Algorithmic worlds










Search blog posts



Next posts

2009-11-21 Hand-made fractals

2009-11-20 Leonardo Solaas

2009-11-18 Zoomable mandalas

2009-11-17 The Anonima group

2009-11-15 Dan Wills' fractal art

2009-11-14 The Exlibris Museum

2009-11-11 (Lack of) zoomable images

2009-11-05 BMFAC 2009

2009-11-04 Fractal flags

2009-10-30 Spectra

Previous posts


A blog about algorithmic art and fractal aesthetic. Click here to subscribe to the RSS feed.

November 15th 2009

Dan Wills' fractal art

It's nice to see that this blog post was not useless. Dan Wills had a great zooming frenzy and uploaded no less than 10 zoomable images, using Check them all on his blog, Ultraiterator. I would say my favories are ButterflyPhoenix JunkTuesday and Butterfly Ortn Airy Curl. Click on the little + in the top right corner to view them full screen.

As I tried to explain here, the images obtained through pattern piling display dense fractal patterns. 'Dense' means that they appear everywhere in the image: no matter where you zoom, you see structures. This density makes them in some sense "as fractal as an image can be". Dan Wills does not use pattern piling algorithms, but rather discrete dynamical systems acting on the complex plane (of which the most famous example is the Mandelbrot set). I do not think it is possible to obtain strictly-speaking dense patterns with this type of algorithms. Yet Dan's images are very interesting because they do look dense, even after a moderate magnification, and the patterns obtained in this way are in some sense more complex and organic.

And here is a completely off-topic comment that I have to get out of my system... I usually leave TV on when I work on my computer. I regularly have it on Discovery or History channel, and I am shocked by the outrageous number of intellectually dishonest documentaries, whose only aim is to make crazy (but sexy) thoughts by random crackpots look like established scientific theories (for instance recently there have been a few like this about the end of the world supposed to happen in 2012). The pattern is always the same. They rant during half an hour, then, to appear impartial, they give ten seconds to Michael Shermer, who tells them in diplomatic terms that they should forget about this crap, and they go on for another half hour, disserting about fake "scientific" evidence, performing goofy experiments and doing their best to give some kind of credibility to their crackpot of the day (the current one is a "former NASA consultant", he probably got fired after he got crazy). Even if there are occasional bad vulgarization documentaries, I have never seen anything like this in Europe. No wonder there are still people thinking the Earth is 6000 years old, with so much pseudo-scientific disinformation. I already put the following quote in a previous blog post, but it captures so well what these dishonest documentaries are about that I'll reproduce it here.

The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. Itís all lies. But theyíre entertaining lies, and in the end isnít that the real truth? The answer is no. The Springfield files

It seems that for Discovery and History, the real truth is whatever is entertaining.

comments powered by Disqus
Copyright S.Monnier 2009-2022. Bookmark or share