Talk:Fractal art

message: The subject of 'Fractal Art' is really much more diverse than this article shows. I'd like to expand it.
Fractals are pervasive in generating almost all the 'natural looking' textures and patterns used in 3d and 2d texture generators. Bryce, in particular, comes to mind as being almost entirely fractal based in generating everything from its ground planes used as mountains, the clouds and sky effects, trees, textures, and even different types of water surfaces.
In 'Hollywood' fractals are used extensively in special effects where natural looking phenomenon are being depicted.  A few quick things that come to mind are some of the magma scenes in one of the Star Wars movies (the scene where Darth fighting Obi Wan on the rock bridge and the hot magma fountains over them and splashes onto the bridge) and the Titanic (the ocean, waves, and boat wake).
As I recall there were also some excellent movie references in the PBS special on Fractals too, though the exact movie (Star Trek?) escapes me, where the fly over of the surface of the planet was the first ever purely 'mathematically generated' landscape in Hollywood history.
Additionally, there are now 3d fractal generating software that uses object oriented user manipulation (Xenodream and Groboto come to mind). Both programs can export calculated fractals into formats that other 3d programs can import. This opens up an entirely new field for visual artists interested in the use of fractals as not only textures, but as objects.
Replyomatic (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  several things are missing from the fractal art article 

message: The article doesn't say what fractal art IS.  I assume that you could say that it is a transformation of an image, or a mapping of an image into another image.  Would what we see in a kaleidescope be considered a fractal image?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeButel (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is fractal art?

message: Hi, ideas on Talk:Fractal_landscape#Fractal_images.2C_art.2C_landscapes.2C_surfaces.2C_etc. on how to manage the hierarchy for computer generated art/images and fractal arts, etc. will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Art & computer generated imagery

message: Are there any notable "fractal artists", i.e. notable enough to rate an article on WP? Where do they exhibit? Have they been featured in any of the main-stream art magazines? When? Exhibited in any of the big-name art galleries? Retrospectives? Embalmed in the collection of some art museum? etc. linas (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started an artist section listing a few notable fractal artists. The section still needs expanding along some of the lines you suggest. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractal Artists? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Fractal art's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Mandelbrot1983":
From Fractal: 
From Fractal dimension: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Fractal art]] 

message: The dome in this article has a vaguely "fractal-like" or "kaleidoscopic" appearance, but I'm not sure if it's really a fractal. Would it be misleading to describe it as a fractal if it wasn't generated by a recursive algorithm, but instead drawn by hand? Is it accurate to refer to "fractal-inspired" artwork as fractal art? Jarble (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the dome in this article really a fractal?

message: Feel free to revert but *only* do so if you can show notability, please - by linking to coverage in reliable third party sources.
Kerry Mitchell doesn't have his own Wikipedia page or appear in the section of notable Fractal Artists, and his books are apparently self-published through Lulu - yet the article gives prominent coverage to him and his "Fractal Art Manifesto".  Not cool.
As brilliant as his art may be (for all I know!), Lulu publications don't prove notability because literally anyone can self-publish something through them.  Googling his name suggests he is non-notable.  At first glance, it looks like a non-brainer that this definitely shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
I don't want to assume bad faith but this looks like self-promotion?  What I'm about to delete can be restored in a heartbeat, but shouldn't be unless citations can be given to show that Kerry Mitchell isn't just a random guy with an opinion.  Having a footnote linking to the manifesto itself isn't enough.  We need coverage in reliable sources.Señor Service (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised to see this "Fractal Art Manifesto" in the article.  Coming to the talk page, it looks like someone re-added the manifesto, without discussing it here or giving any evidence of notability (the only ref for this passage seems to be the manifesto itself).  I googled "Fractal Art Manifesto" in quotes and got fewer than six hundred results - none of which looked like major publications.  So I'm amazed if it's notable enough to deserve coverage in Wikipedia.  With that in mind, could the editor who wants it included please make a case for its notability here, on the talk page?  Otherwise, it's liable to be removed again.  Jas mc 2016 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, I make no comment on whether the author of the manifesto is himself notable.  However, please note WP:NOTINHERITED (the guidance states that notability is not inherited, and gives "The artist is famous, so the album is notable" and "This poet is notable, so all his individual poems must be notable too" as examples of arguments to avoid).  I will check back in the New Year and remove references to the manifesto if a) they are still here and b) no one has provided evidence of notability from one or more reliable third party sources.  Jas mc 2016 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Being bold: about to delete "The Fractal Art Manifesto" section

message: I agree that the current number of images is sufficient.  Unless the text is substantially expanded the page becomes unbalanced. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are already rather many, and not all are well integrated with the text. Ideally each one would be discussed directly in the main text, either as an individual image or as a class. Right now the feeling is of a gallery where - it seems - would-be artists imagine they might add their own work; that's something that ought to be changed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fractal art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001183453/http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/digitalmedia/wright.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/digitalmedia/wright.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article lists this as the definition of a fractal:
“ Fractals are any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes for which any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size.”
citing Merriam-Webster as a source. This is a decent definition, however considering how the rest of this article is moderately technical, I thought it would be better to at least mention the formal definition of fractals.
However since I’m new to Wikipedia, I’m not sure if I’m the best judge of what should and shouldn’t be added to an article, so I decided to open a talk page instead. Captainsnacc (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. The worse that can happen is they will remove it if they don't think it belongs to the article, but I don't quite see why it shouldn't be in there. Mejorasi723 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of fractals seems a little too non-technical