I am making jellyfish, lily pads, whales and flowers via Fractal Flame software. All expressionistic and/or impressionistic. [samples: https://twitter.com/SCAQTony/media ]
However, there is something about digital that degrades the art by allowing it to be massed produced. One print is equal to another and therefore it almost becomes trash. Example: Imagine an original Mickey Mouse drawing versus a rendering of Woody and Buzz from Toy Story?
As a fractal artist myself as well, I've been ranting about this to myself lately. I've been thinking that the problem is inherent to algorithmic art in particular; I guess I can actually see some worth in renderings of e.g. Pixar characters, but maybe that's because I have kids who appreciate them, or because I've browsed Pixar art books.
What I've noticed is that in order to make fractal art that typical art gallery-types find worth their time, you have to take on a kind of Simon Cowell role and inject your own intuition or library of culturally-attuned sensation memories into the creation phase, turning it into more of an audition phase. "This one just sucks...this one is OK...this one needs a little tweak and it'd look great, kind of like a rainy summer day." In order to make your product useful to other humans, you have to typologize, sometimes really brutally, and especially moreso since your computer can just keep pumping this stuff out.
If you go the other way and shun the story, shun the critique, and say "typology is for the closed-minded," you can end up in scientism, completely free of such hyperbolic typology but lacking a compelling presentation of a set of convergences. Lacking a story, lacking any depth with which humans really identify.
No matter how much machinery goes into computing scientific results, the results are still somewhere along a normal curve, and unfortunately that's not super useful to humans. But psychologically we find extreme typologies very useful. As a group, we'd rather say "ooh, a sports car" or "oh wow, dripping ice cream!" than "oh, it's a blob that could be any number of things."
At its most vain, the typology-free approach can end up as a sort of pornography, an obsession with process to the exclusion of context, and to the deep satisfaction of barely anybody.
That's why I really get frustrated with fractal art or generative art. After a point I have to put on my designer hat, and I might as well have painted the thing from scratch anyway. Or I might as well have used the software more like an artist would use Alchemy, as a sort of imagination cue.
I am going straight to the public - I am also going to diversify (Catwoman panting in the works). Going to rent a gallery, have a party, get photos of people staring at a few giant Chromaluxe prints on aluminum and then set up a site. The art will feature anchoring pricing: 60'x80" limited edition Chromaluxe prints for $4,000 or a 24x36" lithograph for $35. Hoping I sell 10-posters a month of each. I wish you well.
However, there is something about digital that degrades the art by allowing it to be massed produced. One print is equal to another and therefore it almost becomes trash. Example: Imagine an original Mickey Mouse drawing versus a rendering of Woody and Buzz from Toy Story?