fractals created with applications like Apophysis will probably not be permitted regardless of the outcome of this vote. It's a generator. The rule regarding generators will not be changed in this instance. The argument is not whether or not fractals are art, but whether they are generated more by the artist or more by the software. If you want to create a fractal by hand, on your own, that's fine. It's allowed. You want to use generators and seeds to create them, whether or not you can influence their creation, that's not allowed.
> 
> We never said fractals were banned. We said that fractals created using generators/seeds are not permitted.



Even if you use a generator program such as this one, its not as easy to create a final product with the story and then tweak them to create a final image that looks like art. I'm glad you except it as art but I as an artist use this as a medium to create my work. To say its not permitted is going to stifle my creativity just because I am an abstract artist, found a tool little over a month ago and have grown fond of this. This is a canvas just like an artist use a blank sheet on Photoshop or a blank slide on a camera or create a beat for a song. They obviously have a correlation and thus as I said in my 2 pages long post their are more items that go into each image then you both think. 



Lonely Gabu said:


> I am and always will be an abstract artist who will use tools like Apophysis and others at my disposal to make images that make people think or just enjoy to see. Each fractal has a life, a story of its original composition which to me is this:
> Going through the program and selecting an equation line that suits me visually. From there manipulate the edges of each triangle in a pattern that creates different images every macro centimeter which changes definition on the x, y, and z axis. Sounds like art doesn't it? Its called perspective. From this point I manipulate the equation to bend lines, to sculpt them in the way a person would put a brush to paper and start his composition. Adding and subtracting at a whim, just like an eraser and pencil, I go through and change the image before I even begin to color and fill the negative space. From there, through another series of changes, stretches, manipulations, create something profound in my eyes as an abstract artist. I color the image in a series of random color coded spectrums and select the one I see fit. My pallet complete, I render the image to finality. Just like an artist draws an image and fine tunes it digitally, so do I. Add things that create depth and balance before completing the said image. It takes me several hours just to complete one full composition. Create something from a basic line and a bunch of triangle's or to start a new, contains all four aforementioned items. Is this Art I ask? Sounds like art to me.



The reason why I elaborated the way I did Dragoneer is that I put a lot of time and effort into this and as a furry I think it should be allowed on a furry art/music/semi-blogging/community site on here. 



blinddragon667 said:


> he said probably.  not definately.
> 
> but in defense of fractal artists, the way they create their art is with these programs, just as a painter uses paint and canvas, a sculptor uses marble and a pick.  Can a painter paint without paints?  No, in much the same way a fractal artist can't create their art without their programs



That is what I am trying to say.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 16, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> A painter uses skill, knowledge of anatomy, composition, texture, lightning, physics and more. It's not just "plop" and there it goes. There's much underlying manual skill, creative thinking, planning and more involved. It's not even close as a comparison.



Then you have also added that it takes skill to make a "Good" one. and true. But most of us delete whats there and start fresh meaning we start with a single pixel on a page, most artists don't start with one pixel but rather a line that is manipulated first. Which after starts their image, whether its life art, or something more complex. 

Physics and anatomy could be plotted to math, and so could lighting. So therefore if someone uses proportions and depth via something like perspective their are creating math. I think its a very equal comparison. 



thoron said:


> If the parameters that the program gives initially are wiped clean, reset to zero and started from scratch, it wouldn't in my opinion at least count as generated image.



I start with a single triangle voided of all variables which could only create a single dotted pixel image. So I agree with you ^^.



uncia said:


> *nods*. That's cool, but where probably still missing a trick or two in community management is by constantly using "we" to mean the entire admin staff (by consensus opinion) whereas I'd probably have no difficulty finding less than half a dozen constructive mainsite posts between half of them (or more) in the past month or two on the fora.
> You're certainly making that look a bit more like "the community vs. Dragoneer" when it certainly should not be the case, rather than opening the debate to "people from all sides _including the administration_" if that's what you truly wish.
> 
> Easier just to say "no generators", lock threads and end drama, otherwise, rather than give the _impression_ of "false hope".
> ...



I disagree, I really think that posting our opinion that we are being listened too because as a mod on another forum, we do listen. Yes they may be busy with something called life, but inside the forum they are really serious. Including Dragoneer, I am just glad he is actually taking a side in the matter so therefore we could see where he is coming from and debate this civilly.

The only reason Drama is prevalent in this matter is because many things are being said about an art form that is being misinterpreted as talentless, and as non art. They are saying it is art, and that is good. Just they don't know if they should unban/ban the items in question.




Dragoneer said:


> True, but it can create random batches as well... so where does the line get drawn? We've seen in the past where fractal artists will upload hundreds of fractals. At what point do we call flooding? At what point is it a waste of resources, bandwidth verse it being art? Verse it being hundreds of unique "arts" all created with in a day?



To answer each one of these statements, I will break this down. The line gets drawn when the image gets repetitive, just like people can't post an x amount of the same thing and all. The line should be drawn at like as I said 5 created on the date of creation which means you could only upload like 40 images a week. I said that in previous posts. Anything more you have to explain if its necessary, etc.

Flooding is when more then this occurs. I think its agreed that too many fractals could be a bad thing but as an artist if that is your selected media, then I think having this set in place would be good.

Hope my solution will help with the bandwidth taking.

Spreading out your work as a fractalist maybe a better way of fixing said concerns. 



Dragoneer said:


> I'm not against fractals, but traditionally fractal artists have abused site resources more than any other. And the reason is because the way they are generated. Yes, I understand that is on a person to person basis, but it's been consistent. So do we tell the guy who uploads 400 fractals that his art is not unique? That he's flooding? And what's his argument then, that Nek0gami can post up 100 different pictures but he can't?



Well we are trying to get on the same page here, so by agreeing to a term of how much is excessive may help the situation. Once we come upon the same page a lot of the problems may be avoided don't you agree?



Dragoneer said:


> There's a lot of issues than merely "is it art".



Clearly.



Dragoneer said:


> And sorry if I'm rambling. I have a fever of 102 and it's not getting better.



I suggest rest, worry about this when you get better. :/



kewlhotrod said:


> I'm sorry to hear about your fever, Dragoneer. Wish I could have picked a better time for this, now. :/
> 
> However, I digress. If someone is uploading hundreds of fractals a day, you already have an anti-spam rule. Keep that in effect. I, for one, have yet to see ANY fractal artist upload more than 3 a day on average. The max I have seen uploaded over the course of an ENTIRE day is 15. That's not that much.



Just like I said, about 5 a day on average should suffice. 40 during a single week. and 180 in one month. Anything over that is excessive. >>;



thoron said:


> You can usually tell by how structured they are. Check my gallery for example, almost all of them are very structured. None of them could simply be generated.
> 
> Link to me FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/thoron/



I still wonder how you do yours. x.x; Dang. Just beautiful.



Nanakisan said:


> I will admit one thing.
> 
> making the fractals with apophysis was fun.
> but using another users fractals in my own work was ever better.
> ...



The fact is its a mecca of Furry Artists/Musicians/Writers/Poets/Lurkers and etc. Everything has been embraced as something here, and I think just like this should be done in the same light. 

Thanks for giving us your input though ;3



Damaratus said:


> And writing can be quite difficult if you do it right, and photography can be quite difficult if you do it right, but you were right in the statement that it's not about the difficulty, but it is about what is doing the majority of the work involved.
> 
> In most any art form there are those who put a lot of time and effort into their craft and those who take the shortcuts, this doesn't always mean that the person taking the shortcuts creates something horrible, but it often leads to a more mediocre end result.



Hello, haven't seen you post here, so welcome. May I disagree with you on this. I work close to 3 hours on each image, to render it which takes me 2 more hours and then use Photoshop to enhance and create depth to my image whether its using two different colors to fuse the negative space together and to make it my own. The fact that I start from a single pixel and create something beautiful with it. I just don't see how you could say I am not doing the work when its me manipulating the whole composition, each slight fraction of a change could lead to something different. 



Damaratus said:


> As I've said to some of the people arguing this previously, this is not about whether or not fractals are considered art, they are a form of art, that I wouldn't deny.  However, when a sculptor sculpts something, or an artist draws something, or a writer writes a story, or a musician composes something, they are doing the majority of the work for the creation.  They may use software to help the overall process of making it, but without them putting the greater amount of work into it, they wouldn't have an end result.



As I said before, we do alot of work considering the actual math doesn't create something of a final product. It actually has no merit on what the computer could do but its through the manipulations that have to be exact to a fraction of millimeter that we have to get things right. This is our canvas. 



Damaratus said:


> When it comes to generators, the work is done more by the software than the artist.  It's clear that some people may put more thought into the creation of it, but in the end, the software is creating the end result.



I clearly disagree. Generators such as this one, only do so much of the work for you. But when we start from nothing from a single pixel, anything randomized will only move the pixel. So therefore we are creating an image from a void of nothing. Sounds like a blank canvas to me.



Damaratus said:


> So what can be done?  This thread is a start, but there needs to be some more.  Is there significant post-processing done on the images?  I've seen word that GIMP has been used for some additional modifications.  Adding original content to something that is software generated and set it apart from simply just using the software on its own.
> 
> Next to simply trying to set a hard limit on images posted, what rules would you put in place to make sure that someone simply wouldn't just create shoddy generated images and post them with little regard to the time and effort that others take?  And is there someone willing to be that judge?



As I said above I fine tune said images in CS3, make them finer, use edging tools. Sometimes manipulating more then one image, change the resolution and the opacity. Draw on top of it sometimes. I am the one who said GIMP and CS3. I even made a person's birthday gift of them on the background. I make backgrounds that people could use. And enjoy my own original creation placed on a greater plateau.

Spamming images as I said before should be as followed.
5 images (created) date per day
40 images (created) date per the week. 
180 images (created) date per the month.

I work really diligently on each said image. Each creation is a journey I love taking and to share it on here would be a great asset as an artist. If you read my previous statement you would see where I come from. 



MidomiAensland said:


> I think fractals are very interesting and beautiful in some ways. I can't make a good debate or anything with this but I don't think fractals should be taken away.



Thank you and glad you joined the debate. 



Aden said:


> Way to stifle every fractal artist out there because some people never get past tweaking apophysis settings. Also, see my post in the other thread.



Because of finding this out, I have been stifled creatively and been more worried about doing something wrong then doing my art. Now that is unfair to any artist. This is a place to migrate and showcase your muse and this has done the adverse. *Sighs*




kingrondo said:


> the fact of the matter is that fractal making is not just... putting in numbers and leaving it
> there is a LOT of skill required to make them look remotely decent
> you have to actually come into the thing wanting a certain look to your fractals if you want anything good
> trust me, i should know
> i've got 900+ examples



Yes you were the one of them to teach it to me. I know but its more of the fact when its eating bandwidth maybe some rules are necessary. As I said above, 5 per day on average is more then enough. ^^;'




Embers said:


> I dont have any relevant debate... But what I do know, is that the fractal artists do take time to do what they do. It may be generated, yes, but it requires work, and skill, and practice to be truly good at it, like anything else.



Thanks and I agree. It does take practice and your time and talent to do so as well. ^^



Damaratus said:


> Now that is something that is workable, and can be considered as long as things are properly laid out.



Care to elaborate on this?




Seth C Triggs said:


> I'm fine with fractals too.
> 
> -Seth



Glad you are. thanks ^^



dineegla said:


> Fractal Artwork, is, in my opinion, is found in the very essence of Nature. If one sees a snowflake, a crystal, ice on a window, even Natural "patterns" themselves, there is underlying cause of fractal geometry. There is beauty in abstract, spontaneous form. Form that can also be highly repetitious. And this makes fractals an incredible form of abstract art. Fractals, by their very nature, are random entities, often without control. Some of our finest abstract art of the 20th century and Islamic art of earlier centuries can even be said to be derived from fractal geometry and pattern. Fractals are essentially repeated, random patterns, often highly evolved.
> 
> I have explored fractals way back in 1994, on the Amiga Computer. It was tedious work, and often totally uncontrolled. The fact that fractal programs now have some controllable elements should relegate it to an art form.
> 
> ...



Glad you feel the same way and my art is something I cherish and been an abstract artist. This has been one of the greatest things I stumbled across upon and has brought me many friends with the same ideals. Thanks for writing what you feel <3 *blushes tailwags*



kingrondo said:


> i agree with the fractal code thing
> i can handle posting that when i render and put them up



Fractal code?



THdragon said:


> FA is an art society is it not? I don't see why fractals should be banned. There just as much art as anything else on FA. (Purley an opinion.)



Thanks for your opinion. ^^



mrchris said:


> We had this sort of discussion a couple of months ago and the answer was *NO*.
> 
> If a program did all the work for you, it's *NOT BY YOU*.



Then that is your unlearned opinion because if it requires no work you would just open the program and do absolutely nothing. 



Science Fox said:


> Difficulty should not make a difference? How can anyone the world over call themselves an artist at all, if difficulty does not matter? Without difficulty...emotional _and _technical... art is not art...it is the souless by product of idleness.
> 
> I believe that many things should be disposed of in FA. This I will leave to others to decide.



There is all aforementioned items in what I do with this program. Glad you posted though. ^^



Nanakisan said:


> maybe a better idea would be enforcing a limit of how many fractals per week not per day should be enforced.
> 
> mainly like 1 fractal a day with the params posted would be nice.



I said previous I think that the limit of fractals should be as followed.
5 per day of creation date
40 per week of creation date.



kingrondo said:


> that fractal limit would screw me over big time!
> i render because i've got nothing better to do!(though i do spend time and effort on them)
> if you did that, i'd have a MASSIVE back up of stuff!
> the main reason for me posting them is for people to see them and enjoy them!



5 per day won't be that bad. :/ (As of the creation date) per artist. Would I rather have no limit? Yes but apparently the admins clearly think we need to cut down on stuff so this may have to do ... *Sighs*




Synge said:


> Actually I have tried to create some using one and I really couldn't get it to work right. The program is harder than it looks. Never came out how I wanted so it does take some knowledge with the program to use it. Also the artists touch of creativity and perception. Like one does with photoshop. I don't have it yet but I would love to get it and learn how to use it. If you want abstracts taken away why not anything computer generated? To me they should both be left alone. Sorry if I am offensive or anything I just don't see what the problem is with abstracts.Also if anyone wants to let me know what the other side of the story please gladly let me know.



They don't see a problem with abstract work but the amount that is being flooded on FA. Or in the opinion is. They see it as art, some that they can't make just needs to be limited so it doesn't kill the site that they work so hard to manage. 

5 per day 
40 per week. Is what I think. ^^ 



uncia said:


> Hmm... though I'm loathe to say it, an argument on that simplistic level could easily be used against digital cameras. It is the software that creates the image, not the person who presses the button.
> Beyond that, one might have to get into the debate as to whether there are more "scenes" available to pick from in the real world vs. the fractal world and the relative "ease of exploration" in both. (Good luck on the pure mathematics! _*jk*_)
> 
> Seriously though, would probably have to take any discussion up at least one level from that.
> ...



LOL Glad you think that. Its unfair of him to say that but he is entitled to an opinion ^^.



kingrondo said:


> the reason i'm able to create so many is because i DON't like tweaking
> if i tweak, i'll become obscessed and probably trash the whole thing in frustration...
> trust me, that boat has sailed, returned to port, and sailed again...and again... and again...



As long as you don't do it in excess you'll be fine hun. 
5 per day
40 a week 
Doesn't sound that unacceptable does it? *Noses*



Science Fox said:


> I agree with you, such random patterns in nature are truly glorious... they make the world a wonderful place.
> 
> Have you ever had the opportunity to look at a snowflake under a microscope? It is truly awe inspiring. The intricacies... the subtle details... random, yet uniform in every conceivable way. Absolutely beautiful. A creation only Nature could have wrought.
> 
> ...



Very well said and I am glad you feel that everything in nature is art. The perfection of what is life and the way that we are able to manipulate variables to make it still and capture just the essence of what we could grasp. Very impressive. *Blushes*




ferinoch said:


> There should probably be some limits to keep spammers out, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be allowed. We allow enough other not strictly furry stuff on here.



Glad you think that and I have said that many times limit it to about 40 per week about. ^^. Thanks for writing. ;3



Devious Bane said:


> I voted yes since it should be easy to tell if someone spent time on a fractal and not just do a 10-30 minute project.
> 
> From what I've seen from this kind of art, it looks pretty complicated to make. So there should be a limitation to it, but don't ban it. I doubt a whole bunch of noobs will come on FA and spam fractals unless it's those who are really good at it and are just messing around. I doubt anyone will do that, or else the banning will be their fault.
> 
> I think banning it should be the last option, not the first.



Thanks for your input and just like people that start, I am still a person still learning my craft, and spamming should be limited. 40 a week is a great place to start.




Silvernova said:


> I gave a longer list of reasons on your journal itself, but I'll keep it briefer here.
> 
> Simply put: fractals are art by a different method.  And it is shameful for an art community site to try and limit the types of art that are represented here.  And surely, the hundreds of watchers you have (with over a thousand favorites) should be automatically entered into the poll as "yes" considering they obviously enjoy your work.



Glad you like our work and people do enjoy it. Thanks for your input ^^



Damaratus said:


> Look at what you've said here, and understand that it's the spamming of the site with generated images that has created this problem in the first place.  You should not be trying to simply let the software do its thing and post, and then do it all over again.  Less quantity, more quality, work to improve your craft if you honestly feel that it should be respected.
> 
> There appears to be some very knowledgeable people here in terms of utilizing fractal software, perhaps talking to them about how they do more than just use the software would elucidate ways to progress beyond the issues that you have.



Just to add, Rhuke likes to keep his fractals cleaner and have more of a simpler look. Like most artists they are entitled to the way they work their craft and thats what he likes, his outcomes look intense.



Damaratus said:


> The argument was not really whether fractals were art, it was whether it was a generated image and therefore fell under the "generator image" clause of the AUP.  There's nothing shameful about wanting to make sure that the main gallery does not get cluttered by people who do not have respect for those who take more time and care in their work.



As I said to limit work to about 5 day per creation 40 per week (Unless they ask an admin if they could post more because of something else) should suffice and help the situation. If not I guess people could use the Scraps couldn't they?




kewlhotrod said:


> Agreed, but Damaratus. With something along the lines of like a 1,000 something user database that does normal artwork compared to the 5 or 6 that only do fractals, you rarely see them. You don't see them get spammed. You see poo artwork spammed more than that.
> 
> Anyways, my previous offer still stands, and I hope you will think about it. Stripping us of this right, as stated by MANY already (and it's only been one day), is wrong.



I agree with you about other things getting spammed but on their point of view they understand its art just wonders when too much, is too much.

I think 5 a day/ 40 per week is a great starting point. (Of point of creation)


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 16, 2008)

thoron said:


> If the parameters that the program gives initially are wiped clean, reset to zero and started from scratch, it wouldn't in my opinion at least count as generated image.





Nanakisan said:


> a very relative point there.
> 
> however it is still the skill of the photographer who takes the snapshot.
> 
> ...



Taking away Apoph from us artists that use it is like take away a computer from a digital artist, take away a camera from a photographer, etc. This is what our medium is. I just hope they understand its the way we create it by manipulations that creates an end result. 



saberwolfhunter said:


> Alright you want to take a fractal art because its generated?  Thats ridiculous.  My art isnt mine so you might as well just take away mine too.  I am a photographer, I take pictures of the world that I see, that nature created, human/mother alike.  But I show what I see and thats my art.  http://www.furaffinity.net/gallery/saberwolfhunter My mate, he is a fractal artist and he doesnt just random something through a generator.  He spends hours on ONE piece of submission.  He carefully selects things and then he even uses multiple fractals and combines them and touches all of it up in photoshop!  To say that he cant post here on FA anymore is absurd.



I spend the same many hours as well, I empathize. It is art but the reasoning behind the admins is the amount that gets created. That is all. They agree it is art finally and I'm glad they do. I just hope my suggestion gets passed ^^.



D_Claw said:


> IÂ¨m not a fractal artist but I do like fractal artwork... so please donÂ´t take down



Glad you feel that way. Danke!~


yuri-bloodfang said:


> When I first ran across fractals, I sat and stared at my screen.  The image was astounding!  Granted, I know nothing of the program used nor time needed, etc... to create a single one but you can't simply say that this is just someone tossing in numbers in the equations and that's it.  You're tossing the baby out with the bath water if you want to completely ban fractals.  Sure, some may be abusing the rules.  But I'm seeing more and more SL pics in my inbox and no one seems to care about those.  And from my understanding, unless you're a seriously advanced user of SL you pay someone to create the avatar for you or choose from a static selection of pre-made avatars.  I'm a fan of cgi but when one constantly posts screenshots of what their character is doing on SL it gets rather boring to see EVERYTHING.
> 
> Then there's the issue of being furry-related.  FA offers more than just anthro art/fiction.  There's music... photography (unless all the pics on this site are of fursuiters)... poetry... writing....  I've found FA more open and friendly than any other, especially the only main alternative, Deviant Art.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your point. I am glad having the ability to create fractals and every opinion matters. Thank you for adding yours. As for regulating, I have repeated it throughout my response before and here again 

5 per day (creation date)
40 per week (creation date)


Sentinalh said:


> I think everyone's points are very interesting, and although I of course side with the fractal artists on this, it's for more reason then simply because Kewl and I are friends. This is an art site is it not? Populated by those in the furry fandom. That is the basis which sets FA apart from say DevArt, because we all are joined by a common like for furries.
> 
> Now, many of those on this site enjoy things such as vore, and the more extreme fetishes. Many of us do not.
> Many enjoy listening to the works of the musicians, and many may come here specifically for the drawings or digital art.
> ...



Thank you for making sense and explaining how you feel...I think limiting them to 40 a week is good enough and 5 per day will help. Thanks for caring to type all that out. 



