White Desert #4

White Desert #3

Why the two titles? I want to keep the classification by the main algorithm, what I have been calling Confetti. The current subset are clearly related, a high degree of mixing and mess, partially bleached away with a mostly white palette. But if I start grouping by core algorithm plus palette plus some kind of entropy measure, well that gets too much to keep track of. I may tackle that later, but today I am too lazy.

White Desert #2

This one suggests an aerial image of an alien planet.

White Desert #1

The Confetti algorithm and its variations are designed to transform an otherwise clean and simple image into something messy and chaotic. I mentioned in Confetti #10 that as I was trying different variations the results were too messy. Imagine the lower left here being the entire image. I switched to an almost all white palette, leaving just enough "dirt" to keep it interesting. It provides a nice contrast to the denser mess on the left.

One more in the minimalist geometric abstraction detour.

I have been comparing pixel-first and object-first algorithmic art, as well as making comparisons to fractals. As with fractals, a pixel coordinate is converted into a complex number then through a series of calculations on that number, a color is determined. Because of that, like fractals, you could say that this image is infinite, is extends forever is every direction, and this is a view of one rectangle. You can pan and zoom to find other interesting area. I said "you could say that", I consider the bounding rectangle to be an essential part of the image / algorithm. But that is just semantics.

When I say "fractal like" in this case I mean specifically escape-time fractals, the 'normal' kind, not the ifs fractals or flame fractals I mentioned yesterday.

Not much to say today, obviously, bigger and fewer objects.

I already had program code for pixel first algorithmic art for the fractal art. So it was and easy choice for the first step into algorithmic art. Not all fractal art is created with a pixel-first design. Ifs fractals and flame fractals are types of fractals that are created object-first.

I am still using the messy algorithm I described yesterday, Confetti #10. I greatly reduced the number of squares, but kept them small, and removed the requirement that they fill the canvas, while painting the untouched areas white. The big step is the last one, less is more.

This is a side trip. I have plans to explore minimalist geometric abstraction in the future. I did not expect to approach it from this direction. It was a nice surprise to find it here.

I defined two types of algorithmic in Confetti #9. So far I have been using a pixel-first algorithm. It will be easier to work on geometric abstractions with an object-first design.

Floating squares.

I wanted to add some independent floating tiles to the image. This proved to be much more difficult that I thought it would be. I will spare you the details, the bottom line is I have been modifying the program / algorithm all along. Experienced programmers know what happens when a program goes through a long series of modifications and enhancements without a cleanup and refactor step, it becomes fragile and unmaintainable. I am at that state now. Often a change does not have the intended results. Fortunately my program is just painting pixels on screen is it not controlling a life and death or even business critical situation.

I am pleased with this one, but I decided to skip several other similar images I had queue up. I plan on returning to this idea once I clean up the program and it does what I want it to do.

What are the different types of computer art? I tried to research that questions, and I was not happy with what I found. Not that the descriptions were wrong, just not what I was looking for. I just want to say that these images are "pixel first algorithmic art".

So, let's make up a simple top level classification. As with similar classifications, it is just an exercise, it does not really matter.

Interactive, or computer assisted art. The user interactively tells the computer what to do. Think of the old MS Paint and similar programs. You tell the computer to put a circle here and a line there as you build up your image. Photoshop is a much more sophisticated example of the same basic process.

Algorithmic art, the computer, via an algorithm or program decides where to paint the circles and lines.

I propose this classification base on process not outcome. You can draw a circle with a mouse in paint, or write a program to draw the same circle. In theory, anything that can be produced by one method can also be produced by the other. But in practice there are clear differences, a human would never have the patience to replicate the precision of an algorithm, and it is very difficult to reproduce a human's free mouse movements with an algorithm.

Now I want to subdivide, algorithmic art. Let's call it object first and pixel fist.

Object first algorithmic art. The program decides where to place objects on the screen, then determines which pixels are affected, and colors those pixels appropriately. If the algorithm want to generate a blue line from point A to point B, it figures out the coordinates for the screen pixels lie on the line and colors them blue.

Pixel first algorithmic art. The algorithm starts with pixel coordinates x,y, and uses those to color the pixel.  Again this is definition not process. You can draw the same blue line pixel first, just ask a slightly different question, "does pixel x,y lies on the line from A to B, if so color it blue".

Again, in theory, everything you could create with one method, you could also create with the other. But in practice, the choice of object-first or pixel-first leads to distinctly different results. Everything I have posted so far, and for the foreseeable future, is pixel-first.

At this point, any description seems like stating the obvious. Bigger squares, less chopping, 50% of the canvas is left untouched.

I use the same program, a program I wrote, for both the fractal and the algorithmic art displayed here.

You cannot just sit down and write a program to create an image. Well, you could but it would quickly become a chore and much less fun. There is a lot of mundane overhead beyond the art-algorithm itself. The program needs to know how to color pixels on the screen. My program provides a work area with I create and explore with smaller images. Then when something is ready, it creates a larger, anti-aliased image to publish. It categorizes the image, and saves it to disk. It also saves all the formulas I write for later reuse. I can quickly change parameters for a formula and generate a new image without recompiling. When the code/program part of a formula changes, it compiles the new code without leaving the program.

It is like having a studio with paints, brushes, drop cloth, and with a blank canvas set up and waiting. I tried to design my program like that.

This fractal / confetti hybrid works much better. The fractal shape is well hidden. (There is a period 6 branch point to the left of center, the branches gently spiral counter clockwise.)

Here is another fractal / confetti hybrid. This works better because the fractal part is deemphasized. You probably recognized the dark potion as a tendril in a typical fractal with smaller branches off to the sides.

