~Earl Grey~ wrote:
That looks like a cellular automaton.
That sounds terribly complicated. I think people assume that my images are a result of using some computer program that spits them out, and when I tell them it's nothing like that and simply just continually editing what I already have over and over I don't think they believe me because they disappear after that. It's like if you threw paint onto a canvas and could then replace the splashes of red paint with the colour blue, or cut that shade out altogether, or look for an accidental distinctive splash of paint you then took and repeated to make an image, and then you looked at that repetition and repeated a part of that to make another image. It's endless recycling. A lot of glitch/filtered/photo manipulated imagery is using low quality images to begin with that the more you mess with the uglier they become. So it's none of that. It's like collaging, turning everything you have upside down, inside out, and using really simple methods on increasingly detailed denser shapes and textures. That sounds so simple as to be patronising, but I'm just surprised people would rather assume it's a result of some mathematical process rather than just time consuming effort. I dislike people associating the pieces with anything like that because imagery like that is boring to me because it lacks the touch of an artist who wants to try to express chaos, conflict, anger, menace, melancholy, who is actively trying, like really trying hard to mess something up as much as possible whilst trying to make it digestible as a whole. And generated imagery, fractals aren't about that.
I take your observation on board.
I think I'm just pleased it was noticed and went a little mad through the shock. Had you said something nice I'd have thought about replying for about 6 months, always wondering, it's too late, it's too late, he probably doesn't even use the internet anymore, let it go, let it go, they don't expect you to reply, they don't expect you to.