SkippOtter said:


> My opinion: fractals are art and should be allowed.
> The way I see it, the way you create art is irrelevant.  Even if it is reproducible.   Anyone can open Photoshop and scribble with the pen tool.  Likewise, anyone can open Apophysis and create a random bunch of chaotic swirls.  It takes an artist to open Photoshop and create a masterpiece, and it takes an artist to open Apophysis and render the sublime images that are often posted.
> 
> As for being reproducible, anything in Photoshop is just as reproducible as Apophysis, if one has a keen eye for detail and a good knowledge of the program.
> ...



Don't shut up please. You make sense your opinion needs to be heard. Thank you for adding you own to the cauldron of ideas that the admins are going through currently. ;3




Archibald Ironfist said:


> If Fractals are allowed, i'm going to start uploading my Dwarf Fortress screenshots.
> They use a fractal generation to create a WORLD, in ASCII.  Each is unique, and then worked on by you as you build fortresses using little ant-like dwarves.
> 
> It's far, far more art and far, far more involved.  It's multiple layers of fractals on top of user-created content.  And ASCII art is hard.



Don't know what that is but if you feel that you want to discuss this open a new thread and explain your views on the subject matter. ;3



LoveCube said:


> I don't consider fractals art myself because, in my humble opinion, knowing maths very well does not equal emotion.



The generator that we use fills out the equation for us but the lines, shapes, and compositions, manipulations, creations, and movements are just what we do. So its not all about knowing math but rather working with a new tool.



LoveCube said:


> One can argue over the quality and meaning of a piece of artwork, but - perhaps it's my lack of understanding - I don't see how knowing how to manipulate variables and let a program generate the resulting visuals for you is art. To me it equals, in crude terms, the binary code being translated into pixels on your screen. You know the variables that create the resulting number that pop up in your calculator, but that doesn't mean it's art.



The art is in the form that we create it in. We don't let the program generate anything for us, just in essence manipulate all points of what we create just like any artist and create a final product. Each piece conveys a meaning and feeling.



LoveCube said:


> Someone earlier in this thread stated that they had successfully managed to create *A* fractal image without knowing what they were doing, at all. It -is- as simple as pressing a few buttons to get *something* in that aspect, and I for one cannot see the difference between thoughtful fractal art and quickly generated fractal art. Aka, I've no sense for quality with it Not to mention, from what I understood there are even bases to work off of that require little to no tweaking to look 'professional'.



That is a misconception unless you turn on the program and leave it as is, I delete everything and start from a blank pixel. Less then one dot that covers an entire canvas and from that build my work. So Fractalists like myself work really hard and many hours to create images. Some faster then others.



LoveCube said:


> I'm not saying Fractal art isn't pretty. The colors and patterns can look pretty nice, but I'm not sure if FA is the right place for something that is based so heavily on maths, and not emotions. I mean, when I'm angry or upset, every stroke with my pencil is a direct flow of my feelings onto paper taking shape. I can't imagine adjusting variables - however complicated it is - gives the same satisfaction and conveys the same message. Music is not furry, but it requires a sense of rhythm and creativity to sound good. It takes creativity and emotional talent to play a guitar. A stick figure may not be the best piece of artwork in the world, but it has such a huge emotional meaning to it when your little boy or girl draws your little family with a house, the pet dog and a large sunny garden.[/qupte]
> 
> Just like any art, my canvas starts with a blank slate, it grows into a bigger meaning, my emotions guide the lines in complicated created manipulations and colors depending on my mood. As the piece grows to life, lines and shapes are created and from them I continue to change the scope of depth and even lighting to get what I wish to achieve. Just like if I am upset and sad, I will express that with my work and I have. So I disagree.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 16, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> True, but we have no way of taking action against people who just put up bad fractals. We're not here to judge art quality, so if we allow fractals, it doesn't matter what quality they are.



Then what do you want to judge the subject matter on then? Would my idea of limiting fractals to 40 per week per user a good idea?



Samuel said:


> Then, Dragoneer, how about a number count? If someone posts a hundred of the things in one day, it is obvious they would be crap. While this may be more labor intensive, I think that people would be willing to help should that happen. The artist who abuses the system will be reported and dealt with. I do not think that the majority of fractal artists on FA are spammers(except me, and only because of this recent issue--sorry, Damaratus! ). I hope this issue gets resolved, as I enjoy FA, and while I will insult you for your decision, I am forced to apologize immidiately, because this site has so far done very well in my opinion.
> The fact remains, I want to keep my fractal art, and have the option of posting more. SO do several others. Please, please consider our argument, as we are willing to compromise, if given the chance to keep our art.



Glad you think that and I hope so, keeping it down to 5 per day/40 per week may be a solution ;3



Brome said:


> I must say, I find fractals to be very good indeed. As a matter of fact, I have one of the fractals from this site set as my desktop background. Work is put into them. It's a matter of math, however which is where it differs from say, drawing. But nonetheless, surreal fractal images are things of beauty and in my opinion should be allowed to remain on FA.



Thanks for adding your opinion. ^^ 



Black_Forestsong said:


> from what I've seen, this is more an issue of whether or not fractals ARE an artform or not.
> 
> In my opinion, it IS an artform, and a rather suitable medium for some.
> from my understanding of how fractals work is that they use algorithms to set up an image, then the artist can, like in photoshop, edit the image to fit their needs.
> ...



Glad you are aboard and posted your opinion. It is art and it is defiantly something I like to have as a canvas here on FA.



Damaratus said:


> :
> 
> -This thread is not bringing into question whether fractals are considered art.  It's been pretty much decided that they are an artform.
> 
> -What is in question is whether it should/does fall under generator content.


 
You also said in this post its what the generator spews out when in fact its in the creation of the entire composition that we get the final composition. We control all the aspects and therefore use this as a tool. As I hybrid it and use other programs to enhance it but still. I work diligently hard and believe it shouldn't fall into that category at all cause if it was that simple it would be just turning it on and not clicking a key to create it. 



Sentinalh said:


> Pardon me but you seem to be missing the point here. As has been said many many times, a fractal ARTIST, does not just hit a button and have an end result that they feel good about posting. It doesn't seem to me that you are listening to any of the things anyone has said.
> 
> It seems to me that you have already made up your mind and are only doing this to give people false hope. Unless you are willing to make concession, as the fractalists have already agreed to do. Banning something should be the LAST resort, not the first. For goodness sakes, set a limit and be done with it. "Generated Art" is inherently a false statement, because art is not generated, art is created. I can generate random crap, but I have to put in effort to CREATE art.
> 
> ...



If they would declare our fractaling as not art then they would be giving us false hope. They are coming to the table and discussing this. Meaning this is where we have to exercise knowledge of the matter and bring it to their understanding. This site is a great place but I just want fractals to be allowed. :/



Emil said:


> You misunderstand. Being ruled a generator *would* ban them from FA



Yep and we don't want that. *sighs*



Samuel said:


> I believe this was discussed over and over again. Number one, there is such a thing as fractal quality. How do you differentiate a good Cubist painting from a bad one? Same way. A good fractal will have a recognizable pattern or form that pleases the eye, will in some way descibe an emotion, idea, or concept, etc. There are countless possible answers to that question--since it IS a question of beauty. Hence making the idea quite useless. So, here is what I think...
> While I will not make any accusations or say anything against my fellow artists, there is a simpler way to determine the quality of fractals that uses pure mathematics. If you post 24 or more a day, you should be banned, because, far as I see it, you are not even putting an hour into their creation, out of the 24 you have. Hence, the quality would suffer. Further, unless you are a genius, you could not produce more than 16 anyway, for every hour a normal human being is awake. Now, account for the time it normally takes ME to create a fractal (about two hours), and you have 8 fractals. Simply put, for quality's sake, do not post any more than ten a day--this will both limit the number of fractals one can post to how much they produce a day(realistically, we know some artists post stuff they did before, but no single artist, unless they wish to spam FA, post more than ten at a time anyway) as well as create some quality control from the artist themselves, as they must choose which ten will be featured each day. It is a win-win situation for both the fractal artists and the Administration as it insures that useless spamming does not occur, and if it does, it is punishable beyond the arbitrary and unfair "generator" policy currently in place, and creates an atmosphere where fractal artists are free to continue working.



Glad you feel that way, and a compromise is what we are trying to achieve because it would mean we



SnowQueen_TigerClaw said:


> I understand that the question here is not the art itself, but the fact that a generator is used to create it. Hence, the art is not entirely original.
> So, what about Fruity Loops? Isn't that a music generator? How many musicians use that? And, continuing with music. How many musicians just recreate a piece by another artist, like FoxAmoore just did with a song by Cold Play. That wasn't original. But it was expected by all as his own. I'm not knocking Fox. I think he's an AMAZING artist. I'm just using him as an example.
> How many of us have used references for our art? Does that make it not our own? What's the difference?
> My son makes fractals with Apophysis. I've watched him. There is nothing easy or just point and click about it. I couldn't do. He has a passion for his art. A passion that he doesn't have for anything else. This possible ban is not only a blow to his art, but a blow to his ego.
> If fractals are banned because of generators, then a lot of other art needs to be banned as well.



Thanks for bringing up your point. I am glad you think this way and means alot that you feel this strongly for Fractals. Thank you *Blushes* Every little bit helps.



Emil said:


> All that for something you said "may" exist. First, you have to *prove* that there is a way to differentiate. Can these files actually do the things you are saying?
> 
> I really dont care either way what happens in this matter, but your reasoning here just doesnt compute to me without actual proof.



Yesh their is, you could put the copy of the flame file if you could attach it and copy the answer of the formulaic response that you created after the final image is rendered. I think. I am not sure on this though :/



WarMocK said:


> The question is: could you (re)produce fractals if someone took your "fractal creator tools" away? Could you find a substitute for it?
> 
> The fractal artist could replace his renderer with _______________________________



Unfortunately stripping this from the artist means them not using it as a medium anymore. :/



Samuel said:


> If you suck at making fractals, and you wish to improve, you would not just start spamming the site. So, look at my suggestion for limiting the number of submissions to a certain number a day. That will force some quality control on the artist, so if it IS their style(that would suck immensely), they are not being treated unfairly. Simply put, if you need an assurance we fractal artists will not take you away from your fox cock for too long, the ten-a-day policy seems a better fit than trying to say that Apophysis is a generator. As we stated, if it is a generator, so are a lot of other things that CAN be abused, but are not, because if someone posted a lot of low-quality junk using them, they'd get mobbed.



Spamming should be anything more then 40 in a week. I see where you are coming from xD.



WarMocK said:


> Oh and btw: I like fractals VERY much (I have dozens of them as wallpapers), but if their
> creation voilates the rules - there still is DA.



Aww, don't go every opinion matters. :/

And as for DA I really like FA and really don't have the time right now nor the resources to upkeep two places so I hope you understand that. Hope you come back. 



skittle said:


> There should be no problem allowing fractals. You have bigger issues to deal with than going around and dealing with them. If you get whiney about someone spamming them, unwatch them. Really, you have people running around here treating this place like it is myspace and you are worried about a form of real art? Come on. Fractals are ART. Let them stay. Worry and put your energies into other things more important.



Thanks Skittle for your opinion, means alot to me *hugs you close* Danke.



DireWolf505 said:


> I find fractal art interesting, and just as meaningful as anything else on FA.
> 
> I say, art is art.
> 
> ...



Welcome and thanks for adding your opinion. *Blushes and tailwags*



SkippOtter said:


> To ban fractals because you believe they are not art, what about the hundreds of thousands of submissions by artists that have no artistic concept at all.  Many artists could not tell you what gesture, perspective, contour, value, proportion, or any of a hundred other things that an artist knows and considers when making artwork.  Do you suggest also banning artwork that is simply made to post something and the supposed 'artist' has no thought or emotion in the piece?



I agree there is emotion behind every piece and glad you feel that way too. I put so much work on my abstract arts that I have been writing this for over a day now. :/



foxystallion said:


> The word "generators" has been thrown about wildly without definition.
> 
> Please define the word "generator".  The AUP does not define it.
> 
> ...



Both mediums have the same ability to use poetry and to create an image that is clearly a piece of art and should be allowed. Very interesting input. ^^




Nanakisan said:


> the line is very thin on renderer and generator.



I agree and I hope that line will be traversed through the many opinions that people hold on this site. ^^



Damaratus said:


> Generated images are such that a piece of software (written by someone else) has done more of the work in the creation of the overall image than the artist.  Avatars made from character generators fall under this, the software has provided all the pre-made parts for the character, the user simply puts them together; Terragen does the same thing, the software takes the settings and renders a landscape; Apophysis appears to do this as well, the user may set all the numbers in question, but the software does the brunt of the work in the creation of the final image.



The overall image takes hours to create, and is brought to some plateau. I think that I understand where you are coming from but I do not get why you think it does the work for you. Each thing must be manipulated in an infinite amount of ways to get a particular image to go with your mood. Its not as easy as clicking and changing it around. Do I think people make some images this way? Yes, I know that people do but I start with a single pixel, the triangle null'd of any products and then change little things here and there and start to add and compile different shapes and lines to increase the images appeal. Changing each one's variables to see how it overall effects the image and to see how it changes my composition. If it were otherwise, then I wouldn't have felt this strongly about it, losing sleep and having lost most of my motivation to draw let alone to create fractals.

Its through that work that is something from the start, use a program like Photoshop to add a background and change lights and add some more stuff to enhance the image. I give depth and the image that was originally created was already created. I think to say that my hours, of manipulating every point for that time and saying that it does more of the work then I do, I disagree. Hope you could see the validity in my point.  



Damaratus said:


> The arguments here have made it evident that some people do put a lot more thought into the creation of fractal artwork, my arguments may seem to be against allowing fractals, but I am in no way simply writing it off.  I am trying to make sure that the differences between fractal art and non-generated content are understood, as well present any flaws in my own arguments, I'm clearly not infalable, just under a particular impression and arguing the point until some end is reached.



I am glad that you are listening to us and giving us a chance to speak. Thank you it means a lot to me that this or anything else written won't be written off. Hope what I say helps in the situation. 



Nanakisan said:


> y
> I love the program.
> heck i'm rendering a image as we speak.



Glad you can, I am completely torn because of the circumstances. :/


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 16, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> I'm not sure that I could personally discern a well thought out fractal versus one that was simply randomly generated by someone who happens to just get their hands on it (this I would consider a problem).



If you look at each random image and the one's posted, there is a clear cut way that they have been manipulated and changed with the scope with an artist hand. Using the program over a month now you begin to start to notice how complex and how hard it is when you clear the image to a single pixel and start with a blank triangle devoid of anything besides size and definition. Could this be abused? Unfortunately everything and anything could be.




Damaratus said:


> The second thing I have realized is that there are folks who may be able to tell the difference, and that taking the time to put in one's own parameters or write their own scripts for creation of fractals is something that sets it apart from randomly generating something via the software and calling it a finished piece.  This, of course, means that just as copying and tracing are policed on FA, fractals will have to have a set guideline, which you have previously mentioned, but it has to be something that can be readily enforced by someone who is willing to put that kind of time into things.
> 
> Unfortunately, FA's functionality does not include things that make life easy in rooting out the "good from the bad" and that's what makes the job so cumbersome.  As I have said before, I am only one voice on the staff, but I can at least pool together what's been said here and present it all to the rest of the staff for the consideration.  As long as fractals are allowed to stay, there are a few suggestions that I have.



The funny thing is I wouldn't mind looking through each one and give you some example of it if I had more time. As is I have no work, looking for it but to find out that this has happened, I have actually responded to most of everything that is being said cause I care. I just thought that the major thing is spamming. That has been brought up and I wanted to say that Spamming would be the following...

1) Using the same image more then 5 times in the person's gallery changing just colors of backgrounds and the colors of the images created.
2) Allowing only 5 images per day on average and in a week up to 40. Thus limiting some of the cumbersome amount of posts. 
3) Keeping all Fractals into a group where they could be easily monitored. Unless you involve more then just Apophysis still specifing that you use the program and still use that as the classification.
4) And if someone has a question to ask an admin who knows the deal on Fractals. 

I would help in anyway I could considering this is something I am fighting for and wouldn't mind helping. If its rules that you may need I could also help supply something if it will help things. 




Damaratus said:


> Help create a solid set of rules that help guide what fractal content is appropriate. (Some of this has already been started.)
> Create a username that basically would become a "group" but in this case it would involve watching the fractal artists, both new and old, on the site.  This way submissions can be tracked and trouble tickets filled out for anything that happens to be against the rules.
> Assign someone who will track the posts as well as update the watches as new people arrive.  The person can shift, but the job has to be done.
> 
> If the right kind of guidelines can be set up for this, it could set a precedence for the same thing for other aspects of the site.  As an additional bonus it could also help introduce fractal artists to each other.  However, if the group is not kept up to par, then things will be at risk.



So you are suggesting we monitor us as a group? So has this happened to other groups in the past?

As for your rules add the one's I made above on spamming, we need at least an Admin and a liaison or group of them to actually be actively working on this. So that way each side of things come to middle ground and this way we could function as a happy pair. 



Damaratus said:


> "Face the facts" is something that both sides have to do in order for there to be compromise.  Because while fractal artwork can be considered quite beautiful, the nature of its creation can be readily abused without the right kind of content controls.





If you require anything else about this, please feel free to talk to me considering I have spent almost 2 full days making rebuttal's on this entire thread currently. 



Dragoneer said:


> A few users come to mind, but I'm not one to kiss and tell regarding user infractions. It has been a problem. As I have stated, and said before, we have found some accounts in the past posting hundreds of fractals in an INCREDIBLY short period of time. It has been an issue, and in those instances it was argued that they were all "unique pieces of art" and that by us requesting stopping the flood of submissions, we were stagnating his artistic freedoms.



Well in a way you are. Understanding both standpoints on the matter I could see why "They" may feel that way. But we need a compromise that all of us could agree to and I think the one's I have said through my shorter post here and this line of quoting, may solve the matter or help condense it in some way. 



Damaratus said:


> For you, for someone who is used to looking at good versus bad.  To the untrained eye they could both just look very pretty.
> 
> As for your questions:
> 
> 1. It has been in the past, I cannot give you the exact date of when it happened, but I can tell you that the main gallery was spammed with a good number of fractals.  Of the 8 images that appear on the front page for artwork, half of them were spammed fractals at the time it happened.  Crappily drawn artwork is not a good argument point, because this was a question of whether it was generated content or not, not the quality of it, and that concept still applies.  If a person takes a lot of time to generate a fractal and it still looks kind of crappy (perhaps the person is a novice) then it should be allowed to stay, it's only if someone is simply randomly generating the image with Apophysis and posting it that things should be questioned, which leads to question 2.



So you want to be able to have some criteria of whether or not an image and its visual quality. Since you have had the idea of creating the group, couldn't the group help one another in a way and say if they just start if they don't know what to do they could place it in their scraps and ask us for help? Hell I need help I just started little over a month ago but I am doing pretty well considering I am an abstract artist. I think as an artist who is willing to defend their work the same should be done with Fractals. Let each artist explain what is the feeling, their concept, their mood of each piece to explain why did they create the image that they did. 

Art is also to the eye of the beholder and something that may be viewed as poor in another persons eyes could be looked as beautiful.




Damaratus said:


> 2.  Fractals will not be the only thing monitored, but this particular debate allows for a method to be put in place that can and should be applied to other groups that could potentially abuse things.  It is being monitored carefully to see if it's a viable option as well as to make sure that content control is possible.  Buy, click and drag is *not* allowed on this site, despite what it seems, but just as I might not be able to tell a time taken fractal from a randomly generated one, the same distinction has to be made based on whether someone crafted their SL character or not.



It could be inexperience on this matter, so in order to fix this we need someone to help you understand the differences between them maybe from the inside level, from a viewing level and from a community layer as well as from the artists eye as well. It may be something that may be boring, but this may help you understand. Or another Admin that is willing to do this with my suggestion I wrote previously.



Damaratus said:


> 3.  It became an issue when someone was asked to remove their stuff because it was considered "generated" content.  Many things go unchecked or undisputed because they are either not reported or not dealt with.  The staff is not large and at times things go well by the wayside (it's a fault that can be fixed).  In this case, when the user said no, the discussion was born and this is the result.  On the bright side, it has sent a potential precedence for how more difficult things can be monitored, by someone who has a more professional eye in the matter.



True. I still think an admin and a liaisons may help this situation greatly. I just hope that since if you do use this group as precedence for the situation hope the admins won't deal with us harshly. x.x;



DuncanFox said:


> Something that's been ignored by almost everyone in this thread, on both sides, comes to mind now as well: the AUP as currently written _already_ bans fractals, and fractals are already being removed.  Nothing has changed.  Nothing is changing.
> 
> The admins aren't too receptive, either.  I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.  Perhaps it should be taken as a hint.
> 
> ... Perhaps the admins should just make an explicit statement.  Or should I say, re-statement, as it's already stated pretty clearly in the AUP.



The point is that was originally made was its not art, which we have come to a conclusion it is, and the next was how to monitor it and prevent people from utilizing it in a negative light. I hope that they will really let us fractalist a chance to really do what we love to do. Abstract creation through Apophysis. 



Damaratus said:


> You're quite welcome.
> At the time that we put the limitations on, it was because we had a rash of many different generator content images that were being spammed on the site.  The decision to exclude some of the things may have been knee-jerk at the time or simply it was how the staff viewed the subject matter.  You are correct in that it was also a violation of the spamming rules and should have been handled in that fashion as well.
> 
> The generator rule up to this point did cover fractals, but was not enforced at the levels that it should have been.



I see, so no one has been monitoring this from the site? Just wondering. Not saying this in a bad way because I am wondering what has been done against fractals. 



Damaratus said:


> The group concept is meant to do that, it acts as both a method of moderation and a social network for folks who partake in the same craft, giving room for critique, opinion and growth.  It's why I suggested it.