Although, in this case, while an improvement over the previous, I think it just adds unnecessary complexity. Layering the confetti mixing algorithm over a simple collection of circles, squares and lines works equally as well, if not better.

I tried to mix the confetti algorithm with the fractal algorithm. I am not pleased with the result. But I am posting it anyway if anyone else was wondering what a (failed) mashup might look like.

The main problem is the confetti algorithm and fractal algorithm have equal influence. The image cannot make up its mind what it is. Often that type of ambiguity is desirable, but it does not work here.

Here I am playing some more with varying the amount of confetti mixing across the image. The function that controls the mixing has become more complex.

A few days ago I called this abstract art and algorithmic art, and implied that it is not fractal art. What is the difference? Why do we need definitions? It is what it is. Feel free to appreciate it (or despise it) without defining it. Classifying it does not change it. Still, classification is an interesting exercise, so let's go there, gently, with that understanding that it does not actually matter.

Fractal art is algorithmic art since it is generated by an algorithm. Fractal art however is limited to a very specific algorithm. For many fractal artists, that algorithm is written by someone else. Even though I write the program(s) for my fractal art, I follow a recipe that is shared by thousands of fellow fractal artists.

Algorithmic art puts no restrictions on the algorithm. Everything is fair game. And generally every image is generated by a different algorithm. The algorithm itself sits on equal footing with all the other artistic stuff. So I like to reserve algorithmic art for the cases where creating the algorithm itself is a key part process.

I am paranoid that someone will vehemently disagree, and that paranoia drives me to deal with the minutia. First, I in no way intend to diminish the work of fractal artists that use someone else's program. Discovery and selection an interesting fractal region, then framing it and coloring it is the artistic input. That takes a lot of skill and practice and creativity.

I should say something similar for using a computer rather than a brush and acrylics. Maybe I will save that for another day.

Second, there are no clear boundaries. Many fractal artists soon get bored with z^2+c and start experimenting with other, and increasing exotic, formulas. Most fractal software allow users to write formulas, so there is no limit, it crosses over into general algorithmic art.

Some may consider this image a fractal. I don't but someone else might. Fractals are sometimes defined as having fractional dimension. I doubt that anyone could compute a Hausdorff dimension for today's image from the underlying formula/algorithm. But by appearance, it certainly seems to fit the definition. Also the process of repeatedly chopping and shuffling pixels seems fractal in nature.

In today's image, different "entropy" levels are assigned to different areas. Recall (yesterday's post Confetti #2,) the algorithm generates different distorted squares, which are used to shuffle around the colors in the starting image. The algorithm has parameters that control the size of the distortion. Rather than setting these parameters universally for the whole image. Another "set up" function sets them differently for different areas of the image.

Previously I mentioned that making these distorted too small or too large, or too variable or too uniform produced uninteresting results. But there are interesting results when the more extreme parameter values are mixed in the same image.

Today's image has the same basic starting point as yesterday. Here the typical "square" is an actual square. Yesterday they were elongated rectangles.

If you are not a daily reader, the algorithm is described in the previous post Confetti #1. The final algorithm is quite different, and much more complex than where I started.

Sometimes algorithmic art incorporates randomness into the algorithm. Despite what the appearance may suggest, this image and the rest are not random. The algorithm will produce this image, and only this image on every run. And in response to the cynics, no, that consistency is not achieved by setting a seed for a random number generator. For example there is a reference "square", that gets modified. Width, height, orientation angle are changes. The changes are determined by a function based on the x,y screen coordinates. There is a mix of different distorted squares. The mix has a mean and standard deviation like a random sample in statistics. But it is deterministic, not random.

Today starts a new series called Confetti. I am leaving fractals behind for now. Although I am sure I will return to fractals, I always do.

This is abstract art and algorithmic art. In the world of mathematics and computers definitions are precise. You can look at something and definitely decide if it fits the definition or not. The real world is not so clean, and the above linked Wikipedia articles are trying to classify things that are difficult to classify. I am sure someday I will be compelled to return to these definitions and add my two cents. But, you know, one day at a time. I will avoid that rabbit hole today, and simply assert that this is that type of art.

This image is generated by an algorithm that I wrote. The original idea was to start with a simple minimalist geometric abstraction, in this case white and black with a small splotch of blue and cyan, with smooth color transitions. Then chop the image up into small squares, displace the squares by varying amounts and then repeat until the original was suitably mixed up. When I implemented this algorithm in a straight forward manner, as suggested by the description, I was disappointed in the results. It was not want I expected, and not in a serendipitous way.

It works better to leave the square in place and pull the colors from elsewhere into the square. The squares are not uniform, they have different width, height and orientation. So they are actually tilted rectangles. The simple repeat loop did not work well, the last set of cuts were too obvious and a distraction. The repeat steps needed a kind of memory which informed the size and displacement for the next step.

There is a narrow range of rectangle sizes that works. If too large then it just looks like random rectangles. If too small, then the confetti effect disappears and it looks too much like the original smooth color image. Also, it takes a lot of iterations to get the squares chopped up and messy. This one has 80 iterations, although usually 20 to 50 is enough.

After all these adjustments I came up with something close to my original intent.

And here the the second alternate coloring of the image in Vines #11. There are more colors to help the fractal fireworks standout. The vines now appear as shadows or waves around the main fractal shape.

I was going to move on to another topic today. But my obsessive compulsive disorder prevents me from leaving this topic with "yeah, that one could be better if I worked on it more". So I went back to work on it. Here are two alternate views of the same fractal space, with better foreground / background separation. I muted the background, removed the corners on the vines and added gold / brown to highlight the high spots in the fractal shape.

Today's image has some of the same issues as yesterday's, too noisy and not in a good way. But since I had it queued up, and I am busy on other stuff it is what I have for today...