In fact, nearly every available space within each later frame is filled (padded?) with eye-popping ornamentation. In nearly every instance, the later “masterpieces” are more slick, more busy, and much more decorative.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be qualitative differences between the early fractals that supposedly suck and later fractals that supposedly rock. Personally, I don’t much care for most of the featured art work Ms. What’s the main difference between the two images? Can’t see it yet? Try again: The feature is worth examining because it serves as a vivid, concrete encapsulation for much of what Tim and I have been observing for years about the fractal art scene.Ī helpful beginning might be to look at a few comparisons - even as we wonder if “suckiness” is in the eye of the beholder. Fire says she wrote the article to “promote a lot of laughter and amusement,” and, indeed, it does, although perhaps not in the manner she intended. What’s supposed to be self-evident, I guess, is that the early renderings are unquestionably amateurish, while the more recent postings are irreproachably masterpieces. Fire selects early and recent works by assorted DA fractalists she considers “masters” and posts samples for before/after comparisons. But did you ever wonder, how did they do, when they first opened their fractal program …whatever it was apo or ultra fractal. In fractal ‘world’ we have a lot of names which are well known, established, the images from those ‘masters’ or ‘wizards’ leave us in awe and amazement. There’s an oddly fascinating feature currently on display on deviantART called “People Who’s Fractals SUCKED!” I’ll let the author, =Fiery-Fire, self-proclaimed “Fractal Gangsta’,” explain the general idea: By the way, as fractal art, this piece, allegedly, sucks.
0 kommentar(er)