Hope What I added before will help it grow to something manageable ;3



Damaratus said:


> Civility normally leads to an end result because it doesn't involve mindless bickering.



I agree with this and hope that this will provide a suitable end to this long and time consuming bout. I have been doing this for over two days now.

Trying to write to everyone's responses. x..x This has also killed my creative juices. *sighs* Not that is your fault just making a general statement. 

For those that haven't read my first statement, here it is.



thoron said:


> If the parameters that the program gives initially are wiped clean, reset to zero and started from scratch, it wouldn't in my opinion at least count as generated image.





Lonely Gabu said:


> It was brought to the light of my attention to repost what I said here, just in case if it is missed.
> 
> "Dragoneer and fellow Admins, coders, the staff of Fur Affinity, fellow fractal artists, and random furs/people that love the site. I disagree, and would like to add that I think "Fractal's" is more of an art form regardless of its point and click deposition. What is art?
> 
> ...



Hope its not too long but I hope this helps. I worked really hard to do this... *Blushes and sighs*

Hope you read all this and thanks for reading it.

I could go more in depth if anyone likes me too.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 17, 2008)

Thank you, Gabu. You have said a lot of the things I wish I could have put better when I first raised this issue with the Admins of FA. While this does not cover everything, I think we have a good start to negotiating the possible place of fractals in the scheme of things, and hope that as we discuss this further, we reach an argeement of sorts as to what rules and regulations best apply for controlling and managing fractals as an artform and as an Admin issue.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

Oh good god, giant walls of text... o____O


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Lol Dragoneer. xD

Is this the complaint you're submitting to the internet? (Points to avatar).


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Lol Dragoneer. xD
> 
> Is this the complaint you're submitting to the internet? (Points to avatar).


Oh, me and Internet have been on the phone for over a week bitching back and forth. I have a massive pet peeve with giant, huge walls of text.

Also, Internet would like to remind you to brush your teeth. Don't forget to get that brush all the way in the back. Only you can stop cavity fires.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

... Lol.

I'm too tired right now to make any reply to that.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 17, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Oh, me and Internet have been on the phone for over a week bitching back and forth. I have a massive pet peeve with giant, huge walls of text.
> 
> Also, Internet would like to remind you to brush your teeth. Don't forget to get that brush all the way in the back. Only you can stop cavity fires.



*reaches hand out of phone and pulls your head into it

seems internet is hungry for neer head

*trys to pulls neer out of phone.


----------



## rexar (Dec 17, 2008)

Most of the interaction in Photoshop is toggles, sliders and variables. There's little skill used to create a picture (though, I admit there's a difference in just creating a picture and creating a GOOD picture).

A fractal artist uses skill, knowledge of mathematics, composition, texture, algorithms, the theory of complex variables, and more. It's not just "plop" and there it goes. There's much underlying manual skill, creative thinking, planning and more involved. It's not even close as a comparison.

Silly rewordings aside, did I miss the part of the AUP that says who gets to decide what is and isn't art?  Because here's the closest thing I see that could possibly be relevant:

--
Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia
Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites (including Fur Affinity) or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content. â€œUser created contentâ€ is defined as items of artistic interest created by the user (e.g. texture maps, 3D meshes, background images, animated characters, interfaces, etc.). Pre-generated characters (e.g. World of Warcraft avatars) and art or characters created by â€œcharacter generatorsâ€ are not permitted.
--

"Pre-generated" this ain't, and that screenshot underlines that, whether you wanted it to or not.  Even with a program like that, exactly what an artist does with it is entirely a matter of creative interest--there's an awful lot that thing can do, and you've just barely scratched the surface.

Short of that, I don't see any provisions for this kind of arbitration.

Have you ever seen two artists create even vaguely the same fractal pattern?  I've met these people before.  They don't just move around a bunch of sliders.  They have a vision in mind, and they use these tools to put that vision into an image.  These things carry emotion and purpose, and if you'd ever sat down and talked to these people (and I don't mean on the internet), you'd know that.  Who's uploading 400 fractals?  Who?  Did somebody actually do that?  No.  You made up a frivolous example, because the process of making these things isn't just some whiz-bang production line.  These people are creating something, not just pulling a lever.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

rexar said:


> Most of the interaction in Photoshop is toggles, sliders and variables. There's little skill used to create a picture (though, I admit there's a difference in just creating a picture and creating a GOOD picture).


That's not Photoshop at all... no.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 17, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> That's not Photoshop at all... no.


Not only is that correct, but it's also coming from somebody who KNOWS Photoshop.


----------



## TakeWalker (Dec 17, 2008)

It seems to me the OP is on a crusade, single-mindedly determined to get fractals allowed, no matter what, hence the continued ignoring of non-acceptance from the admins and nonsensical "Photoshop is a generator too" arguments I keep seeing.

In fact, the main arguments seem to be:

Fractals are art (I won't argue with that one, they're pretty.)

Apophysis is a generator but it isn't.

Some non-fractal artwork has been allowed/enjoyed/uploaded to FA, and thus fractals should be allowed.

I think it's time to call it quits, man.

And did that guy just quote the entire thread or what? o.o


----------



## blackpuma (Dec 17, 2008)

I vote that they should stay, but with the suggested limit. Because I find it really annoying when it fills my inbox so much I have to delete the entire current page just to get to the non-fractal art.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 17, 2008)

rexar said:


> Most of the interaction in Photoshop is toggles, sliders and variables. There's little skill used to create a picture (though, I admit there's a difference in just creating a picture and creating a GOOD picture).



Uhh with the others, you obviously haven't used Photoshop. Bad art, or good art. Having used Photoshop for over 10 years you can't in the same time as a fractal generator just create a new document and have something "postable".

By the way, Painter was "Fractal Design Painter" and it still has a fractal generator in it, along with "traditional" (as in the mediums translated) painting tools. Just FYI since it's in the program itself. Then again, the time I use fractals in Painter is to create a texture. 

The problem with limits is how are they enforced? As of no time have I seen any kind of "limitation" counter (in the software/code) for any artwork submitted, while we have posted limits it will fall into the "until it's reported as a violation" a person can post as much as one wants, until he/she is busted.


----------



## Eevee (Dec 17, 2008)

Lonely Gabu said:


> Then what do you want to judge the subject matter on then? Would my idea of limiting fractals to 40 per week per user a good idea?


I'm sorry, but this and the continued simplification of photography are rapidly eroding any sympathy I may have for your plight.  That's one fractal *every four hours*, assuming you _never eat or sleep_.  One of my best friends, an excellent artist, and _fastest_ I know at any medium she picks has 110 works uploaded to FA in the *two years* she has been here.  In that same time, you propose that you should be _limited_ to *four thousand, one hundred sixty* fractals.  Something is very, very wrong here.

Photography is actually a very good comparison to draw, but not for the reasons you all seem to think.

Any idiot can go outside and take snapshots.  Any camera pricier than $20 will probably produce something decent-looking, too.

_That doesn't mean that photos automatically have artistic value._

This is a photo.  It is a snapshot used as nothing more than an ancillary illustration for an anecdote.
THIS is a PHOTO. So is this. And this. Even this.  They capture interesting scenes and share the way the photographer saw them -- something most people might not see, and sometimes in ways people _can't_ see.

I don't think fractals should be banned.  I don't even think terragen or Miis should be banned.  But I don't think they should be blanket accepted, either, any more than I think photography should be blanket accepted.

You can use technologically-advanced tools to create art, yes, but that doesn't make every result art.  It just _raises the standard_.  The more your tools make it harder for you to screw up, the more you have to go to the extra effort to actually show the thought and emotion and skill that makes something art.  You have to be *responsible* and not abuse your tools as a crutch to churn out piece after piece that's aesthetically pleasing only because your tools are incapable of producing otherwise.  We end up with rules against generated content because the amount of cheap work like this will naturally outnumber the good stuff by a huge margin the "better" the tool is.  Telling me that *forty per week* is a reasonable maximum makes me rather doubtful that you are doing this.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 17, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Oh good god, giant walls of text... o____O



And pretty much it is because I actually care about the subject matter spent 2 full days to type things as more things are added here. I could have wrote more explaining it in more depth. Its one of your pet peeves? I am sorry but when you care about something, you will go to great length to protect your rights and your craft in this case. Plus adding the fact I have been unable to draw and sleep trying to make sense of this really.



Samuel said:


> Thank you, Gabu. You have said a lot of the things I wish I could have put better when I first raised this issue with the Admins of FA. While this does not cover everything, I think we have a good start to negotiating the possible place of fractals in the scheme of things, and hope that as we discuss this further, we reach an argeement of sorts as to what rules and regulations best apply for controlling and managing fractals as an artform and as an Admin issue.



I'm trying. I am really trying. Thank you  *blushes*



Eevee said:


> I'm sorry, but this and the continued simplification of photography are rapidly eroding any sympathy I may have for your plight.  That's one fractal *every four hours*, assuming you _never eat or sleep_.  One of my best friends, an excellent artist, and _fastest_ I know at any medium she picks has 110 works uploaded to FA in the *two years* she has been here.  In that same time, you propose that you should be _limited_ to *four thousand, one hundred sixty* fractals.  Something is very, very wrong here.



People need to sleep so you need to account an average of 6 hours a sleep each day of the year. Plus creative indifference, art blocks, and life into the mix and work this number isn't as staggering as your painting it.

40 is a good starting point consider 5 a day for the week and then 8 each day of the weekend. Is a starting point. It won't hinder an artist from posting but it will allow them the necessary freedom to do this without feeling as if they are being singled out. 



Eevee said:


> I don't think fractals should be banned.  I don't even think terragen or Miis should be banned.  But I don't think they should be blanket accepted, either, any more than I think photography should be blanket accepted.
> 
> You can use technologically-advanced tools to create art, yes, but that doesn't make every result art.  It just _raises the standard_.  The more your tools make it harder for you to screw up, the more you have to go to the extra effort to actually show the thought and emotion and skill that makes something art.  You have to be *responsible* and not abuse your tools as a crutch to churn out piece after piece that's aesthetically pleasing only because your tools are incapable of producing otherwise.  We end up with rules against generated content because the amount of cheap work like this will naturally outnumber the good stuff by a huge margin the "better" the tool is.  Telling me that *forty per week* is a reasonable maximum makes me rather doubtful that you are doing this.



No the number of 40 is because their are some people out there that could pump one every hour. Its not that difficult to create a product at a lower rendering. Keeping the idea of their thing simple adds to it. See as a photographer myself I could take my whole's cards worth of shots because you never know how other vantages of the some subject may represent your idea. I could flood a camera with 800 images at a time at the highest quality. Upload them to a computer and since I take time to look through things maybe I may choose 10% of them for a portfolio. I can take 800 images on any SLR with rolling shots or even upping your speeds on the shutter.

With that said, the reason I say 40 is not because we are trying to post our craft here and have it on the site. Many fractalists could post way more then an image an hour, but we don't and if I wanted to make this point I really could. Be able to create and successfully upload one, every hour, on the hour. Doesn't mean that it downs the creativeness if I am at that level just like people make badges in 10 minutes, full color and post it, they aren't denied posting mass stuff are they? Technically since its different characters, no. Same thing with each image you take with a photo or with any type piece of art. 

Having "Some" limit rather then not having one is better then doing nothing to the situation as is. Giving us less of the number would hinder those that could create those images. Atleast this way, by talking about things we could bring it to a light of understanding.


----------



## Eevee (Dec 17, 2008)

Lonely Gabu said:


> People need to sleep so you need to account an average of 6 hours a sleep each day of the year.


No, actually, I was being generous.  Accounting for sleep means you take *less than three hours* to produce a fractal (16 hours/day * 7 days/week / (40 fractals/week) = 2.8 hours/fractal), but still has the same total for a whole year (40 fractals/week * 52 weeks/year * 2 years = 4160 fractals/year).



Lonely Gabu said:


> Plus creative indifference, art blocks, and life into the mix and work this number isn't as staggering as your painting it.


I'm just going by your own "reasonable" limit.



Lonely Gabu said:


> 40 is a good starting point consider 5 a day for the week and then 8 each day of the weekend. Is a starting point.


If you are churning these out that fast and feel they are all excellent enough to upload, _something is wrong_.



Lonely Gabu said:


> Many fractalists could post way more then an image an hour


So, what, it's pretty trivial to create them en masse like they were nothing?

Everything you're saying here is just convincing me further that these things take a minimum of ability to produce.



Lonely Gabu said:


> Doesn't mean that it downs the creativeness if I am at that level just like people make badges in 10 minutes, full color and post it, they aren't denied posting mass stuff are they?


Most badges I see uploaded are very high quality, montages of multiple badges, or both.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2008)

Eevee said:


> That's one fractal *every four hours*, assuming you _never eat or sleep_.  One of my best friends, an excellent artist, and _fastest_ I know at any medium she picks has 110 works uploaded to FA in the *two years* she has been here.  In that same time, you propose that you should be _limited_ to *four thousand, one hundred sixty* fractals.  Something is very, very wrong here.



Feh, most artists can crank out sketches at least once every thirty minutes.

The rest of your points I agree with.

To everyone else: Stop talking, goddamn. Allow fractals the same way you allow photos and sketches. Sure, fractals must have a program that produces them. The problem is that people have it drilled into their heads that these programs are the only thing that contributes to the creation of a piece of fractal work. So you group the people who take the time to properly compose, color, and generally _think about_ their fractals with those who spend 5 minutes in Apophysis to make something shiny to show their friends. You know, just like we don't allow photography because of the people who take snapshots of their plushies.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Aden said:


> You know, just like we don't allow photography because of the people who take snapshots of their plushies.



Doesnt it go to say that since the photography submissions are quite under enforced (I dont think using FA as photobucket is allowed, I could be wrong though) wouldnt it go to say this, being very similar, would also go under enforced? Pretty much, its only a violation if someone reports it?

Ideally, I do think Fractals should be allowed. But as Arshes said, the problem comes when trying to enforce the rules over these submissions.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 17, 2008)

Emil said:


> Doesnt it go to say that since the photography submissions are quite under enforced (I dont think using FA as photobucket is allowed, I could be wrong though) wouldnt it go to say this, being very similar, would also go under enforced? Pretty much, its only a violation if someone reports it?
> 
> Ideally, I do think Fractals should be allowed. But as Arshes said, the problem comes when trying to enforce the rules over these submissions.



Under Current AUP snapshots are limited and are requested to go to scraps vs actual photography. There are listed guidelines in the TOS/AUP as to what is considered acceptable photography. It's however, not likely to be noticed if someone reaches the allotted scrap limit if say, someone is submitting snapshots once a quarter. As I stated before there isn't a hard code that detects this, and it's only done if a user likes looking through a gallery and finds out and wants to report the person.

Problem 2, which is an internal/staff issue, too much "personal" resources are done to enforce the rules. Instead of just receiving a general note that your submission has been taken down, then a way of linking to contact/contest the takedown to a "Department" it links to the person who took it down and it gets too personal instead of having a general area to review.

This means that admins are far more likely to take a lax approach as long as it's "not harming anyone" since something that should be considered a minor violation/vs a MAJOR issue becomes one, since people tend to pitch fits over take downs. After all, at this current state, staff doesn't have staff emails to deal with unhappy patrons. (I recall this is being taken care of, and don't know when it will be implemented). No one wants their personal emails used for "Work" in the sense that you have people screaming at you over site issues.

Right now, I'm neutral towards fractals, I only "care" about them when I'm listening to music, and even then most of the time I use foobar. Half of the time I just shake my head at the chaos modernism has created with art. While I'm certainly not an artist that only cares about realism, as I like other periods of time like Impressionism, cartoons and art done for games, graphics. Some ways I feel like people are so obsessed with being an artist publicly and treating it like some PC movement, that everyone at least deserves a 9th place ribbon.


----------



## Eevee (Dec 17, 2008)

Aden said:


> Feh, most artists can crank out sketches at least once every thirty minutes.


Yes, but those are _sketches_.  They are rough drafts at best.  Nothing wrong with uploading anything that never got out of the sketch phase, but I would similarly question someone who produced a lot of sketches and felt the need to upload every single one.  They're just steps in the creative process that occasionally shine enough to share.

Fractals are being presented here as finished pieces.



Aden said:


> You know, just like we don't allow photography because of the people who take snapshots of their plushies.


Which we shouldn't allow, but the AUP is too concerned with restating the same basic "only upload crap you created" principle half a dozen times and outright avoids addressing what should count as "creation" in the first place.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 17, 2008)

I dont care as long its isnt spam...and in my book 40 a week is spam, just saying its that easy to make'em


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 17, 2008)

I'd actually be more comfortable with 2 a day instead of 5


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

As has been stated multiple times; limits are fine.

We can go ahead with said "Fractal" group, and have a head of said group to keep track of everyone else, along with everyone keeping track of each other as well.

This way any blatant disregard to rules will be reported, and said user will be talked to.



And I agree. Those fractal artists that pump out fractals 5-10 a day are simply not trying. If you look at my fractals, unless it is after a return from a long vacation away or something, I have rarely uploaded more than 1 a day, and a LOT of them have a good week in-between fractal uploads. It depends on who the artist is and how much they care about their work.

And to rebuttal your comment, Eevee, I have myself seen a few artists that pump out entire, fully done works more than 10 times a day and whatnot. Not because of a long break or anything; it's regular.

Just saying.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

Lonely Gabu said:


> And pretty much it is because I actually care about the subject matter spent 2 full days to type things as more things are added here. I could have wrote more explaining it in more depth. Its one of your pet peeves? I am sorry but when you care about something, you will go to great length to protect your rights and your craft in this case. Plus adding the fact I have been unable to draw and sleep trying to make sense of this really.


Actually? Yes, yes I do.

And while I care about something, I care about being presented the facts. Serve them up in an honest, open and easy to digest format. Information overload waters down the thread without entirely contributing to it for benefit. If I have to search for the legitimate concerns as to why changes should be implemented... then it doesn't support your cause. And it doesn't help the admins easily decipher as to the reasons you feel we should allow Fractals.

I shouldn't need to have to dissect posts to break them down from the wheat and the chaff.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 17, 2008)

Eevee said:


> No, actually, I was being generous.  Accounting for sleep means you take *less than three hours* to produce a fractal (16 hours/day * 7 days/week / (40 fractals/week) = 2.8 hours/fractal), but still has the same total for a whole year (40 fractals/week * 52 weeks/year * 2 years = 4160 fractals/year).
> 
> 
> I'm just going by your own "reasonable" limit.


You are pushing it to its limit some people because of life may be able to produce one a day and twice on a weekend. Meaning they only produce 9 of course going below the limit? Don't think someone may post all that that is why for those that could possibly churn out the amount because they are good at what they do, then it is something. 





Eevee said:


> If you are churning these out that fast and feel they are all excellent enough to upload, _something is wrong_.
> 
> Everything you're saying here is just convincing me further that these things take a minimum of ability to produce.
> 
> Most badges I see uploaded are very high quality, montages of multiple badges, or both.



Actually my sister for instance Shadowpelt could create a badge in under 30 minutes each. Her quality isn't at all bad. Some people could work faster then others because thats what they do for a living or that's what they do so it builds speed. I know people that could do a full sketch of someone in under 5 minutes that beat some great masters? So your point I don't get.

If someone works at a craft, they get slightly faster and have more character. So i really don't know why you are saying that my minimum is more then sufficient. You make it sound like if we make it 40 that their will be someone that will post 40 every week consistently. I highly doubt it. So 40 is a good starting point.


----------



## Lonely Gabu (Dec 17, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Actually? Yes, yes I do.
> 
> And while I care about something, I care about being presented the facts. Serve them up in an honest, open and easy to digest format. Information overload waters down the thread without entirely contributing to it for benefit. If I have to search for the legitimate concerns as to why changes should be implemented... then it doesn't support your cause. And it doesn't help the admins easily decipher as to the reasons you feel we should allow Fractals.
> 
> I shouldn't need to have to dissect posts to break them down from the wheat and the chaff.



This is not so easily achieved when I can't freeze what is being said in time, and try and come back and decipher whats being said. so I replied to 90% of the people even cutting down what they said to actually discuss how I felt. 

Was I being excessive? Yes I was and I apologize for that but 2 days of forums and I missed a lot in between some of which needed to responded too I could have just summed up everything but rather have the ability to quote those that said things so therefore my opinion has a platform. 

As for reasons, I wrote a short approach letter before. Thought that you guys would read it. If you would like I could send it to you and the Admins if it would help.

If I could help then please let me know.


----------



## Petrock (Dec 17, 2008)

I'm not entirely sure how FA would consider this, but it's easy to MAKE (ie pixel-by-pixel) fractal-like images in ANY art program. It's NO different than coloring. Would they take that down just because it looks like something else?

And what about filter effects in Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro? Wouldn't those technically be outlawed under current FA rules?

I say let generator-based content be allowed. There's too many things that ARE user-generated that ARE allowed for this rule to make any sense.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Well, to be totally honest it's impossible to make a true fractal with anything else but a flame algorithm.

However, your point holds true in some cases. It has been discussed in more depth previously.


----------



## Renard_v (Dec 17, 2008)

Does this mean we're going to start removing Photoshop graphics where nothing but pre-defined effects and layer styles are used?


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 17, 2008)

I see the merits from the arguments on both sides. Personally, I love fractals and I agree that they are, indeed, a work of art.

The problem that I have -- and I've been saying this for years when it comes to FA -- is that people are talking about adding these art styles when they're not particularly furry. If you want to express yourself with art creations that aren't furry-related, there's always sites like deviantART.

I've heard the argument, "Well, it's furry-related because the artists producing the work is furry." That's a good argument, but it has a flaw.

I'm a musician and I -- as well as other musicians -- submit a lot of music that isn't furry-related, but I feel that lyrical content should only be restricted by genre instead of theme. 'Sides, a lot of music is not accompanied by art (a thumbnail, maybe) and it appeals to the ears and not to the eyes.

It's all about what we _see_ on the front page. Should FA allow fractals? If they allow fractals, what else would they feel obligated to allow if fractals are the exception to the AUP violation? When someone visits the *Fur*Affinity front page, what are we going to see? Not a lot of anthropomorphic work, at least, that's my concern.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Good point, except for a few flaws in itself.

One: Hearing is a sense, just as seeing is, correct? One sense does not have higher priority over the other, so that doesn't make too much sense, (pardon the pun).

Also, it wouldn't be the ONLY exception for the AUP. There's PLENTY already. This is just to add another one. Especially since they are revising the AUP, it's a good time to bring it up

Also, think about it. Anthro art will still GREATLY overpower fractal art. With a ratio of something along the lines of 150 something furry artists to each fractal artist, even if that fractal artist were to upload 50 images a day, it would still get totally drowned out.



Also, thank you for the idea.

Dragoneer, Damaratus, Coders and all. Why don't we simply add a separate section on the front page for fractal artwork? Kind of how music and stories go. It won't appear on the recent submission list, and will only be viewable from there.


----------



## Aden (Dec 17, 2008)

Alex Cross said:


> The problem that I have -- and I've been saying this for years when it comes to FA -- is that people are talking about adding these art styles when they're not particularly furry. If you want to express yourself with art creations that aren't furry-related, there's always sites like deviantART.
> 
> I've heard the argument, "Well, it's furry-related because the artists producing the work is furry." That's a good argument, but it has a flaw.
> 
> ...



Or you can look at it another way and see that the people making the fractal artwork are furries.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Why don't we simply add a separate section on the front page for fractal artwork? Kind of how music and stories go. It won't appear on the recent submission list, and will only be viewable from there.


No. Now you're just asking for too much, and frankly... that's a silly request. There's almost no fractals on FA period. Redoing the display sections for a vastly minority art is just not a good idea.


----------



## timoran (Dec 17, 2008)

My opinion on this matter (I tend to chime in on dramatic forum posts when the site goes down):

1. Who decides whether the human or the generator does "most of" the work? Is it measured in time? CPU cycles? Perhaps a fractalist (har) would spend three hours setting up one of these things while the computer spits the PNG image out in thirty seconds. If the argument is that there's a lot of complex math involved, I guess everyone who uses Photoshop filters is fucked.
2. I dislike this form of "art" personally but will defend to my death your justification to post it as "art". (Note how I said justification and not _right_.)
3. Spamming is a problem that isn't just limited to generated art. Any type of image which is posted in excess of, let's say, 50 per day (dumps excepted) suggests a lack of quality control. The number of posts alone isn't an indicator of a lack of quality control, but it's like obscenity - "you know it when you see it." Currently FA has no minimum effort criteria for drawn art.
4. I agree with Alkora that there is absolutely, positively nothing furry about fractals. It's a fallacy to use an example of something else which is not furry that is allowed as a reason that these should be allowed. It's not a fallacy to point out that leniency is being applied to one medium, but not another. Instrumental music, IMHO, is also something that has absolutely, positively nothing furry about it. Drawn pictures of humans also have nothing furry about them. Should those be banned? They add some character to the site, so I would only support banning anything not furry if there's a scarcity of resources. With the huge servers that were bought with the community's thousands of dollars in donations, I have my doubts that that is the case.
5. 





			
				dragoneer said:
			
		

> True, but we have no way of taking action against people who just put up bad fractals. We're not here to judge art quality, so if we allow fractals, it doesn't matter what quality they are.


Instead you judge whether a medium as a whole is art. I would prefer that you judge art quality case by case. As I stated above, if someone is able to "spam" the site with fractals, they can be reasonably be judged as poor quality.
6. Don't any of you, kewlhotrod and Dragoneer both included, get confused or misrepresent the way FurAffinity works. It is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Like it or not, Dragoneer has the power to judge content based on his personal preferences. It doesn't matter if the majority of the community agrees with a viewpoint or one viewpoint has a better argument than the other. If Dragoneer decided the site is being flooded with red fox art, does he have the power to institute a ban on red fox art? Absolutely. And as for the thousands of dollars donated to FA, they are not stock certificates and not represented as such, and your donations are meaningless with regard to the decision making process, so don't bother bringing that up.


----------



## Steel Froggy (Dec 17, 2008)

If people are worried about them not showing up on the front page, why not just not have them show up?
If it's submitted under the fractal category, then they wont' show up on the front page.

*still neutral against them*


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> One: Hearing is a sense, just as seeing is, correct? One sense does not have higher priority over the other, so that doesn't make too much sense, (pardon the pun).



Pun has been pardoned.

Unfortunately, seeing how the front page is constructed, the sense of sight has a higher priority over everything else unless Dragoneer and the administration decide to, one day, let people stream music on the front page. Now I'm not saying that I prefer that. It's just that the way FA was constructed is based on that sensual preference.



> Also, it wouldn't be the ONLY exception for the AUP. There's PLENTY already. This is just to add another one. Especially since they are revising the AUP, it's a good time to bring it up



True, but when do we cross the line in terms of exceptions? We have so many. At this rate, if we set up all these exceptions, then the AUP will ultimately have to be rewritten and delaying the inevitable would make people -- who have violated the current AUP -- even more upset.



> Also, think about it. Anthro art will still GREATLY overpower fractal art. With a ratio of something along the lines of 150 something furry artists to each fractal artist, even if that fractal artist were to upload 50 images a day, it would still get totally drowned out.



That is also true, but I think that what you're aiming for will open up the floodgates for other art mediums to be accepted and then the ratio, that you're currently presenting, will compact even more from 150-1 to 100-1 and so on. I know it's a slippery slope argument, which is often fallacious, so I'm posing this as a concern more than a persuasive argument.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

timoran said:


> 6. Don't any of you, kewlhotrod and Dragoneer both included, get confused or misrepresent the way FurAffinity works. It is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Like it or not, Dragoneer has the power to judge content based on his personal preferences.


This is not Dragoneer Affinity, I'm sorry. FA is mostly run as a democracy, and I carry the "veto" vote as needed. I rarely exercise said power. Decisions that are made are done so_ with the best interest of the site_, not _in the best interests of me. _You can ask yak, you can ask Damaratus, you can ask previous admins. While I've made my fair share of mistakes, I've had my own opinions and ideas shot down more often than not. At worst I'd be accused of being a procrastinator -vs- being an imperialist.


timoran said:


> It doesn't matter if the majority of the community agrees with a viewpoint or one viewpoint has a better argument than the other. If Dragoneer decided the site is being flooded with red fox art, does he have the power to institute a ban on red fox art? Absolutely.


I have the power, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and try to find a way to piss off the entire community. I'd never do that, at least never intentionally.


timoran said:


> And as for the thousands of dollars donated to FA, they are not stock certificates and not represented as such, and your donations are meaningless with regard to the decision making process, so don't bother bringing that up.


Since almost all donations are completely anonymous... there's few faces I can put to the donating name. There are some particular people who have donated extremely significant amounts, but they don't get preferential treatment, special status or whatnot. They do, however, get my fullest respect and I would gladly buy 'em a beer at a con and treat 'em like royalty. Because, frankly, they're god awesome.

But no, no donation has ever influenced FA policies. At all.


----------



## timoran (Dec 17, 2008)

I would also like to point out that I do not personally see a difference between fractals coming out of this program and Terragen. Having worked with Terragen, it's largely the same premise of providing inputs to influence the color, shape, and features of the output which is generated using math (again, the use of math to generate output would be a terrible criterion on which to judge art, since Photoshop filters are the same damn thing). And to me, the inexperienced viewer, in both cases those outputs will all tend to look similar to one another regardless of the amount of effort involved in the inputs. And I still think that for both, given effort and trial and error on the inputs, and quality control to the outputs, with some "message" or literary value attached to the medium, it could be considered art. Perhaps art for which the majority of the community (apparently not) or admins (apparently so) has a distaste, but art no less.

Thus, any decision made for one should apply equally to the other, IMHO. I'll also point out that both tools might be great as background generators for drawn art.

If any of you feel differently about this similarity, I'd like to know how you feel they are fundamentally different.


----------



## LonelyFox (Dec 17, 2008)

I love fractals and they are MUCH harder to make than people think, I know I have tried and it takes real talent to make a good fractal. some of them are my favorite pictures on FA, my favorite artist being kingrondo, and I look forward to seeing all the new fractals he comes up with. it is truly an art and is self created, not just some machine or computerized code making it for you. it really takes time and patience and skill to do fractals, and therefor they should be allowed


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 17, 2008)

LonelyFox said:


> I love fractals and they are MUCH harder to make than people think, I know I have tried and it takes real talent to make a good fractal. some of them are my favorite pictures on FA, my favorite artist being kingrondo, and I look forward to seeing all the new fractals he comes up with. it is truly an art and is self created, not just some machine or computerized code making it for you. it really takes time and patience and skill to do fractals, and therefor they should be allowed



If FA allowed _everything_ that took a lot of time, patience and skill to do, anthro media would be swept away in a flood of non-anthro submissions.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 17, 2008)

Alex Cross said:


> If FA allowed _everything_ that took a lot of time, patience and skill to do, anthro media would be swept away in a flood of non-anthro submissions.



No, no it would not. The name of the website is "Fur Affinity" - That welcomes a certain type of artwork.

I have to constantly remind artists that it is OK to upload human artwork. There are artists on FA who upload primarily human illustrations. They're good at it, it's what they do, and there are people on FA who prefer human artwork, believe it or not. But they're still on FA, because human artwork is allowed, and they enjoy finding artists who draw that way.

Anyway, yeah, the idea that "anthro" media would be swept away in general just isn't going to happen. Even if Fur Affinity's name was changed to "Art Affinity", the majority of works uploaded would still be "anthro".


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> Even if Fur Affinity's name was changed to "Art Affinity", the majority of works uploaded would still be "anthro".



Anthro art is hardly the majority on other sites, such as DA. What makes you think if you removed the only real thing that defines this as a furry site, that it would *stay* a furry site? Because the current membership is furries? Without something defining this site as primarily being for furries and their interests, more and more non furs would move in, and you would see anthro art as a small minority, same as it is on other sites.


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 17, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> No, no it would not. The name of the website is "Fur Affinity" - That welcomes a certain type of artwork.
> 
> I have to constantly remind artists that it is OK to upload human artwork. There are artists on FA who upload primarily human illustrations. They're good at it, it's what they do, and there are people on FA who prefer human artwork, believe it or not. But they're still on FA, because human artwork is allowed, and they enjoy finding artists who draw that way.
> 
> Anyway, yeah, the idea that "anthro" media would be swept away in general just isn't going to happen. Even if Fur Affinity's name was changed to "Art Affinity", the majority of works uploaded would still be "anthro".



I never said it's not OK to upload human artwork, but I do believe that there needs to be some sort of limit of exceptions granted in the AUP in respect to those who have established an identity as furry artists.

I don't think there's any guarantee that anthro media _wouldn't_ be swept away in general either.

Let me roll back the tape for a moment.

A few months ago, there was a discussion of whether FA should allow Terragen submissions. Again, the suggested art medium -- while it's a great medium -- was very specific and the conversation ultimately boiled down to whether or not FA should accept 3D renders. 

The problem is that people are suggesting these mediums in a "pick-and-choose" manner, making any possible additions or revisions of the AUP to be confusing. "We won't allow certain renders but we'll accept fractals." Then people will be like, "Huh?" 

What we need to do is go back to the bigger picture and ask if FA should allow certain types of artwork while preserving the whole FurAffinity ambiance. That's a tight-rope balancing act, I know, but I'm afraid that what we're doing right now will jeopardize the AUP and make it confusing.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 17, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> As of no time have I seen any kind of "limitation" counter (in the software/code) for any artwork submitted


Not only is it nonexistent, but any kind of software-coded limit is all-or-nothing.  Computers can't tell a fractal from a photograph from a pencil drawing from a Photoshop.



Aden said:


> ...So you group the people who take the time to properly compose, color, and generally _think about_ their fractals with those who spend 5 minutes in Apophysis to make something shiny to show their friends.


Unfortunately, that sort of distinction must be performed by the submitter, it is not something that can be easily identified at a glance, especially when you don't have many people (much less staff or moderators) properly versed in evaluating them.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 17, 2008)

Emil said:


> Anthro art is hardly the majority on other sites, such as DA. What makes you think if you removed the only real thing that defines this as a furry site, that it would *stay* a furry site? Because the current membership is furries? Without something defining this site as primarily being for furries and their interests, more and more non furs would move in, and you would see anthro art as a small minority, same as it is on other sites.



Example: http://www.artspots.com/ started off as a "furry only" art gallery, and later on down the line decided to expand and allow other types of artwork, such as drawings of human characters. Anthro / furry artwork is still the majority of what is submitted there.

But yeah, as long as the name "Fur Affinity" stays, then the majority of artwork uploaded will be furry-related, _regardless._ There should not be  this fear that anthro artwork would be lost among "everything else", as long as the name stays as it is.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> Example: http://www.artspots.com/ started off as a "furry only" art gallery, and later on down the line decided to expand and allow other types of artwork, such as drawings of human characters. Anthro / furry artwork is still the majority of what is submitted there.



It still defines itself as a genre specific site, "Art Spots- Anthropomorphic and Furry Art Community" So obviously most people who dont work in that genre arnt going to post.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Alex Cross said:


> I never said it's not OK to upload human artwork, but I do believe that there needs to be some sort of limit of exceptions granted in the AUP in respect to those who have established an identity as furry artists.
> 
> I don't think there's any guarantee that anthro media _wouldn't_ be swept away in general either.
> 
> ...



Terragen is terribly different, though, in the one fact that it creates scenery. That is what it's limited to. I've seen that Terragen is a simple point and click software, and that it is easy to make something that looks good, but all it is capable of making is scenery. However, fractals are wide-spread. A fractal can be a bear, vortex, marble, sock for pete's sake, etc. Terragen will always make... sceneries.

Not that that really IS a valid argument, I'm just stating the differences.

Also... Furaffinity will never be overrun by stuff that isn't anthro. That's stretching it EXTREMELY if you think it will, hehe.



Also, my request for the box thing was simply an idea to help reduce front page clutter if that's what you were worried about. Wasn't supposed to be a 'perk' for us, as we'd get less views that way.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 17, 2008)

Emil said:


> It still defines itself as a genre specific site, "Art Spots- Anthropomorphic and Furry Art Community" So obviously most people who dont work in that genre arnt going to post.



Yes. That's the point I'm trying to get across: As long as the name displays something specific, i.e. "Fur Affinity", then this is what most of the users will upload, despite the fact that they are given the option to upload other subjects.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> Yes. That's the point I'm trying to get across: As long as the name displays something specific, i.e. "Fur Affinity", then this is what most of the users will upload, despite the fact that they are given the option to upload other subjects.



Well... you see, I just dont really get the point of this. I mean, you want to keep the site as furry, but suggesting that more and more non furry things be permitted just makes the site less and less furry specific. There will come a point that the site will be a furry site in name only.

Its kinda like, you run a Polish Club. But, in the interest of being non discriminatory, you allow non Polish people to join. Or you let them join because, as in many cases people here expressed, "Theres too many Polish people around here, I grow weary of them!" Is it really a Polish Club then? 

Im not for banning anything that isnt furry, or even for banning fractals. But realistically, there comes a point that you have to stop making concessions, or you eventually give up that which makes you, you.

I mean, no, one single thing isnt going to destroy what this site is about. But fractals, combined x, combined with y, ect will eventually add up to a point where furry is overshadowed. I mean, really, how many users dont post things they *want* to, only because they arnt allowed? 

And lets face it, even allowing one non furry thing will always open the door to debate. Its happening in this thread here "you allow this, so you should allow this" Im not saying this is a bad thing, Im just stating a fact ;>>


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Terragen is terribly different, though, in the one fact that it creates scenery. That is what it's limited to. I've seen that Terragen is a simple point and click software, and that it is easy to make something that looks good, but all it is capable of making is scenery. However, fractals are wide-spread. A fractal can be a bear, vortex, marble, sock for pete's sake, etc. Terragen will always make... sceneries.



This is where the pick-and-choose philosophy starts to rear its ugly head.

Terragen isn't as simple as "point and click" software just as Apothysis isn't. It does take effort, time and a great deal of understanding as far as how things work but Terragen produces renders nonetheless, despite Terragen and Apothysis being completely different. 



> Also... Furaffinity will never be overrun by stuff that isn't anthro. That's stretching it EXTREMELY if you think it will, hehe.



You know, on any test/exam, if you see a statement that uses absolutes like never or always is generally false. Applying it here, I wouldn't say that it would _never_ be overrun by non-anthro stuff. I'm just saying that if we continue to go this direction at this pace of suggesting these extremely specific mediums for approval, we will have a very sloppy AUP and you will start to see more non-anthro stuff than before.

Just for clarification because someone on #furaffinity asked me, I would honestly love to see different kinds of art since I'm tired of seeing exaggeratedly huge doggy dongs grace my monitor screen. At the same time, I just want some assurance that the AUP will be revised so that it's generally understood by everyone. There should be a clause for renders, but not specific additions ("You can do fractal renders but nothing else...").


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 17, 2008)

Emil said:


> Well... you see, I just dont really get the point of this. I mean, if you want to keep the site as furry, but suggesting that more and more non furry things be permitted to be posted just makes the site less and less furry specific. There will come a point that the site will be a furry site in name only.
> 
> Its kinda like, you run a Polish Club. But, in the interest of being non discriminatory, you allow non Polish people to join. Is it really a Polish Club then?
> 
> ...



All I can really say to this is: Fur Affinity _isn't_ a club, thank goodness.

Anything else I would say at this point would essentially be repeating the "as long as the name is this, then this is what most users will upload" thing.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 17, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> As I tried not to get into the nitty-gritty, it would not create the same image if you went down to the pixel level unless you were taking the picture in a vaccuum...



Not so.  The air in a typical room is so uniform that it might as well be a vacuum (unless you have a lit Bunsen burner in the scene).  I'm not guessing; I'm one of the pioneers in holographic interferometry which can easily measure optical path length changes of 1/100,000 of an inch.  With live fringe interferometry of subjects several feet across, the air in a normally heated or cooled room does not produce changes of even 1/100,000 of an inch.  A 12 megapixel camera taking a photo of an object 100" across has a resolution of 1/40 of an inch, assuming a perfect lens.

What is more relevant is the fact that a surprisingly small number of user controlled parameters can be sufficient to create art. There are only 6 or 7 user selected parameters when a photograph is taken of a pre-existing scene with a point-and-shoot camera: the camera latitude, longitude, altitude, azimuth, and elevation, and the time that the button was pressed.  The first three parameters specify the location of the camera, and the next two parameters specify which direction it is pointing.  A seventh parameter available on many cameras is zoom focal length.  Every Apophysis fractal has more than 6 or 7 user selected parameters.  Artistically skilled selection of these 6 or 7 parameters makes the difference between an image that is boring and one that is fascinating, whether your "generator" is a camera or Apophysis.  It clearly doesn't take a large number of user adjustable parameters for artistic skill to make a real difference.

But is a camera a "generator"? The lens of a camera performs a mathematical operation on the light waves passing through it called a two dimensional spacial Fourier transform.  This produces a two dimensional image on the CCD array which is a mathematical abstraction from the original three dimensional electromagnetic fields surrounding the real life three dimensional scene.  The camera's computer reads the numerical data from the CCD array, processes it with secret mathematical algorithms (sometimes very elaborately, such as using facial recognition) and creates an image data file such as a JPEG. The user merely points and shoots - which is setting only 6 or 7 parameters.  

Why isn't the camera considered to be a mere "generator"?  Because, I think, that you and everyone else who has ever taken a few pictures realizes that even a point and shoot camera can't produce art unless the person operating it is either an artist or exceedingly lucky.  

Will putting a camera in a random location, pointing it in a random direction, and clicking the shutter result in a beautiful photo? No.  The odds are hugely against it.  That is also true for Apophysis.  Random inputs into either a camera's location and orientation or into Apophysis are very unlikely to produce something beautiful.  You have Apophysis - enter some random data.  Does you picture look anything like those done by Thoron or Kewlhotrod? I doubt it.  You will probably get purple poo, the Apophysis equivalent  of a photo taken by a randomly located and pointed camera.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> All I can really say to this is: Fur Affinity _isn't_ a club, thank goodness.



It isnt? We have members... who all band together due to common interest... 



> Anything else I would say at this point would essentially be repeating the "as long as the name is this, then this is what most users will upload" thing.



Well, realistically, it has *no* possibility of being a problem at all if the only things allowed to be uploaded are anthro themed.

I mean, honestly, what is the point of allowing non-anthro things onto an anthro site? If you dont want to see anthro art, you probably shouldnt be looking on an anthro themed art site...

And please dont bring up humans. I am of the opinion that humans *are* anthro. I mean, how more human like can you get than human?

Im not saying everything thats non-anthro should be banned... but really, you have to use your head here. No matter how high a number you have, if you keep adding +1+1+1+1, youll eventually have an number higher than it. And nobody seems to realize that its *furries* who submit the majority of this non-anthro stuff. We will be the source of our own destruction, if we're not careful ;>>


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Jeez... You did it again FS.  o/*\o



Alex Cross said:


> This is where the pick-and-choose philosophy starts to rear its ugly head.
> 
> Terragen isn't as simple as "point and click" software just as Apothysis isn't. It does take effort, time and a great deal of understanding as far as how things work but Terragen produces renders nonetheless, despite Terragen and Apothysis being completely different.
> 
> ...



See, that was just from what I have seen from the program. I will admit I know very little about said program except that it only creates scenery. I am pretty much unaware of how said scenery is made other than the point and click routine, so it's very possible that I am wrong. 

And that is true as well. You would see more non-anthro art, but anthro art would still overrun the site, as it should, by a LARGE amount. I thought you guys were assuming that non-anthro art would grow to be more than anthro art, heh.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 17, 2008)

Nanakisan said:


> simple...
> a generator is a program that
> A: generates a predefined image that is edited upon
> B: uses a set of predefined variables to create said image
> ...



Then Apophysis is not a generator.  The images rendered by Apophysis are not predefined, unlike a Spore critter generator or a LOLcat generator.  There are literally an infinite number of solutions (graphs) to any fractal equation, just as a camera can be used to take o photograph of an extremely large (though not infinite) number of possible scenes.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Emil, far be it for me to assume to know what the owners of this site intended when they created it, but it seems to me that the mission of this site can be stated in one, short sentence.

Art by furries, for furries. If they had intended for the site to only house anthro art, then they would have set a rule which specifically said that, at its inception. Therefore I assume that this was not the intention, but the intention was to have a site, where furries could post their art, for fellow furries to appreciate. 

And clearly, but looking at the above poll, more furries appreciate this form of art and want it to stay then those that want it to go. Therefore, I believe that since this is essentially a community site, that the majority should rule.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Art by furries, for furries. If they had intended for the site to only house anthro art, then they would have set a rule which specifically said that, at its inception. Therefore I assume that this was not the intention, but the intention was to have a site, where furries could post their art, for fellow furries to appreciate.



Since the *actual* creator of the site has already stated an opinion pretty similar to mine...



> And clearly, but looking at the above poll, more furries appreciate this form of art and want it to stay then those that want it to go. Therefore, I believe that since this is essentially a community site, that the majority should rule.



There are more than 150 furries registered to FA =\


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

That's a given, but obviously they don't care enough either way to vote.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> That's a given, but obviously they don't care enough either way to vote.



Or they have no idea there is even a vote going on. Its not like this was announced site wide.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

That's also true, Emil. But so far with the small minority that has voted it's been a FAR spread, so you can logically assume it'd be the way otherwise.

I wish this was announced globally. That would help settle things, heh.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 17, 2008)

sigh....well i'm going to wait on this matter now.
seems al lthe good arguments are gone


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Well then I believe that was in itself an error, if the admins are attempting to ban something then they should get the opinion of as many members as they can. This SHOULD be announced on the main page, then, whichever side wins, it'll be a fair decision based on the consensus of the site's members. 

I realize they may not support my position, but I believe that is the only way this will be successfully resolved. Although I still think imposing limits would be a much better first step then banning outright.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> That's also true, Emil. But so far with the small minority that has voted it's been a FAR spread, so you can logically assume it'd be the way otherwise.
> 
> I wish this was announced globally. That would help settle things, heh.



Bush won two elections that the polls fairly clearly said he wouldnt lol your point is really irrelevant


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 17, 2008)

Emil said:


> Bush won two elections that the polls fairly clearly said he wouldnt lol your point is really irrelevant



if this little tidbit was launched on encyclopedia dramatica or FurAffinity talk group livejournal then there might have been a bigger war


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

But this vote is nowhere NEAR as complex as a presidential election, you're compairing an alarm clock to the atomic clock here.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 17, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> There's that over-dramatic approach, it's not been "wildly" thrown about and it's been in the AUP for quite some time now and could have been questioned.



Guilty as charged as to the "wildly thrown about." Please accept my apologies.

As to the second part, there was no reason for me to question the AUP definition of a generator or the interpretation given to that definition by FA admins when it was being applied to Spore critters, stock Tinkertoy part SL characters, or to LOLcats.  Applying this definition to Apophysis isn't the same thing. Apophysis does not start with some predetermined part or parts which are then edited and assembled. Every fractal equation has an infinite number of solutions (graphs).  Yes, the Apophysis artist choses which solution(s) to edit, just as a studio photographer choses the lighting, arrangement, and pose(s) of his subject(s).




> I'm not going to re-quote the whole of what you have said.  I do recognize that photography has a similar connection but in no way is it the same as using a piece of software to generate an image.
> 
> The photographer still has to do the majority of the work, and if they are a proper photographer take all the variables, even beyond the scope of what the camera can do, into account before taking their shot.  The camera may be limited, but it is still the user of the camera that has to pick out the shot, and has to take that image.  That image is not something that is reproducible either, not down to the pixel anyway.  However, if I took the exact same settings that someone else used to create a fractal, I could perfectly create the same fractal.  Blank canvas to perfect recreation down to the pixel, but this is picking at small details and doesn't really defend the point I made previously.



If you take two photographs of the same still life subject, they will be identical (and you don't have to take them in a vacuum, either). The only variation (assuming the same camera settings and lighting) will be CCD noise.  Would adding the same amount of noise to Apophysis art make it OK? The noise is irrelevant.  



> Generated images are such that a piece of software (written by someone else) has done more of the work in the creation of the overall image than the artist.  Avatars made from character generators fall under this, the software has provided all the pre-made parts for the character, the user simply puts them together;



Agreed wholeheartedly.



> Terragen does the same thing, the software takes the settings and renders a landscape;



I don't know anything about the inner workings ot Terragen so I don't know whether it fulfills the AUP definition of a generator. Does it have an infinite number of starting elements? From what I have heard, it doesn't.



> Apophysis appears to do this as well, the user may set all the numbers in question, but the software does the brunt of the work in the creation of the final image.



Here we disagree.  This statement is subject to a very simple experimental confirmation or disconfirmation:  You have Apophysis.  Turn it on and wipe out the extant parameter values (which were created by someone else - they are not 'by you").  Enter random values, render, and post here. I suspect that the image will look more like a pile of colored poo than like the images created by Thoron or Kewlhotrod.  You are a scientist; please do the experiment. Reality will speak for itself.



> In the other cases there is more work put in by the artist, using a writter cannot simply set the parameters of their work and have the computer write the story they want.  A painter cannot start up Photoshop, pick the colors and levels and have a picture at the end of it.  A photographer cannot just set their camera settings and have the camera simply do the rest of the work for them, they still have to pick the subject, deal with lighting, environment, angle, etc.; a musician cannot just set their software to create a musical piece and come out with a wonderfully mixed masterpiece.  I can go on, but you get my point.



If you delete the "In other cases ...artist" clause, I agree completely.  But remember that the photographic artist is setting only 6 or 7 parameters, yet they make all the difference in the world as to outcome.  I think that the same is true for Apophysis.  Please do the experiment and post your image.  Lets see what happens.  I could be wrong about Apophysis - but so could you. Only an experiment will tell. Please render 5 or 10 images with random parameter settings, post them, and then we will all know a lot more than we do now.



> The arguments here have made it evident that some people do put a lot more thought into the creation of fractal artwork, my arguments may seem to be against allowing fractals, but I am in no way simply writing it off.  I am trying to make sure that the differences between fractal art and non-generated content are understood, as well present any flaws in my own arguments, I'm clearly not infalable, just under a particular impression and arguing the point until some end is reached.



Thank you.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Nanakisan said:


> if this little tidbit was launched on encyclopedia dramatica or FurAffinity talk group livejournal then there might have been a bigger war



Indeed. If more people knew about it, then it would more than likely be more even. Right now, the ones doing most voting are most likely the ones with a vested interest in the subject, or simply frequent the forums.



> But this vote is nowhere NEAR as complex as a presidential election, you're compairing an alarm clock to the atomic clock here.



Voting is a complex procedure? Given that most people who vote on *anything* do so without really knowing anything about it, I wouldnt even say *thought* is required to vote lol

And since we were talkin about polls, and not actual elections, this is somewhat irrelevant... The only connection is that elections dont usually turn out as the polls predicted they would.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> That's also true, Emil. But so far with the small minority that has voted it's been a FAR spread, so you can logically assume it'd be the way otherwise.
> 
> I wish this was announced globally. That would help settle things, heh.


To be honest, I've seen this thread linked left and right... but only on the pages of people who do fractals. Because of the wild linking, it makes the support somewhat one-sided. I can post about the poll on my journal if you'd like.


----------



## Zaelfoxxie (Dec 17, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> True, but it comes down to skill. In a Fractal generator, you manipulate sliders and variables to customize the uniqueness of the fractal. There's some various interaction with it, but it's fairly basic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> To be honest, I've seen this thread linked left and right... but only on the pages of people who do fractals. Because of the wild linking, it makes the support somewhat one-sided. I can post about the poll on my journal if you'd like.



I say go for it. But please ask that people actually read the whole thread first, so they can get both sides and come to their own decision ;>> And I think you should lock this topic if you can, because I think all that can be said pretty much already has been, and it would make it easier for the people voting to read.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

An excellent point, as soon as you do this you open the door to having to question banning SL, FL and all those other things, otherwise you are being very biased against fractals.

I really think it makes sense on a practical level to continue to allow them, there haven't been any problems so far, if it isn't broken don't fix it.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Agreed. I wanted it to spread farther than only to fractal people and whatnot. A post in the journal would do wonders, Dragoneer. That way I can actually see the true majority view on this. 

I wouldn't lock it, though. Sure, stuff that can be said has pretty much already been said, however, these new users might have anew input or something. It's harmless to keep it open. Trust me, nobodies going to read this ALL the way through, anyhow.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Agreed. I wanted it to spread farther than only to fractal people and whatnot. A post in the journal would do wonders, Dragoneer. That way I can actually see the true majority view on this.
> 
> I wouldn't lock it, though. Sure, stuff that can be said has pretty much already been said, however, these new users might have anew input or something. It's harmless to keep it open. Trust me, nobodies going to read this ALL the way through, anyhow.



They should, since most of good points of any argument are made near the end x.x

Maybe someone should just make a new thread outlining the arguments of both sides right from the start...


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Hmmm... I wouldn't do that, as it would kind of confuse users on which thread to look at and whatnot. Also added clutter to the forum.

However, if Dragoneer stresses it enough, I'm sure he can get them to read it at least some way through. 

I also changed my mind just a tad. Perhaps locking this topic for a few days might help, actually.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 17, 2008)

Damaratus said:


> Help create a solid set of rules that help guide what fractal content is appropriate. (Some of this has already been started.)
> Create a username that basically would become a "group" but in this case it would involve watching the fractal artists, both new and old, on the site.  This way submissions can be tracked and trouble tickets filled out for anything that happens to be against the rules.
> Assign someone who will track the posts as well as update the watches as new people arrive.  The person can shift, but the job has to be done.
> 
> If the right kind of guidelines can be set up for this, it could set a precedence for the same thing for other aspects of the site.  As an additional bonus it could also help introduce fractal artists to each other.  However, if the group is not kept up to par, then things will be at risk.



I can't speak for fractal artists, because I'm not one, although I'm fascinated by the mathematics and enjoy the pictures when well done. That said, this sounds good to me, if it is meant sincerely and is not just a pacifier with no real change to be forthcoming. (No reforms have yet been made in the May 2007 photomorph rules after over a year in spite of a lot of work on new proposed rules by all of the FA photomorph artists who were active at that time. Some have since left FA in disgust.)

In another comment, it was suggested that there be an Apophysis moderator who could privately examine the rendering parameters to make sure that they are "by you".  Kewlhotrod thought that this would require some new coding, which isn't going to happen.  

Fortunately, no new coding is needed for this to happen.  The Apophysis moderator creates an account (such as Apophysismod), and the Apophysis artists use the existing FA Private Message system to send him the parameters that they used along with a link to the image that they have posted.  If the mod sees that the parameters are merely a slightly changed version of the examples that come with the Apophysis rendering software, then it is not "by you", and the mod informs an admin who has the authority to remove the submission or files a trouble ticket. Simple.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Foxy, that is a wonderful solution, finally one of the admins said something which makes sense. I am all for this to be implemented, the one in charge of the account probly wouldn't even be all THAT swamped, there's far less fractals submitted here then any other art form.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Hmmm... I wouldn't do that, as it would kind of confuse users on which thread to look at and whatnot. Also added clutter to the forum.
> 
> However, if Dragoneer stresses it enough, I'm sure he can get them to read it at least some way through.
> 
> I also changed my mind just a tad. Perhaps locking this topic for a few days might help, actually.



If they decide to make this a more site wide vote (that honestly matters) then it really *needs* to be organized. 

If I were running it, heres how I would do it:

I would make three threads. One would be for those who are pro to state their opinions why it should be allowed. The second would be a thread for those who are con to state their opinions on why it should *not* be allowed. The third thread would be the actual poll/vote and would link to the two position threads, practically *begging* you to read both and come to an informed decision. Posting comments in the poll thread would be disabled. 

All of these threads would be stickied, and all previous threads pertaining to this subject would be deleted.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Agreed to what F.S. said as well.

However, on the point of the extra code, it was simply to save some time without having to mess with the whole PM system. Was just an idea slung around. 



I disagree with that idea, though, Emil. Everything that has been said thus forth would be deleted, and it would cause chaos. It would also scare many people away from even wanting to go through such trouble just for a simple vote, ya'know? I say just leave things as is, let people read through, vote, and a few days from now re-open this thread and allow for new opinions, after people have had time to think.


----------



## Dyluck (Dec 17, 2008)

I don't like them.  I'm voting no.

But then again, since when has Fur Affinity (or deviantART for that matter) ever been about art? :V  It's not porn so the fractals will get almost zero views.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

Wow... I really hope that was a joke. Lol.

In actuality, this vote isn't supposed to be whether you like them or not, but whether you agree or disagree with the moral standpoint of the ban on them. If you don't like them picture it as something else.

Also, I hope you were kidding about the last. Fractals get their share of views. Sure, not nearly as much as a veiny dog-pen0r, but they do.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> I disagree with that idea, though, Emil. Everything that has been said thus forth would be deleted, and it would cause chaos. It would also scare many people away from even wanting to go through such trouble just for a simple vote, ya'know? I say just leave things as is, let people read through, vote, and a few days from now re-open this thread and allow for new opinions, after people have had time to think.



You could just repost what youve already said in the new thread =\

And if someone is too scared or lazy to do a little research (all they have to do is click two links for cryin out loud ;>>) before voting... well, then... theyre pretty much one of the things that made the world the way it is today =\


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 17, 2008)

That would be reposting everything. We want all views and opinions that we've already shared to stay, because they've taken the time to post it. Besides, if we simply reposted, then it'd be cluttering up the new threads as well, so might as well just keep as is.

And it is inevitable. I wish that weren't the case, but it will happen. xD


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> That would be reposting everything. We want all views and opinions that we've already shared to stay, because they've taken the time to post it. Besides, if we simply reposted, then it'd be cluttering up the new threads as well, so might as well just keep as is.



Im saying repost our ideas, not the bickering x.x

Theres absolutely no reason for the new threads *not* to be one, maybe two pages, because thered be no debate in them, which is why this thread is so long. Most of it isnt views, its just bickering ;>>


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

I like to think of it as debate, as opposed to bickering.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> I like to think of it as debate, as opposed to bickering.



Its all filler regardless. If you had two separate threads, where the people who thought what they thought werent interacting with each other, then the threads wouldnt be nearly as long as this, even combined, and people would be more likely to read them. And since all the debating was done *here* all the people posting in those threads will pretty much already know their *entire* argument. So no muss, no fuss, no problem, savvy?


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Now I do agree with that logic. But we would then HAVE to make sure that the opinions on both sides were factual, and mostly free of personal opinnion. We also have to CLEARLY define that the issue being voted on is NOT whether or not you like fractals. But whether or not they should be BANNED from the site.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Now I do agree with that logic. But we would then HAVE to make sure that the opinions on both sides were factual, and mostly free of personal opinnion. We also have to CLEARLY define that the issue being voted on is NOT whether or not you like fractals. But whether or not they should be BANNED from the site.



Thats what mods are for lol XD


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Yes, but perhaps the threads should be compiled by an unbiased party. I dunno, maybe neither the people who want to keep it, nor those who want to ban it, should put together the two threads. Like I like some of Foxystallion's figures, since he's in the know about that sort of thing. And I also don't think we should say who said what. People shouldn't know what was said by who. It might bias votes. I think we can all agree on that, the question is who then would do it?


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Yes, but perhaps the threads should be compiled by an unbiased party. I dunno, maybe neither the people who want to keep it, nor those who want to ban it, should put together the two threads. Like I like some of Foxystallion's figures, since he's in the know about that sort of thing. And I also don't think we should say who said what. People shouldn't know what was said by who. It might bias votes. I think we can all agree on that, the question is who then would do it?



The idea of being pro or con is inheirantly biased xP The point of the threads is not to try and convince people who think opposite of you to change their minds (it is often impossible) but to convince those *who do not know yet what to think* that they should think your way. As such, I dont really see a problem with users being the ones to do the pro/con threads. 

But thats just my opinion xP It is most likely, this idea would never be carried out anyway. The Admins will do as they please when it comes to things such as this =P


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Yes but I sincerely hope that they do not, this site was, after all, created for the members to enjoy. Not for the admins to go on power trips.


----------



## Emil (Dec 17, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Yes but I sincerely hope that they do not, this site was, after all, created for the members to enjoy. Not for the admins to go on power trips.



I just meant about creating the way the voting would be done ^^;


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 17, 2008)

Oh, I thought you meant the admins wouldn't go ahead with the site wide vote and just ban them anyway. That was my mistake.


----------



## VinchenzoTheJackal (Dec 18, 2008)

I wanna say that I think all forms of art so long as they are not causing any undo harm to others or is breaking the law should be allowed. This includes fractals, which, while I can't design such things, my brother has and I am a fan of many artists that make such art. Personally, if they ban fractals, I wouldn't be surprised if they ban all forms of art that does not display an animal including humans even though they are animals.

And by the way, banning popular forms of art is a good way to lose many community members. Just look at what happenned with Deviant art when they refused to allow dragons, centaurs, satyrs, and other creatures unless they are furries, DA lost a few members and I became PO'ed. I also know that many FA members are here because of the wide selection of art which is allowed, and many are here because some sites just aren't open to artistic opinion and are overly picky.


----------



## Dyluck (Dec 18, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> [snip]



Wasn't a joke.

In any case I don't particularly consider them to be art.  Fractals are about as much art as a paint splatter by Jackson Pollock is.

In some ways, I guess it's still better than the thousandth 3/4 view drawing of someone's original character, but even that has more heart put into it than a fractal.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

And yet Jackson Pollock is a highly respected artist. Ya know who I never understood? Andy Warhol.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 18, 2008)

Please give me the meaning of Mona Lisa, French Cave Paintings, A signed urinal, the Sistine CHapel, Pyramids, and Park Sculpture.
Everything has some meaning. Even Warhol had an idea behind the stuff he did, though I WILL say I cannot respect him as an artist--however, I will not DENY he is an artist.
I am starting to feel like we have drifted away from talking about the possible way of handling fractals, and into the realm of pointless arguments and discussions of meaning. WHile I appriciate the philosophy, I would like us to focus on the problem at hand--
Namely, how fractals can stay on FA, or how they CANNOT stay on FA. 
I believe we do not need to define FA in terms of furry input alone--poetry and music are rarely furry, and there are a few artists on FA that do nothing but photograph landscapes. Art for furries by furries involves a lot more than furry stuff, we must realize, because furry is only one facet of being. Certainly, on FA, the MAIN type of expression will always be anthro art, whether stories or pictures. However, we do not ban people from this site that simply wish to favorite furry art, and meanwhile submit only a relatively small amount of furry art themselves.
We fractal artists have suggested a number of solutions, from the realistic(number limits of ANY kind) to the bizarre(Front page section for fractals???). We even had someone asking that they be allowed in scraps. However, all these solutions mean absolutely nothing if we do not ask the Admins about them, and how well they can be enforced. Far as I see it, while this site is run by a mob of people, Dragoneer, Damaratus, and a few others are the ones who really keep it going. So, while I AM very upset that my fractals may be taken away come the next AUP statement, I do not believe in forcing the Admins to do more work than they already do. So, let us keep our solutions to the realistic, and try to actually EXPLAIN how fractals can fit into FA without making more unnecessary work for the Administation.
And, as for fractals and furry...I give the Universal humanity. The shapes I produce are found in nature. So, what I try to do, is convey my emotions and thoughts through fractals--I give MY humanity to what would otherwise be cold numbers and an arrangement of pixels. I shape the fractals, and I create, if you will, the human within the impersonal Universe, in much the same way that more traditional artists create the human in the animal. This is not however, to say that my idea is the only one--others may have better statements, and better ideas. But, I consider myself a furry artist. The majority of the art I do IS furry. I create sketches during my free time, while not writing poetry or creating fractals. However, I do not often post my sketches, as I believe I am not nearly good enough at what I do--fractals and poetry, on the other hand, I believe I do at least somewhat well. I still have a ways to go with fractal art, before I can equal the skill of some of FA's best fractal artists, but I try.
I do not want conflict, pointless or not. I want my art to have a place. If it cannot have a place in FA, I will not leave, or hate the Admins. I simply believe that there is more that needs to be seen, before the Admins can be allowed to make a decision either way. Don't prove me wrong, everyone.


----------



## Dyluck (Dec 18, 2008)

I'm not reading that text wall.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> You know who I never understand? Charles Schulz! D=


To each their own, I guess.


----------



## Samuel (Dec 18, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> I'm not reading that text wall.



If you have nothing to say, don't pretend you do.

In fact,  if you have no interest in the subject, why reply at all? Go read a book, draw something, or watch a movie. I believe what I said has some revelance, and unlike some anti-fractal posters, I managed to keep it to 4 paragraphs. If you cannot keep yourself still long enough to read THAT, what are you doing on a thread where we just had a massive quote reply and a half?
Of course, if you need a condensed version...
All art has meaning. Fractals have meaning to me. Please let me keep my stuff, but not at the price of hurting FA. Fractals also do have some relation to my furriness, and all that-- Same thing I was saying all this time.


----------



## the Cat o' Nine Tales (Dec 18, 2008)

As I see it, the AUP included that phrase to prevent a flood of largely similar material created with very little effort. Of course, that can happen with fractals. But are other forms of art any safer?
I don't think so. Photography, painting, music, poetry; they can all fall victim to similarity and lazy modifications.
However, that does not mean a work that the artist put serious effort in is worth any less. A flood of doodles and sketches won't make me cry for visual art to be banned. Why should I do so for fractals?
A good fractal consists of the right combination of color, composition, and probably many more things I can't even recall, because I'm not a visual artist. But bringing all those together into an aesthetically pleasing form takes effort, so they are by no means inferior to any other form of art.

That being said, I realize how much effort is required to keep FA up and running smoothly, so any solution to be found should not put any additional work on the admins, nor unnecessary strain on the server (which in turn would result in additional work.)


----------



## Eshmasesh (Dec 18, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> Because it's meaningless.


Nice circular reasoning. You could have just said "I have no reason to believe this bullshit I call my opinion".


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Samuel said:


> And, as for fractals and furry...I give the Universal humanity. The shapes I produce are found in nature. So, what I try to do, is convey my emotions and thoughts through fractals--I give MY humanity to what would otherwise be cold numbers and an arrangement of pixels. I shape the fractals, and I create, if you will, the human within the impersonal Universe, in much the same way that more traditional artists create the human in the animal. This is not however, to say that my idea is the only one--others may have better statements, and better ideas. But, I consider myself a furry artist. The majority of the art I do IS furry. I create sketches during my free time, while not writing poetry or creating fractals. However, I do not often post my sketches, as I believe I am not nearly good enough at what I do--fractals and poetry, on the other hand, I believe I do at least somewhat well. I still have a ways to go with fractal art, before I can equal the skill of some of FA's best fractal artists, but I try.



But fractals arnt furry genre. Just becuase *youre* a furry doesnt make what you post furry relivant. And if its not furry, whys it here? 

Youre statements that this site is for "Art by furries, for furries" is simply your opinion. Which happens to be incorrect, since the founder of the site himself has said that this is a "Furry Art" site. And to me this raises a question, how is non furry art "for furries"? It isnt what they want, or are here for. Is it like a bad Christmas gift, where its "the thought that counts"? To me, a non furry piece has no appeal to someone *as a furry*, it is appealing to some other art appreciative aspect of them, a non furry part of them.

And once again, I will reiterate, furry is a *genre* of art. Just because youre a furry, doesnt make everything you do furry. The only thing that defines you as a furry, is the liking of anthropomorphics in art. So, if youre not creating something furry genre, how are you creating something as a furry? Youre not, youre being a whatever artist, of whatever genre that happens to be. Its really the whole point of having genres at all, let alone a site dedicated to a *specific* genre, and those who enjoy it.

Its somewhat annoying to me as it is where at any given point in time, 2-3 items on the front page arnt furry =\ I can understand a desire to be somewhat inclusive, but I think we have already hit/passed the point where what we allow is still acceptable while keeping us fundamentally what we should be.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 18, 2008)

...isnt this a site for furries to post their arts, if so I cannot post my weapon designs here for a furry story I am developing.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

You know, and since I've already voiced multiple opinions on the various ways we could handle fractals, (several of Damaratus' suggestions would work very well in my opinion) you know what I don't get?

Why is it that a great majority of submissions on here are a bunch of slightly different poses of the same naked character? Now understand before replying, that I'm not saying this is bad, I enjoy a good yiffy pic myself as long as it looks good. What I wanna know, is that with the non-furry community constantly saying that furry is all about yiff, why are we essentially reinforcing that statement? While at the same time denying it's truth?

You know? This fundamental inconsistency has bothered me about several fandoms, the actions reinforce the steriotypes. Now to related it to the topic, wouldn't it seem that by keeping alternative forms of art, like fractals, on the site that we would at least be saying that yiffy pics aren't our only interest? I find questions like this fascinating.

Oh, and Emil, are you then saying that music should be taken off because it isn't inherently furry?


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 18, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> ...isnt this a site for furries to post their arts, if so I cannot post my weapon designs here for a furry story I am developing.



More and more, the site slowly turns into a deviantART. The push for fractals and this kind of art undercuts the appreciation and the affinity for anthropomorphic art.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Why is it that a great majority of submissions on here are a bunch of slightly different poses of the same naked character? Now understand before replying, that I'm not saying this is bad, I enjoy a good yiffy pic myself as long as it looks good. What I wanna know, is that with the non-furry community constantly saying that furry is all about yiff, why are we essentially reinforcing that statement? While at the same time denying it's truth?



Set your Browse filters to anything, and Browse.  As of a minute ago, of the first 100 images, only 6 were adult. Depending on time of day and day of the week, adult images are only 5% to 10%.  Many stereotypes reflect a larger reality, though usually with significant distortion, but the widespread idea that FA is mostly yiff is far off base.  Now most of Dragoneer's own art is yiff, and fine yiff it is...


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Oh, and Emil, are you then saying that music should be taken off because it isn't inherently furry?



Music isnt a genre, its a form. Saying music isnt inherently furry is like saying drawing isnt inherently furry. Most drawings made in the world arnt furry, but many are.

Music can be broken down into themes and genres, same as visual media. Furry is just one of those themes/genres.

So no, music shouldnt be removed.


----------



## Lilwolf (Dec 18, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> Wasn't a joke.
> 
> In any case I don't particularly consider them to be art.  Fractals are about as much art as a paint splatter by Jackson Pollock is.
> 
> In some ways, I guess it's still better than the thousandth 3/4 view drawing of someone's original character, but even that has more heart put into it than a fractal.



youve apparently never made a fractal before lol 
Primre example, look up :iconkamilicious: 
He does EVERYTHING completely from scratch and spends hours on them. Iunno about you, but if thats not heart, then I dont know what is. Heck Ive had my fair share of fractals that have taken me and hour or two before Im happy with it.AND I draw traditional art as well, so I can honestly say that I put just as much heart...sometimes more, into my fractals. ^^


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

I wasn't saying music should be removed, but in order to prove the point you just made, show me a peice of music on the site that is "furry". How can a piece of music be anthropomorphic?


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> I wasn't saying music should be removed, but in order to prove the point you just made, show me a peice of music on the site that is "furry". How can a piece of music be anthropomorphic?



http://www.furaffinity.net/view/923858/

Its a song about furries. Hence, furry themed.

Another example of furry themed music: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Furry_Fantasies


----------



## Lilwolf (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> Music isnt a genre, its a form. Saying music isnt inherently furry is like saying drawing isnt inherently furry. Most drawings made in the world arnt furry, but many are.
> 
> Music can be broken down into themes and genres, same as visual media. Furry is just one of those themes/genres.
> 
> So no, music shouldnt be removed.



really? so..what does furry music sound like? I mean..how can we hear music and say "thats furry"? if theres no visual anything pointing to furry? I mean if it was a song or something about furry life, something to that effect, then sure. But what about all the techno music Ive heard from this site( not much but, tis an example) can you classify it as furry techno? and if so..what defines furry music?


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Lilwolf said:


> But what about all the techno music Ive heard from this site( not much but, tis an example) can you classify it as furry techno? and if so..what defines furry music?



If it has something to do with anthropomorphic characters and themes, then yes, its furry. If its just a techno song, made by a furry, then no, its not furry.

My usage of the word "genre" as furry pertains to music is incorrect. Genre is more like, rock, techno, country, ect. When it comes to music, furry is a theme. And since furry themed music can be made, I fail to see why music submissions should not be held under the same standard that other mediums are.


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

We're just using comparisons, take Foxamoore for example. I LOVE his music, but at least in the pieces I've listened to, there is nothing inherently furry about it. Some are themes for furry characters, but just by listening to it you wouldn't know that. 

In order for something to be considered anthropomorphic or furry, it has to either specifically reference furries, or have a visual furry component. Otherwise the argument is invalid.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> We're just using comparisons, take Foxamoore for example. I LOVE his music, but at least in the pieces I've listened to, there is nothing inherently furry about it. Some are themes for furry characters, but just by listening to it you wouldn't know that.



And how much of Foxamoores music, will Foxamoore admit to actually being furry themed? Just because its there doesnt mean that it necessarily *should* be.



> In order for something to be considered anthropomorphic or furry, it has to either specifically reference furries, or have a visual furry component. Otherwise the argument is invalid.



Ignorance is no excuse. If the piece is really meant to have a connection to furry, the creator will be able to point out how, and so it is furry themed. If someone doesnt recognize that meaning its their problem, and they ought to be enlightened.

Many songs have deeper, subtle meanings. Does that meaning not exist, simply because the listener is oblivious to it? No, it just means the listener is oblivious.

And, realistically, what you just said applies to everything furry. A drawing is furry why? Because it directly makes reference to anthropomorphism or its themes. Basically, youre arguing that music doesnt have to follow this rule because... you dont see it, and so requires a little bit of interpretation/explanation.


----------



## Lilwolf (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> And how much of Foxamoores music, will Foxamoore admit to actually being furry themed? Just because its there doesnt mean that it necessarily *should* be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol hey Im not completely sure thats what sentinal meant..


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

Look, I'm not saying I'm against music on the site, and I admit I'm no expert. If they tried to get rid of music I'd be up in arms about that too. I'm just trying to understand the argument that fractals have nothing to do with furries, when there are other things on here that also have nothing to do with furries, but those are allowed. Case in point, human art with no furries in them, poetry that is non furry related, not saying these should be removed, just trying to understand why they are allowed under that logic.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> I'm just trying to understand the argument that fractals have nothing to do with furries, when there are other things on here that also have nothing to do with furries, but those are allowed.



Because they were concessions? Like I said, just cause theyre here doesnt mean they *should* be. Saying something has nothing to do with the theme of the site, is more an argument why they should all be *removed*, not allowed. 

Id like to understand why people want to see non furry things on a furry site in the first place



> Case in point, human art with no furries in them, poetry that is non furry related, not saying these should be removed, just trying to understand why they are allowed under that logic.



Anthropomorphism is applying human characteristics to something. I fail to see how one could get more human-like than a human itself. Im of the opinion humans *are* anthro. However, thats just my opinion, and the status of humans as anthro is highly debatable.


----------



## thoron (Dec 18, 2008)

People who consider themselves part of the furry fandom don't have to like just furry art. Before you suggest that they go to DA to view non-furry art work, you have to consider that they maybe sick of DA. I used to post my work on DA as well, but then my old computer was trash by some spy-ware that came from one of the add there, so I don't visit that site very often now. That's the main reason why I don't post on DA any more, it's because I don't trust it.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

thoron said:


> People who consider themselves part of the furry fandom don't have to like just furry art.



No, they dont. But the one thing that everyone can agree defines a furry as a furry is that they like furry art. 

Its more accurate to say, one does not have to be furry to appreciate non furry art. Like I said, how can you appreciate non furry art as a furry? You dont, you appreciate it as a lover of that other genre, because your furriness is irrelevant to it.



> Before you suggest that they go to DA to view non-furry art work, you have to consider that they maybe sick of DA. I used to post my work on DA as well, but then my old computer was trash by some spy-ware that came from one of the add there, so I don't visit that site very often now. That's the main reason why I don't post on DA any more, it's because I don't trust it.



That still doesnt really explain why you think non-furry things should exist on a furry site.

And also, why would anyone have to consider that? Thats their issue, not this sites >> The site is only concerned with attracting people who have an especial interest in furry content, not people who dislike DA

Think of it this way. FA is a specialty store. It is not meant to satisfy your one stop shopping needs. There are other places whose goal it is to do that. DA is essentially the Walmart of online art galleries.


----------



## thoron (Dec 18, 2008)

There are people here who appreciate non-furry art, however they do not like DA.

I understand that this is a furry site as such it will always attract an audience that is looking for furry art.

Think of the website as a restraunt, the furry art is like the main menu, the fractal, abstract, music, ect. is like a small side dish or spice, it just adds something different for those who aren't interested in just furry art.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

thoron said:


> There are people here who appreciate non-furry art, however they do not like DA.



So, why are they looking on a furry site for non-furry artwork to appreciate?

Heres another example: Wouldnt you consider someone who goes into a Mexican restaurant and tries to order Chinese food a fool?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> That still doesnt really explain why you think non-furry things should exist on a furry site.



Because the site was coded to allow other kinds of artwork that aren't necessarily furry?

http://wiki.furaffinity.net/index.php/What_is_Fur_Affinity?


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Because the site was coded to allow other kinds of artwork that aren't necessarily furry?
> 
> http://wiki.furaffinity.net/index.php/What_is_Fur_Affinity?



Please tell me how code can differentiate between furry art and non furry art.

The founder of this community has stated before that this was intended to be a *furry* art site, first and foremost. While others have been alowed, the idea is to keep them to the bare minimum so as not to compromise what the community is supposed to be showcasing.

It is as others have said. Most of the music is not furry related, and most of the poetry is not furry related. And in my experience, going to the front page at any given point in time will usually reveal at least one non furry themed piece being submitted in the "recent artwork" section (but honestly, I have my filters on, so that might mess with the figure a bit) How does this keep to the idea that this site is supposed to be mostly furry?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

Ever look at the categories that were coded in? Some are legacy which need to be removed from the code or at least next version due to AUP, but there has been quite a bit when Alkora was around so what it began has, has now been changed by his own coding and how the community has grown.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Ever look at the categories that were coded in? Some are legacy which need to be removed from the code or at least next version due to AUP, but there has been quite a bit when Alkora was around so what it began has, has now been changed by his own coding and how the community has grown.



Yes, I have. But any of the categories are theme neutral. Anyone of them are just as capable of being furry just as much as they are not. So, I dont really see how the coding or categories differentiate between non furry and furry. Or is that your point?


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

See now I'm starting to understand your logic there Emil. And I rather agree with that analogy on a purely logical standpoint. The problem with this is that they have allowed it so far, so people expect it to continue to be allowed. 

I believe that the main reason for all the upheaval is of course because the fractal artists feel discriminated against. A few of my good friends are fractalists and I don't want to see them leave the site. Now that this is the issue it ceases to be about specialty vs. general site, and turns into an emotionally invested, highly charged issue (at least to some people.)

In keeping with your previous analogy, I think the current feeling could be represented as a group of minority workers being kicked out of said store because administration didn't like their clothes. The issue for administration to deal with now is the fact that they have allowed it for so long, that it's complicated the issue to the point of it looking like a fractal. Heheh.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> So, why are they looking on a furry site for non-furry artwork to appreciate?
> 
> Heres another example: Wouldnt you consider someone who goes into a Mexican restaurant and tries to order Chinese food a fool?



You keep using examples that just do not work in this situation.

Earlier, you compared Fur Affinity to a Polish Club. No, Fur Affinity is not a club, because it _does_ allow anyone and everyone to post. It would be a bad thing if the website were to become more "club-like".

Also: "Why are they looking on a furry site for non-furry artwork to appreciate?"

Because there are many, many talented individuals within the site that create more than just "furry" artwork. Artists tend to upload all types of artwork that they create. The "furry" community as a whole enjoys more than just anthro artwork, and Fur Affinity reflects that. So, the Mexican restaurant / Chinese food argument cannot work here.

Just out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion on the users within Fur Affinity who do not identify themselves as "furries"? Should they not be allowed to post, because they do not see themselves that way?
Saying that they shouldn't be posting / spending their time on Fur Affinity if they don't consider themselves "furry" seems awfully wrong. Obviously, they still enjoy the website a lot; Enough to share / leave feedback, despite not being "furry", and that's a good thing.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 18, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> Wasn't a joke.
> 
> In any case I don't particularly consider them to be art.  Fractals are about as much art as a paint splatter by Jackson Pollock is.
> 
> In some ways, I guess it's still better than the thousandth 3/4 view drawing of someone's original character, but even that has more heart put into it than a fractal.



Says the guy with a closed mind. ;.;

You apparently don't understand the fact that fractals actually do carry emotions and 'heart', more so than measly drawings at times.

Oh well, opinions are opinions, just wish you'd open your mind a bit and accept why. The method to create art should not depict whether it has emotion or not. Not at all.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> Yes, I have. But any of the categories are theme neutral. Anyone of them are just as capable of being furry just as much as they are not. So, I dont really see how the coding or categories differentiate between non furry and furry. Or is that your point?



Fur Affinity by name and creation original intention was a furry themed site. However it was built by a community that appreciate anthrophomorphic art. What makes FA great is that it didn't overly restrict the kinds of art so that artists can showcase so long as it doesn't have to do with model releases, legality, and art that doesn't appear to have been done by the person themselves or more work is done by a generator or computer.

There are people trying to argue logical fallacies as to why fractals should or shouldn't exist on the site.

Believing fractals are more done by randomizations with a computer than real user contribution I think is the biggest issue with staff right now.

Whether or not it's "Furry" is the least of concerns. - FA by name is going to pretty much say the focus is furry artwork, it allows other types too.

Whether or not something else is allowed on the site and adding red herring arguments are also really not a concern.

Legality is not a concern.

So the primary focus is this artwork that's primarily user created versus, someone using sliders? There have been some good arguments saying it's more than that, however, because of most user's relative ignorance on the subject of fractals is why this is being debated. Because this is one of those that can be done quickly through generators/sliders it has been stated that these often flood the site. 

One of the proposals by the users is to have a moderator. Much like we do have one for music Submissions (though he is also a site administrator, he's more specialized to distinguish music violations that most of our other admins wouldn't be able to detect as quickly or verify).


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> I believe that the main reason for all the upheaval is of course because the fractal artists feel discriminated against. A few of my good friends are fractalists and I don't want to see them leave the site. Now that this is the issue it ceases to be about specialty vs. general site, and turns into an emotionally invested, highly charged issue (at least to some people.)



Well, its understandable that they feel discriminated against, thats because the idea of a theme specific site *is* discriminatory. But the reality is, they *chose* to put themselves in the position that they did. They new this was primarily a furry site when they joined, they in fact, agreed with it.



> Earlier, you compared Fur Affinity to a Polish Club. No, Fur Affinity is not a club, because it does allow anyone and everyone to post. It would be a bad thing if the website were to become more "club-like".



It allows everyone to post, because its understood that everyone that posts here is a fan of anthropomorphics, and there is no way to prove otherwise. You seem to not understand, that the userbase is dependent on the content allowed. Anyone can join, but they cant post everything that they want.



> Because there are many, many talented individuals within the site that create more than just "furry" artwork. Artists tend to upload all types of artwork that they create. The "furry" community as a whole enjoys more than just anthro artwork, and Fur Affinity reflects that. So, the Mexican restaurant / Chinese food argument cannot work here.



"Im going to join this furry site, because there just might happen to be a great non furry artist there" That sounds... ridiculous. No one joins a content specific community to try and find things that arnt that content.

No, the "furry" community as a whole does not enjoy other types of artwork. People do, and as people, furries enjoy these other works. That doesnt mean that they enjoy them as furries, nor that they have equal place on a furry website.

If you bitch loud enough, you might get your Chinese in that Mexican restaurant, but does that justify doing it, or make it any less moronic?



> Just out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion on the users within Fur Affinity who do not identify themselves as "furries"? Should they not be allowed to post, because they do not see themselves that way?



Yes, because the site is designed for those who appreciate anthropomorphics in art, *not specifically* for furries.



> Believing fractals are more done by randomizations with a computer than real user contribution I think is the biggest issue with staff right now.
> 
> Whether or not it's "Furry" is the least of concerns. - FA by name is going to pretty much say the focus is furry artwork, it allows other types too.



But you see, there is a flaw in this argument. The amount of furry art being submitted is a relative constant. But for each non furry thing you allow to be posted, the submitting of non furry things will "jump" because, youre adding a whole new category of what is acceptable. Its like I said, it all adds up. People will not submit more furry artwork to compensate, and those who are doing non furry work, will have been doing it anyway, they just havnt been able to submit it before. And none of this addresses the fact, that its *furries* who submit all of these non furry pieces to the site. So saying that "by its name, it will stay furry" isnt necessary correct, because by our name, we are already furry, and we are already experiencing a noticable shift toward nonfurry.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> But you see, there is a flaw in this argument. The amount of furry art being submitted is a relative constant. But for each non furry thing you allow to be posted, the submitting of non furry things will "jump" because, youre adding a whole new category of what is acceptable. Its like I said, it all adds up. People will not submit more furry artwork to compensate, and those who are doing non furry work, will have been doing it anyway, they just havnt been able to submit it before. And none of this addresses the fact, that its *furries* who submit all of these non furry pieces to the site. So saying that "by its name, it will stay furry" isnt necessary correct, because by our name, we are already furry, and we are already experiencing a noticable shift toward nonfurry.



You have physical data to actually back this up?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> Well, its understandable that they feel discriminated against, thats because the idea of a theme specific site *is* discriminatory. But the reality is, they *chose* to put themselves in the position that they did. They new this was primarily a furry site when they joined, they in fact, agreed with it.



Wrong, actually. Most people at the time they joined the site, knew that there were VARIOUS artworks of all types being posted. Not ONLY furry.




> Im going to join this furry site, because there just might happen to be a great non furry artist there" That sounds... ridiculous. No one joins a content specific community to try and find things that arnt that content.



If you think about it, few people actually join FA solely for it's "furry" art. Just like people don't join Deviantart just for it's human art. A LOT of users are here because they use Furaffinity as not only an art spot, but a get-together. A place to meet others like them and share common interests. Things are not limited to ONE genre.

I could be a furry, join this site originally for only furry artwork, but in the end notice MANY other things I enjoy on said site as well. Wonderful. It doesn't hurt to have more of a good thing.



> No, the "furry" community as a whole does not enjoy other types of artwork. People do, and as people, furries enjoy these other works. That doesnt mean that they enjoy them as furries, nor that they have equal place on a furry website.



Actually, that is incorrect. I guarantee that there is not one furry, (or human, as they are the SAME THING, lol), only likes furry artwork in this entire world and that's it.




> Yes, because the site is designed for those who appreciate anthropomorphics in art, *not specifically* for furries.



Actually, incorrect as well. This site is designed as a get-together where anthropomorphic art is acceptable and the norm. It does not mean it is the ONLY thing of that sort. If you want that, go to fchan or Yiffstar (which actually allows non-furry work, it's just most users don't post it there for other reasons).





> But you see, there is a flaw in this argument. The amount of furry art being submitted is a relative constant. But for each non furry thing you allow to be posted, the submitting of non furry things will "jump" because, youre adding a whole new genre of what is acceptable. Its like I said, it all adds up. People will not submit more furry artwork to compensate, and those who are doing non furry work, will have been doing it anyway, they just havnt been able to submit it before.



If we accepted all kind of artwork. ALL kinds possible with set limits (which is what we are attempting to achieve right now), you will never even come CLOSE to outweighing the furry artwork. Not on this site.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> You have physical data to actually back this up?



I dont, but you do. Trends in user activity and submissions statistics go up at a fairly steady, easily chartable pace, at least, from the last few site statistics posted.

Those who continue to produce furry artwork are going to continue to produce furry artwork. But as more and more non furry art is allowed, those who have felt unable to produce furry art will contribute whatever to the community that they are allowed to, and previously inactive users who produce art, just not furry art, will start to post. Case in point, all the furries here who do not post furry art. It makes them feel as though they are contributing, but in actuality they contribute only to the diluting of the "furry" part of the community. Eventually, this will be more of an art community than a *furry* art community. It will just be one where all of the artists involved just so happen to be furries.



> Actually, that is incorrect. I guarantee that there is not one furry, (or human, as they are the SAME THING, lol), only likes furry artwork in this entire world and that's it.



You completely misunderstand my meaning. Furries are furries, because they like anthro art. And so, thats why they create furry communities. To share that interest in furry art. Whatever else you enjoy is irrelevant to that community.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> I dont, but you do. Trends in user activity and submissions statistics go up at a fairly steady, easily chartable pace, at least, from the last few site statistics posted.
> 
> Those who continue to produce furry artwork are going to continue to produce furry artwork. But as more and more non furry art is allowed, those who have felt unable to produce furry art will contribute whatever to the community that they are allowed to, and previously inactive users who produce art, just not furry art, will start to post. Case in point, all the furries here who do not post furry art. It makes them feel as though they are contributing, but in actuality they contribute only to the diluting of the "furry" part of the community. Eventually, this will be more of an art community than a *furry* art community. It will just be one where all of the artists involved just so happen to be furries.



Correct, *we* have the data. In other words your argument is based on assumptions.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Correct, *we* have the data. In other words your argument is based on assumptions.



Data which has for the past several months been made public. The data available to me supports my opinion. If youd let me see the rest of the data, then my opinion might change.



> If you think about it, few people actually join FA solely for it's "furry" art. Just like people don't join Deviantart just for it's human art. A LOT of users are here because they use Furaffinity as not only an art spot, but a get-together. A place to meet others like them and share common interests. Things are not limited to ONE genre.



Common interest on FA = furry art

And your Deviant Art example is invalid, because DA has *always* accepted anything as long as it was deemed art.



> I could be a furry, join this site originally for only furry artwork, but in the end notice MANY other things I enjoy on said site as well. Wonderful. It doesn't hurt to have more of a good thing.



And yet, you, like everyone else, would still have been originally drawn into the community by its intended purpose. The sharing of furry art.



> Wrong, actually. Most people at the time they joined the site, knew that there were VARIOUS artworks of all types being posted. Not ONLY furry.



"mmm furaffinity... sounds like a great place to find *insert non furry art here*, lets join!"

Right...





> Actually, that is incorrect. I guarantee that there is not one furry, (or human, as they are the SAME THING, lol), only likes furry artwork in this entire world and that's it.



You completely misunderstand my meaning. Furries are furries because they like anthro art. That is the only reason they identify themselves as furries, and gather into furry communities. Anything that isnt furry is irrelevant to furriness.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> "Im going to join this furry site, because there just might happen to be a great non furry artist there" That sounds... ridiculous. No one joins a content specific community to try and find things that arnt that content.



You're forgetting the fact that there's _already_ a fair amount of artists on Fur Affinity who upload more than just furry-related pieces / media. I can provide links to some of their galleries, if you're interested. But yes, "there just might happen to be a great non furry artist there" should instead say, "there already are great non furry artists there".

Also, "No, the "furry" community as a whole does not enjoy other types of artwork. People do, and as people, furries enjoy these other works. That doesnt mean that they enjoy them as furries, nor that they have equal place on a furry website."

This is simply wrong. The community as a whole _does_ enjoy other types of artwork; People within this community commission artists (also within this community) all of the time for things that are not specifically "furry", because they see that the artist does more than just furry artwork, and they often have other characters aside from their "furry" ones. Furthermore, many artists on this site also have characters / stories / etc. that are not specifically "furry" in nature. I'm having a difficult time understanding why you would assume otherwise.


----------



## Alex Cross (Dec 18, 2008)

When you start talking about what furries enjoy versus what people enjoy, that will get you in hot water because you don't really know for sure who enjoys what.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Alex Cross said:


> When you start talking about what furries enjoy versus what people enjoy, that will get you in hot water because you don't really know for sure who enjoys what.



But, I do know that furries enjoy furry art. What they enjoy outside of their furriness is irrelevant to furry. That seems to be everyones problem here, is they are incapable of seperating what interests them as a furry from what *else* interests them as a person.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> "mmm furaffinity... sounds like a great place to find *insert non furry art here*, lets join!"
> 
> Right...



That happens a lot, I'll have you know. As I already said, most of the users don't join only for furry art. It's more like this;

"Mmm. Furaffinity. Sounds like a great place to find furry art, meet with others that share similar interests, and broaden my horizon on styles of art whilst enjoying many other things at the same time. What a nice thing to group them like this!"


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Fur Affinity by name and creation original intention was a furry themed site. However it was built by a community that appreciate anthrophomorphic art. What makes FA great is that it didn't overly restrict the kinds of art so that artists can showcase so long as it doesn't have to do with model releases, legality, and art that doesn't appear to have been done by the person themselves or more work is done by a generator or computer...
> 
> Believing fractals are more done by randomizations with a computer than real user contribution I think is the biggest issue with staff right now...
> 
> ...



Very much to the point.  Apophysis is a Windows program, and I have a Mac, so I am unable to perform a badly needed experiment:  

Would someone with a Windows computer please download Apophysis (it is free), wipe out the supplied example settings (which are not "by you"), enter random parameters, and hit the render button? Do this 5 or 10 times and post the results to your FA Scraps with a link to them here.  If the results look like those of widely recognized and respected Apophysis artists such as Thoron and Kewlhotrod, then it must be a generator rather than an artistic rendering tool.  If the results are boring blobs, then something very relevant and centrally important has been demonstrated - that it is an artist's tool, not a replacement for artistic ability.

Please - someone do the experiment.  If I could, I would. I think that it would put an end to a lot of guessing and bickering.

The moderator system seems to work well for music.  I've never heard any complaints from the FA musicians that I know of arbitrary and capricious actions limiting their postings.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> You completely misunderstand my meaning. Furries are furries because they like anthro art. That is the only reason they identify themselves as furries, and gather into furry communities. Anything that isnt furry is irrelevant to furriness.



No. Furries are furries" because that is how they chose to identify themselves. Why someone chooses to call themselves "furry" is their own decision. There are even furries who do not like anthro artwork at all. (because they're not 'into' art.)
There are also well-known individuals within the fandom who have never called themselves 'furry' (because they chose not to), but they're here, all the same.

So no, furries are not furries because they like anthro art. They're furry because they simply chose to refer to themselves that way.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> Very much to the point.  Apophysis is a Windows program, and I have a Mac, so I am unable to perform a badly needed experiment:



I could also see if I have time to do fractal experiments in Painter.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> You have physical data to actually back this up?



Bingo! There is no substitute for real data!


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> whilst enjoying many other things at the same time



This is a furry community. Why would anyone *seriously* expect to find something non furry here? Yeah, it might happen, but that really isnt a logical decision to be making... and if people are really comming to that conclusion, than how can this community ever possibly hope to *stay* furry, if their reasons for joining are to "enjoy many other things at the same time"



> No. Furries are furries" because that is how they chose to identify themselves. Why someone chooses to call themselves "furry" is their own decision. There are even furries who do not like anthro artwork at all. (because they're not 'into' art.)
> There are also well-known individuals within the fandom who have never called themselves 'furry' (because they chose not to), but they're here, all the same.
> 
> So no, furries are not furries because they like anthro art. They're furry because they simply chose to refer to themselves that way.



Why would someone whos not into art join an art community? I dont think this has any merit to FA...

and yes, you have to identify yourself as being a furry to be a furry. But seriously? The one thing nearly *every* furry will say is essential to being a furry, is enjoying the concept of anthros. There, is that better? Someone who identifies themselves as a furry likes anthros. Still supports my ideas.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> This is a furry community. Why would anyone *seriously* expect to find something non furry here? Yeah, it might happen, but that really isnt a logical decision to be making... and if people are really comming to that conclusion, than how can this community ever possibly hope to *stay* furry, if their reasons for joining are to "enjoy many other things at the same time"
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone whos not into art join an art community?



First: Because the name of the website is "Fur Affinity", like I mentioned before. This will ensure that the majority of what is submitted will be "furry".

Second: Because there are members who use Fur Affinity for other things, such as to stay in touch with old friends, or meet new ones.


----------



## Undying Song (Dec 18, 2008)

Foxystallion - I just finished downloading the program, so I will be doing what you asked very shortly.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> First: Because the name of the website is "Fur Affinity", like I mentioned before. This will ensure that the majority of what is submitted will be "furry".



Except, certain sections of the site already *arnt* primarily furry (music and poetry), and if you have your filters on, about an 8th of all submissions are not furry. How is constantly allowing non furry content *not* going to make this worse? If you let them, they shall post. (and sometimes will anyway even if you dont...) You cant tell me they wont, because thats the whole reason we're having this argument, is because people want to post their non furry stuff!



> Second: Because there are members who use Fur Affinity for other things, such as to stay in touch with old friends, or meet new ones.



I highly doubt that is their sole and primary purpose... and even if it is, its not the sites primary purpose.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> I could also see if I have time to do fractal experiments in Painter.



Thank you. I  would be curious as to what the results would be, but I doubt that it would help much to settle the argument about Apophysis.  Just because they both use fractal math doesn't mean that they are sufficiently similar so that the random output from one would be similar to the random output from the other.  

Nevertheless, this is the key question - can random inputs into Apophysis produce fascinating and beautiful images?  This should be settled by looking at the experimental facts.  If the answer is yes, it flunks the "by you" test.  If the answer is no, then Apophysis passes the "by you" test and should be considered an artist's tool rather than a generator.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Undying Song said:


> Foxystallion - I just finished downloading the program, so I will be doing what you asked very shortly.



Thank you very much! Real world data at last!!


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> Nevertheless, this is the key question - can random inputs into Apophysis produce fascinating and beautiful images?  This should be settled by looking at the experimental facts.  If the answer is yes, it flunks the "by you" test.  If the answer is no, then Apophysis passes the "by you" test and should be considered an artist's tool rather than a generator.



But not all artists create things that are beautiful. In fact, many strive to create things that are quite ugly.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 18, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> Thank you. I  would be curious as to what the results would be, but I doubt that it would help much to settle the argument about Apophysis.  Just because they both use fractal math doesn't mean that they are sufficiently similar so that the random output from one would be similar to the random output from the other.



Well it's just that most people don't know that Painter was Fractal Design Painter, it has a fractal generator built right into it. 

http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Creating_a_Cloud_Sponge_in_Corel®_Painter™

I've stated my opinions previously, I'm neutral...I just think "modern art" again is the equivalent of giving 9th place ribbons to  lot of people. However, I'm trying to look at the core of the problem with allowing fractals.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> But not all artists create things that are beautiful. In fact, many strive to create things that are quite ugly.
> 
> And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



Both of your points are true.  I have seen a few pieces of truly frightening Apophysis art.  An important question for me (and at least some of the FA admins) is whether someone inputting random numbers into the program can produce an image that is more than boring to those who have an emotional response to well done pieces of this genre.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> Both of your points are true.  I have seen a few pieces of truly frightening Apophysis art.  An important question for me (and at least some of the FA admins) is whether someone inputting random numbers into the program can produce an image that is more than boring to those who have an emotional response to well done pieces of this genre.



Yes, I think that is a better way to put it =P


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

I could also do that experiment FoxyStallion, unless you think that more then one person doing it would be a problem. 

And as for you Emil, I agree with about 1/4 of what you are saying, what I don't agree with is your saying what people like. You are not everyone, you only know what you like, you cannot say things like:

You completely misunderstand my meaning. Furries are furries because they like anthro art. *That is the only reason they identify themselves as furries*, and gather into furry communities. Anything that isnt furry is irrelevant to furriness. 

I'll have you know that that is most definitely NOT the only reason I identify as a furry! I don't know where you get this information, but there are many reasons why someone can identify as furry. 

I thought of myself as a furry even before I knew what that meant. I guess I'm one of those people who've always felt close to animals, had a sort of connection with them. I'm not saying I think I am one, but even before I started looking at anthro art, I fit into the general mold of what a furry "is" as having been defined by many people in many places over and over again.

So before you spout things like that, think about WHAT you are saying, and decide if you have the authority to say it.


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> You completely misunderstand my meaning. Furries are furries because they like anthro art. *That is the only reason they identify themselves as furries*, and gather into furry communities. Anything that isnt furry is irrelevant to furriness.



I do believe I actually changed that post, for the simple reason that, yes, it is incorrect and does not hold to what I believe. So I reworded it. If I didnt, I actually meant to. What post number was that in?



> I thought of myself as a furry even before I knew what that meant.



I dont think thats possible. I think you mean that, you think of yourself as having been a furry even before you knew what a furry was.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well it's just that most people don't know that Painter was Fractal Design Painter, it has a fractal generator built right into it.
> 
> http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Creating_a_Cloud_Sponge_in_Corel®_Painter™
> 
> I've stated my opinions previously, I'm neutral...I just think "modern art" again is the equivalent of giving 9th place ribbons to  lot of people. However, I'm trying to look at the core of the problem with allowing fractals.



I'm one of those people who didn't know about it. Thanks - I've copied the URL in case I eventually advance beyond Photoshop to Painter.

There are an infinite variety of fractal equations, and they produce very different outputs.  One of the most widely known fractals is Mandelbrot's Monster.  It has infinite detail and lots of variety - but at any scale, it is almost immediately visually recognizable for what it is.  I'd classify a Mandelbrot Microscope program as a generator because although you can point your digital microscope in any direction and at any scale, you are going to just see unlimited variations of the same old thing. That, however, is definitely not a general rule about fractals.

Since we have no way of knowing whether Corel Painter and Apophysis have the same fractal equations (but I'd bet a buck that they don't), experimenting with Corel Painter's fractal capabilities would not necessarily tell us anything about Apophysis.

We now have a volunteer who has just downloaded Apophysis and will do the experiment.  Within a couple of days we should have facts rather than opinions.  I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens!


----------



## Emil (Dec 18, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> We now have a volunteer who has just downloaded Apophysis and will do the experiment.  Within a couple of days we should have facts rather than opinions.  I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens!



Any idea what the sample size is going to be?


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

Okay Emil, you are correct, you did get rid of that middle sentance, just not before I wrote my post. Glad you realized that inherent fallacy.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> I could also do that experiment FoxyStallion, unless you think that more then one person doing it would be a problem.



Thank you very much!  One of the keystones of science is the demonstration of public replicability.  I trust the outcome of an experiment far more when two or more independent labs produce similar results.  I would very much appreciate your doing the experiment, too!!


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

Yeah, I could do that right now, I have Apophysis already. So as I understand it, I should start from a blank canvas? Not utilizing any scripts, or any random batches? What about the mutator? Well since you haven't used Apo guess you wouldn't know. Point is I don't know how to write scripts in Apo, users like kewlhotrod probably do, but anyway, I'll do what I can.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Emil said:


> Any idea what the sample size is going to be?



We now have two volunteer experimenters.  I've suggested 5 to 10 random renders each, and I'd be happier with 10 than 5.  If anyone has the time and patience to do do more, the more the better.  Since they will be put into the experimenter's Scraps, they won't spam the Main or Browse pages. The cost to FA is negligible, even if we end up with a hundred or more images.  We will soon know a heck of a lot more than we do now.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> Yeah, I could do that right now, I have Apophysis already. So as I understand it, I should start from a blank canvas? Not utilizing any scripts, or any random batches? What about the mutator? Well since you haven't used Apo guess you wouldn't know. Point is I don't know how to write scripts in Apo, users like kewlhotrod probably do, but anyway, I'll do what I can.



Please start from a blank canvas, and set those notorious sliders randomly. This is really quite exciting!


----------



## Sentinalh (Dec 18, 2008)

What sliders? All I got is triangles a bunch of numbers and words I don't know what they mean, and a mutator thingy.


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 18, 2008)

Sentinalh said:


> What sliders? All I got is triangles a bunch of numbers and words I don't know what they mean, and a mutator thingy.



Sorry, I have no idea what the control panel looks like.  Ask Kewlhotrod how to enter random parameters. I'm sure that he will be glad to help.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

How about I just do a few of my own. Not saying anyone else can't do them either. 

If I am going to do this experiment, I am doing it thoroughly. Forgive the spam.

Note that these will be a large size, but low quality for time issues.

I am only doing 5 because more than that for this amount of details in examples would take quiiite a while.

Also, I am not going to do the experiment with randomly inputting values because it is VERY difficult to do that and actually have an image still. If you add too much random stuff without any thought your image is pretty much deleted. Also, it's all in one color unless I decide to change the color. The random batch fairly does the same thing.

And finally, the images that I say actually took time and stuff will all be mine, not as advertisement, but as a 100% positive that it actually took time and so it's not angering another artist by chance that I used their work. Just a safety thing.

 Apophysis 2.06c 3D Hack.

If you notice, random Apophysis 3D fractals do not have a 3D perspective automatically added. That has to be done manually, and even then you have to edit stuff perfectly to get a good 3D effect. 3D fractals are a LOT more challenging and difficult.

 Random Batch (Automatic Inputs)
http://i39.tinypic.com/1628n7c.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/15g5h0m.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2nb7fjs.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/33nw595.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/2nknkmc.jpg

 Actual Images That Took Time 
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1760312/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1760317/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1755988/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1562991/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1396298/

 Apophysis 2.08b.

 Random Batch (Automatic Inputs)
http://i42.tinypic.com/i3cgig.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/2ecokuq.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/1124ena.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/2drgsqa.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/9i5pxx.jpg

 Actual Images That Took Time 
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1755969/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1763092/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1762911/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1725693/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1562994/


----------



## foxystallion (Dec 19, 2008)

That is quite a big difference! 

Nevertheless, the results from the two other experimenters will probably be more convincing to some people who might think that you somehow purposely cheated to make the random ones look bad.  To those who might have such suspicions, let me point out that the acceptance of that hypothesis requires the acceptance that the Apophysis artist has skilled rather than random control over the outcome.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

I figured that, which is one reason I almost thought to not do it, but then I decided I've got nothing better to do.

Do know that I didn't mess with anything of that sort, just let it stay completely random, but from a scientific standpoint I can understand how that assumption is made, and that's fine.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 19, 2008)

well i've been fiddling with the other variation of apophysis
the 3D hack version 2.06b

it appears that there is actually a create blank render setting i nthe editor.
which would open the debate that it is possible to create totally unique work

this is for those who do not know of this feature or have even played with apophysis 3D hack 2.06b

which in my opinion is much better then the original and more fun.

to create a blank slate is simple.

open the program
select only one of the presets it makes for you
then save it to a new flame file of your making

then go into the editor and look for the button that says blank template.
this is virtually a clean slate that you can remove all the variables from and start fresh.

make sure to save the template to the flame file before continuing to edit
this way you'll save yourself some time.

and wala you now have a blank and totally yours render.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Yep, yep.

It's in the transform editor window. On the main menu toolbar it's the one with the two triangles. After that at the top-top left, click the two pages.

Whalla-bam. New fractal setup.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Yep, yep.
> 
> It's in the transform editor window. On the main menu toolbar it's the one with the two triangles. After that at the top-top left, click the two pages.
> 
> Whalla-bam. New fractal setup.




*does the final fantasy 7 victory fanfare and clouds sword spin pose


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Is the Zelda "ITEM GET" music playing in the background?


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Is the Zelda "ITEM GET" music playing in the background?



*gets big hammer and sends you to the creepy moon

noo this is sparta and here in sparta we play final fantasy fanfares


ok yeah anyway i'm completing a render to show the use of the blank slate. it will be my first time actually using the blank template

this is 100% mine


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

foxystallion said:


> That is quite a big difference!



With all honestly, I personally dont really see much of a difference between some of the ones randomly generated and some of the ones that took time. Yes, the ones that were randomly generated dont consistently look good, or *as* good, but yet some *do* produce results that are interesting, if somewhat less complex.

I say this as one who never really bought into the whole "its a generator" argument, but... the results dont really convince me so much...

Perceive my bias as you will.

*edit*

Im not sure exactly what it is you want the administration of FA to do, Kewl. Yes, your fractals are good, and it would be hard for the random generator to replicate that (but not necessarily impossible) But, the vast majority of submissions to FA, are in fact *not* good, but mediocre. And thats what I see when I look at these...



> http://i42.tinypic.com/2nb7fjs.jpg
> http://i42.tinypic.com/33nw595.jpg
> http://i41.tinypic.com/2nknkmc.jpg
> http://i41.tinypic.com/1124ena.jpg
> ...



mediocrity.

These fractals have every appearance to me of something that someone may very well have worked hard on, but not necessarily came out with "good" results. The thing is, and you seem to be forgetting this, time spent on a project does not automatically make it good. 

And, it would seem to me, that what you want is for FA to judge fractal submissions based on their quality, because mediocre pieces are very easily produced randomly (if your data is true, about 50% of the time). However, since FA does *not* judge the worthiness of any submissions based on the quality of that submission (people who are bad are allowed to post, the same as people who are good) how is this fair to Fractal Artists? You would be creating an environment where fractals and only fractals, are being allowed because of their quality, and only those deemed "good" may submit. The only people this ends up being beneficial for, are the "good" artists.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> And, it would seem to me, that what you want is for FA to judge fractal submissions based on their quality, because mediocre pieces are very easily produced randomly (if your data is true, about 50% of the time). However, since FA does *not* judge the worthiness of any submissions based on the quality of that submission (people who are bad are allowed to post, the same as people who are good) how is this fair to Fractal Artists? You would be creating an environment where fractals and only fractals, are being allowed because of their quality, and only those deemed "good" may submit. The only people this ends up being beneficial for, are the "good" artists.



No actually what I was getting is that apparently there is a difference between a pre-generated fractal versus one with blank canvas. That isn't a quality issue but rather what constituted as generated work.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> No actually what I was getting is that apparently there is a difference between a pre-generated fractal versus one with blank canvas. That isn't a quality issue but rather what constituted as generated work.



Has that ever been a debated issue here? However, what you seem to be forgetting is that, what the random generator is capable of creating is *also* what the blank canvas is capable of creating. So, when something like this shows up, how do you differentiate between whether or not the submission was generated, when the program allows the user to do both?

In the end, what this user seems to think is the decider is quality. Because, if the fractal is good, then time was obviously spent with it. But, that still doesnt solve the problem that not all the fractals that may be submitted are of the sort of quality that the user was using in their examples of what has had time spent on it (all the examples of which, happened to be their own.

The whole thing is still wide open to abuse, without anyone being able to prove a thing.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> Has that ever been a debated issue here? However, what you seem to be forgetting is that, what the random generator is capable of creating is *also* what the blank canvas is capable of creating. So, when something like this shows up, how do you differentiate between whether or not the submission was generated, when the program allows the user to do both?



Umm considering I read the *first post* with bolded parts. That *is* the debate. When we're talking about blank canvas... we're talking about how much is done by the user versus computer.

A person can technically fill up a canvas in Photoshop with a color and add a lens flare and refer to it as a resource or texture.


----------



## freakether3 (Dec 19, 2008)

Fractal Art on FA is crucial to the more legitimate aspects of the site as an 'ART SITE' ...nothing against porn.._*the obligitory 'it rocks'*_ !  Many of us come here for the Art, & it is my humble & low-life opinion that much of what is here continues to reflect ongoing *REAL-History*.....as opposed to what the trend-mongers foist up our noses via their many owned & corporate avenues & galleries.
Fractal Art cannot be disregarded. It is the visual pros of our continued attachment to computers/technology in the new millennium. 

*VIVA La Muse d'ART!!!*


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Umm considering I read the *first post* with bolded parts. That *is* the debate. When we're talking about blank canvas... we're talking about how much is done by the user versus computer.



You are right.

But still, isnt it obvious by now that this program is *both* a generator and a blank canvas?

This still doesnt solve the problem of how you differentiate what is generated from what is user made. Because, like I said, the program can do both, and the results arnt always going to be as obvious as the sort of work the OP does. So, how do you enforce this sort of thing? If someone doesnt make a particularly good fractal, doesnt that just mean it looks like something the program automatically churned out?

And again, like I said, about half of what the OP posted as examples of generated content, still look like the sort of thing a user might thoughtfully create.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 19, 2008)

freakether3 said:


> Fractal Art on FA is crucial to the more legitimate aspects of the site as an 'ART SITE' ...nothing against porn.._*the obligitory 'it rocks'*_ !  Many of us come here for the Art, & it is my humble & low-life opinion that much of what is here continues to reflect ongoing *REAL-History*.....as opposed to what the trend-mongers foist up our noses via their many owned & corporate avenues & galleries.
> *VIVA La Muse d'ART!!!*



Again, what I keep telling both sides is that does it follow the AUP of user created content versus generator/computer primarily created content ie ART.

Whether or not you think it's art is not the argument.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> You are right.
> 
> But still, isnt it obvious by now that this program is *both* a generator and a blank canvas?
> 
> This still doesnt solve the problem of how you differentiate what is generated from what is user made. Because, like I said, the program can do both, and the results arnt always going to be as obvious as the sort of work the OP does. So, how do you enforce this sort of thing? If someone doesnt make a particularly good fractal, doesnt that just mean it looks like something the program automatically churned out?



Umm again 2 pages ago we had a person who volunteered to be a moderator and actually knows the content. Just like Fox Amoore is primarily designated as a music submissions administrator because he knows his stuff. This is why we were doing tests in the first place to see if such a thing was possible to differentiate with those familiar with fractals.

It's really obnoxious to go back into circular arguments when a lot of this has been covered already.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Umm again 2 pages ago we had a person who volunteered to be a moderator and actually knows the content. Just like Fox Amoore is primarily designated as a music submissions administrator because he knows his stuff. This is why we were doing tests in the first place to see if such a thing was possible to differentiate with those familiar with fractals.



I dont know about you, but two pages for me is 100 posts. Its a little bit difficult for me to remember what everyone has said, and the question has yet to have been answered anyway.

And is this experiment being done with fractals of the same relative skill level, both user created and generated? I dont really think comparing one of the OPs pieces to a generated one is exactly a fair comparison, since there really is no doubt the OPs work is user created.



> It's really obnoxious to go back into circular arguments when a lot of this has been covered already.



All Im really asking is what would be done if no definitive way to differentiate can be found.

And, this is slightly off topic, but are you mainsite admin/staff ?

*edit*

And heres a question for all the fractal artists. Why dont you make and post furry/animal themed fractals?


----------



## Samuel (Dec 19, 2008)

Say, Emil...Not to sound rude...But what are you doing on FA, period? You produced no art whatsoever--whether furry or not. And, if you need an animal-themed fractal...
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1359469/    (demonic bear?)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1353392/    (a plant-dog thing?)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1338042/    (a giant shrimp?...mmmm)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1332225/    (a pine marten?)
Now, how about you post four of the things you've done, and posted on FA?


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Samuel said:


> Say, Emil...Not to sound rude...But what are you doing on FA, period? You produced no art whatsoever--whether furry or not.



You dont have to post here to enjoy furry art. And just because I dont post it, doesnt mean I dont produce it.



> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1359469/    (demonic bear?)
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1353392/    (a plant-dog thing?)
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1338042/    (a giant shrimp?...mmmm)
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1332225/    (a pine marten?)



Thats what Im talking about. Why cant you all post stuff like that?

I wasnt suggesting that it is impossible make furry themed fractals, I was just asking why very few of you seem to =\



> Now, how about you post four of the things you've done, and posted on FA?



http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1570314/

Sorry, can only think of one off the top of my head, theres probably more though =\ Youre right, I dont have anything in my personal gallery at the moment. All that means I dont have anything non furry in my gallery as well. It *doesnt* mean that stuff Ive drawn isnt on FA. They just so happen to be in someone elses gallery (AUP: For You)


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> Has that ever been a debated issue here? However, what you seem to be forgetting is that, what the random generator is capable of creating is *also* what the blank canvas is capable of creating. So, when something like this shows up, how do you differentiate between whether or not the submission was generated, when the program allows the user to do both?
> 
> In the end, what this user seems to think is the decider is quality. Because, if the fractal is good, then time was obviously spent with it. But, that still doesnt solve the problem that not all the fractals that may be submitted are of the sort of quality that the user was using in their examples of what has had time spent on it (all the examples of which, happened to be their own.
> 
> The whole thing is still wide open to abuse, without anyone being able to prove a thing.




Actually, as has been stated twice now, I am fully prepared to act as a 'moderator' of some sort and inspect these fractals. As I said it is plainly obvious to differentiate between random and user oriented because random, (which, btw, will NEVER produce something as good as was posted. No matter what you think, it is virtually impossible. The odds of that sugest that it will never happen in one million lifetimes.), is generally random triangles thrown at different variations with numbers no real user would input as the values, (Such as .501934885881384881245) and so on. It is quite obvious to differentiate these things. VERY obvious, in fact.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> As I said it is plainly obvious to differentiate between random and user oriented because random,  is generally random triangles thrown at different variations with numbers no real user would input as the values, (Such as .501934885881384881245) and so on. It is quite obvious to differentiate these things. VERY obvious, in fact.



Really? So obvious that out of two mediocre fractals, one user made and one automade, youd be able to tell it by looking at it? 

Its easy to tell if you compare a random one to something you do. But you are skilled. Would you be able to tell if a user only had so much skill that their posts look like what the generator can frequently make? Because, you have to admit, a person is capable of applying shapes in a seemingly random fashion, without it being so.



> (which, btw, will NEVER produce something as good as was posted. No matter what you think, it is virtually impossible. The odds of that sugest that it will never happen in one million lifetimes.)



Still a possibility, as its all luck of the draw. But Im not really all that concerned about it, cause it is highly unlikely


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil, have you noticed that you tend to argue for the sake of arguing?

If you didn't want to go back a few pages, and realize that at least the debate has been narrowed down to:

Is there a difference between fractals that fall under generator guidelines versus something user made.

and

If the latter is true, is it possible for someone to moderate it.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing and it's really unproductive, because you're throwing the kitchen sink in and other tangent arguments when we can really streamline this so we can see how to resolve the situation.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Emil, have you noticed that you tend to argue for the sake of arguing?
> 
> And, tell me how I am doing that?
> 
> ...



Both of which Im still asking very legitimate questions about.

But fine, since I keep asking questions, and nobody is actually answering them without basically saying "just because" then fine, Ill stop debating, just to make you happy. Im still going to ask him to elaborate on statements he makes though.

But, if my posts really are not the sort of things that should be considered in making a decision or are spam, why arnt you, or anyone else, deleting them?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> Really? So obvious that out of two mediocre fractals, one user made and one automade, youd be able to tell it by looking at it?
> 
> Its easy to tell if you compare a random one to something you do. But you are skilled. Would you be able to tell if a user only had so much skill that their posts look like what the generator can frequently make? Because, you have to admit, a person is capable of applying shapes in a seemingly random fashion, without it being so.
> 
> ...




One word: Parameters.

Yes, I would be able to do that. As stated before, yet again, parameters replicate the same fractal, and you can go in and tell if it's randomly generated or not by simple common sense (to a fractal artists' eye) by looking at the transforms.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> As stated before, yet again, parameters replicate the same fractal, and you can go in and tell if it's randomly generated or not by simple common sense (to a fractal artists' eye) by looking at the transforms.



And why is that?

I dont really know anything about this stuff. But the paramaters are what makes the fractal look like it does, right? I dont really understand how that can prove its generated.

The transforms are what, the changes made since the project was started?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> And why is that?
> 
> I dont really know anything about this stuff. But the paramaters are what makes the fractal look like it does, right? I dont really understand how that can prove its generated.
> 
> The transforms are what, the changes made since the project was started?



Lol, nonono. All wrong.

Parameters is the code that you can paste into Apophysis to reproduce a fractal creation. At that time, someone with good knowledge of Apophysis can go in and easily tell if it's generated or not. Transforms are simply triangles and... Well, it's too much to go into depth about it.

Just trust me. With parameters it is a simple measure of telling. I know about this, and you apparently do not. I don't mean that as rude, just stating, heh.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

> At that time, someone with good knowledge of Apophysis can go in and easily tell if it's generated or not. Transforms are simply triangles and... Well, it's too much to go into depth about it.



You still arnt telling us how...



> Just trust me.



No, because youre still not explaining anything to me. @.@ Your just patting me on the head and saying "you wouldnt understand"

The only thing I can inference from what your saying is, the more triangles, the better. Or the worse, this hasnt really been explained to me yet.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

You're wrong, I've actually already told you. You just DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, and therefore take it upon yourself to believe that I am not telling you...



kewlhotrod said:


> Actually, as has been stated twice now, I am fully prepared to act as a 'moderator' of some sort and inspect these fractals. As I said it is plainly obvious to differentiate between random and user oriented because random, (which, btw, will NEVER produce something as good as was posted. No matter what you think, it is virtually impossible. The odds of that sugest that it will never happen in one million lifetimes.), is generally random triangles thrown at different variations with numbers no real user would input as the values, (Such as .501934885881384881245) and so on. It is quite obvious to differentiate these things. VERY obvious, in fact.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> You're wrong, I've actually already told you. You just DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, and therefore take it upon yourself to believe that I am not telling you...



All the posts youve made regarding this and the only real point of explanation is a single line. Still, my fault, cause I should have noticed it. I apologize.



> generally random triangles thrown at different variations with numbers no real user would input as the values(Such as .501934885881384881245)



You used the word generally =P That means there are times when it does not. But thats just me being nitpicky, so...

And, if a user went through and edited some numbers, maybe marking them down to two decimal places or something, would that then constitute it as user made content, or avoid detection? Im not arguing with you, Im just asking.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 19, 2008)

a simple way to define a generated compared to a worked on is simple.

when using the 3D hack version the generated ones will be around 80% using the blur function and will look like big blurry circles or giant messes

the other 20% look like giant strings with webs in them.

another way to tell a generated fractal is through to use of scripts.

one of the more famous and constantly annoying to see is the wizards soup script that produces very stunning yet very un-original works by making use of the 3D julia and disc functions to create a room with a raised center and some neat looking walls.
whoopie
lol

my recent image clockworks is made from the blank canvas.

the other one super nova was edited
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1803915/
this was edited from a pre-generated that i completely stripped down in order to make the blowing up effect

this is the one i made using the blank template
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1810221/


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> All the posts youve made regarding this and the only real point of explanation is a single line. Still, my fault, cause I should have noticed it. I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nono. With a randomly generated fractal there will ALWAYS be a decimal place to the umpteenth degree. If someone rounds it to even the nearest thousandth, it's pretty much safe to say it wasn't randomly generated. With each fractal there are multiple numbers to look through that can tell you this, so it's not a one-look thing. You cross reference different variations.

But yeah, I wasn't exaggerating with the whole ".501934885881384881245" number thing. It happens. xD


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Nono. With a randomly generated fractal there will ALWAYS be a decimal place to the umpteenth degree. If someone rounds it to even the nearest thousandth, it's pretty much safe to say it wasn't randomly generated. With each fractal there are multiple numbers to look through that can tell you this, so it's not a one-look thing. You cross reference different variations.



Can they first randomly generate the image, and afterwords edit it in the way I described? Even edit the different variations?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> Can they first randomly generate the image, and afterwords edit it in the way I described? Even edit the different variations?



Yes, they can, however if they do this it's nearly impossible to remove the large numbers and replace them with something more human-like to make something good come out of it with those presets. That's why most just start from scratch as it is a lot easier to get the idea and result down.

Besides, to find a good random fractal to start working with is difficult.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> Yes, they can, however if they do this it's nearly impossible to remove the large numbers and replace them with something more human-like to make something good come out of it with those presets. That's why most just start from scratch as it is a lot easier to get the idea and result down.



Well, if the point of doing all that was just to use what is fundamentally a preset and avoid detection, isnt it doing that?

All they really have to do is keep randomizing until they get a result thats interesting looking. If they then edit it (Im assuming by editing the decimal values, the appearance wont change *that* much), how can you tell that they didnt just make it from scratch? Or am I still missing something? 



> Besides, to find a good random fractal to start working with is difficult.



I think one of the examples Nankisan posted says thats what he did. =P


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> Well, if the point of doing all that was just to use what is fundamentally a preset and avoid detection, isnt it doing that?
> 
> All they really have to do is keep randomizing until they get a result thats interesting looking. If they then edit it (Im assuming by editing the decimal values, the appearance wont change *that* much), how can you tell that they didnt just make it from scratch? Or am I still missing something?
> 
> ...



No. If you edit said decimal value even the slightest it will destroy the picture.

But even if it didn't, and they WERE able to edit it to something that looks nicely, it would take time, patience, and skill, so would still be allowable. That's unlikely, though.

The argument is over whether you start from complete scratch or not, it's whether you take time, patience, and effort to create something truly nice, no matter what method, as long as it's not a simple generation.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> No. If you edit said decimal value even the slightest it will destroy the picture.



Since I have no experience with this program or art form, I dont suppose it would be too much to ask for an example of a pic, beside the same pic that has had a decimal value edited slightly?



> The argument is over whether you start from complete scratch or not, it's whether you take time, patience, and effort to create something truly nice, no matter what method, as long as it's not a simple generation.



You still have to prove that it can be moderated in such a way that shows that fractals that arnt "nice" can be differentiated between those that are primarily user made and generated.

And while Im not the one you have to prove anything to, your method for discernment really hasnt convinced me so far that it can do that.

I dont even have anything against submitting fractals, its just that, from a modding standpoint, I dont really see how anything that isnt "nice" couldnt be confused with something that was generated, especially if the values were edited with that purpose in mind.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Dec 19, 2008)

Emil said:


> Since I have no experience with this program or art form, I dont suppose it would be too much to ask for an example of a pic, beside the same pic that has had a decimal value edited slightly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the SS part, no, I really can't do that. It takes WAY too long to get a good random fractal for you to see the effects change to create something nice from a random batch, and I would have to take multiple SS's because of the different menu's and locations of the values. Too much time to consume. DL the program and experiment yourself. You might enjoy it. 

And I've said all I can for my side of trying to convince you. You are getting the true argument mixed up with other stuff that isn't relevant, and not understanding how it is possible to differentiate between random and user-created.




Anyways, for future reference, I'm pretty much staying away from this until it is resolved. I've said all I really can, and will check in to read the updates and stuff of course, but my piece is over.

I can only hope that previous ideas will be taken into consideration, such as the group with an admin/mod to look over these fractals.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

kewlhotrod said:


> You are getting the true argument mixed up with other stuff that isn't relevant





> the debate has been narrowed down to:
> 
> *Is there a difference between fractals that fall under generator guidelines versus something user made.*
> 
> ...



Im sorry, but it would seem to me that at this point, Im not really mixed up about it at all. My questions have been pertaining to these. If I really am confused, I would be pleased if you would enlighten me as to how.

It just looks like you arnt willing to actually back up the statements youve made, that there is in fact a definitive way to moderate these submissions or even to just definitely tell the difference. Instead you insist that we all believe it because you "know what youre talking about" But, thats just how it looks to me. Im sure others dont see it that way at all, maybe even those that actually make the decision.

Good luck to you, and Im being sincere.


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 19, 2008)

I just generated around 80 million random fractals, all arguably pretty, while testing my videocard today.

Can I screenshot and upload them?


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Archibald Ironfist said:


> I just generated around 80 million random fractals, all arguably pretty, while testing my videocard today.



80 million? Either thats a gross exaggeration, or fractals dont take up much disk space xP


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 19, 2008)

No exaggeration.  Fractals are, after all, little more than a line of code to the GPU.

Also, it doesn't actually save them.  Just generates, displays, repeats.  This is quite stressful on a GPU at such a relentless, long-term pace.
The purpose is to cause the GPU and other components of the PC to heat up and fail.  If you can generate fractals ceaselessly for 24 hours straight, your system is garunteed rock-solid stable.


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Archibald Ironfist said:


> Also, it doesn't actually save them.  Just generates, displays, repeats.  This is quite stressful on a GPU at such a relentless, long-term pace.
> The purpose is to cause the GPU and other components of the PC to heat up and fail.  If you can generate fractals ceaselessly for 24 hours straight, your system is guaranteed rock-solid stable.



Ah, I see then =P If someone where to use this method, I suppose thered be no scripts or whatever it was to check to verify its authenticity. You could pretty much use as an excuse, "I only saved it as a .jpg" or something like that =P Assuming that Apotheosis lets you save things as .jepgs or similar file.


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 19, 2008)

To be precise, there'd be no way to determine where any fractals came from, unless they contained specific text on them.  And that can easily be forged and added.

I mean, if the US copyright won't take fractals (only fractal generation code, for specific subsets) then why should FA?


----------



## Emil (Dec 19, 2008)

Archibald Ironfist said:


> To be precise, there'd be no way to determine where any fractals came from, unless they contained specific text on them.  And that can easily be forged and added.



Well, it isnt so much seeing where they came from I suppose as it is being able to tell the difference between all user made fractals from ones that are generated. Or is that the same thing? ^^;

*edit*

Well, since Kewl decided to bow out, and he was the only person so far with enough knowledge of the program to answer my questions, I think Im going to bow out as well.

I just hope nobody has taken anything Ive said here personally or anything. And I apologize if I have been a bit of an ass =P


----------



## Archibald Ironfist (Dec 20, 2008)

There IS no way to differentiate between random fractals and user-made fractals.  A random fractal would inevitably and eventually create the same as a user-made fractal, as a user is unlikely to have any idea what sort of fractal will be generated until it has.

You input a random mathematical formula, and get a result.
A computer can generate countless numbers of these a second.  And 99.9% of the fractals you see today are just that:  Randomly generated, with almost no human input.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 20, 2008)

Archibald Ironfist said:


> A random fractal would inevitably and eventually create the same as a user-made fractal, as a user is unlikely to have any idea what sort of fractal will be generated until it has.


Not _entirely_ true, but the difference is so subtle....


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 20, 2008)

Closing this thread. Discussion has pretty much run its course, and at this point the focus on the main topic has become so watered down.

We'll announce our decision once we have had time to discuss it (though with the holidays, I can't promise it'll be soon). Any further threads on this issue will be deleted and the user creating fractal threads will be slapped.


----------

