For loop art

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/loops.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/Spirals.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/biezure.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/new.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/spirals.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/cirq.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/flying.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/morph.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/rings.swf

Anyone else who programs, come on, what are you waiting for? make some for loop art and post! Some quite complex effects can be created with very small ile sizes. The three files above are less than 5KB altogether! Here is these rules of For loop art:

• You can only use for/while loops, no graphics programs.
• The code must be your own, not copied of anyone.

I'll keep adding to list as i make more.

um... how do you creat those? they are cool.

Flash, Java ( :rolleyes: ) and i suspose any progamming language.

Can't you send me an example... just so I can see how it's done?

i like door number two... :heee:

Neato :smile:

I couldn't upload any of my source files, it seems Leperous has banned that files type. (.FLA) probably because of the source of most of the copies of Flash MX

whispers it's called a .zip file Matt.

As he said- I haven't banned it, just it's not on the 'allow' list.

They are great... make some animated ones :smile:

I took me a few seconds to work out whether they were animated or not. The lines seem to slowly drift apart when you're not focused on them.

Matt, check out phong.com - it's a flash tutorials website in which the webmaster became a Buddhist a few years ago, and started writing philosophical poetry... and making wierd, moving shapes similiar to these.

Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:

Heres one that took me ahyle to make



its prity sloppy but looks cool if u stare at it for bout 10 or so secconds :F

Thats pretty cool daeth, what did you use to make it?

Heres three more I dug out of my hard rive:

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/new.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/spirals.swf

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/cirq.swf

wow... cool stuff there matt. I like the first and the third ones in the post above.

Generally if you have a MovieClip with the name "mc" (no brackets) then this will start you of:

for (i=100; i<200; i++) {
//using levels 100-199
duplicateMovieClip(_root.mc, "mc"+i, i);
_root["mc"+i]._rotation = (i/99)*360
_root["mc"+i]._xscale = (i/99)*5
_root["mc"+i]._yscale = (i/99)*75
_root["mc"+i]._alpha = i
}

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/morph.swf

another i made today.

Pretty cool stuff there, I liked the second one the best :smile: Quite good for random wallpaper backgrounds perhaps, though I'd suggest mad photoshop tinkering first.

matt said:
http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/morph.swf

another i made today.

:eek: impressive

matt said:
Thats pretty cool daeth, what did you use to make it?

Paint HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

Pah, go draw some Julia sets (fractals) instead :razz:

not to be a s**t, but it doesnt much seem like "art" to me....hmm

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

Most fascinating... :razz: I like http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/new.swf best :smile:

Nonsense Doc... these days anything you can crap out onto a canvas is considered 'beautiful' and 'meaningful', to give 'perspective on the world' to the 'open minded' (not to say that has anything with these), which of course gives birth to the beautiful quote from Full Metal Jacket, "You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece."

This is rather related to both Brasso and Cass's posts.

Not really, but I'll tell it anyway.

Last term at PSU (one of the universities I attend) there was some guy making "art".

this was his process (on an imac):
1. Use program that randomly generates 2 hours of video and audio based on mathmatical equations . . . keep in mind he doesn't know the equations, he selects them from a list and goes "wonder what this does"

2. Watches the video, takes a large (200Mb) screenshot of a particular point of interest (which mostly looks like swirls of paint).

3. Messes with it Photoshop (In other words he slaps a bunch of filters on the thing and uses the smudge tool sometimes)

4. prints it on a canvas with an expensive printer

5. charges $500 for a print.

6. I kick him in the nuts because he's a asshole who thinks he's "clever", seriously, talk to him.

I tried carrying a conversation on with him, but it was going nowhere. He kept going back to how he used Quicktime to make an interactive movie . . . .

I then asked him (because he said he used math equations prior to this, nothing more) if he wrote in the equations. . . at least then he'd be doing something. But no, he selects them off a list . . .
He also smelt like a monkey . . . a monkey past its prime.

Sounds like a techno Jackson Pollock. at least pollock had significant skill though. he created true fractles by hand! none of his immitators have acheived that.

On the other hand, if this guy uses mathamatics to generate his "art" he probably is making fractals, just without any skill involved.

Have you ever been to the Sylvania campus of PCC Crono? there is random "art" everywhere. it's absolutly hideous.

Crono said:
"imac"

"he's a asshole who thinks he's "clever""

Those two go together.

Oh God I know. I had a class there last semester. But believe me, Tracer, PSU's Neuberger Hall, third floor is worse. Oh my God, how do these people consider themselves artists??? There are poor painting murals on the walls and such. It wouldn't be so bad if the people who did them actually knew how to pain (it shows in the finished product).

I mean, it looks like they tried to make people correctly proportionate, but were just bad at it, because it's too recognizable to be abstract.

Sadly, I have to go to both PCC and PSU . . . damn PSU full Physics classes. Although I must say, Tech. Writing (required for my major) is easy as hell through PCC, online anyway. I have better writing skills then the guy who teaches the class, well that's how it seems anyway taking that his emails are hard to decipher.

The only thing cool about Sylvania is the structure. . .but what the f**k is up with the parking lots?? There not next to the buildings you need to go to. And, for some reason, parking lot 14 and 1 (even though you can see them from each other) aren't connected with a road . . .

f**k you PCC lol.

Although, the parking is cheap. (PSU is astronomical, it's cheaper to use a meter).

Anyway, no one else has any idea what the hell we're talking about lol.

have you gentlemen ever had the pleasure of standing in front of a no s**t picasso, or even better, a bona fide rembrandt?....if you are truly an art officionado (which im not, hell i cant even spell it :heee: ) then some of this stuff would jump out of your body in the form of a technicolor(TM) yawn...im thinking even picasso, the earless, raving lunatic would have a s**tfit....now i dont intend any offense to anyone participating in this "endeavor", but to call it art? look, its mathematical generated line twisting, plain and simply, and a true craftsman would think it shameful....IMHO>>>> go to the sistine chapel in the vatican and look around.....THATS art....made my arm hair stand up.

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

let the games begin...

I agree 100% Brasso.

Math isn't really art. although it can help in defining guides for the art . . . it isn't on it's own, at least not without human tweeking. I mean, unless you specifically did some mathmatical equation to do percily what you wanted, it's really not art, because the definition of the word is:

The production of something beautiful, skill or ability in such work.

Says the Oxford American Dictionary . . . whoa, something I didn't know is "art" is also the present tense of "be" used with the word thou.

Anyway, it needs to take some sort of skill to produce a prodcut of art. Techinically you can say this is art because it takes some sort of programming knowledge and flash knowledge (or OpenGL) so you can see the damn thing. And that could be considered an art . . . I guess.

Anyway, if you put in some functions or for loops, which is cheating, because all you're doing is plotting a line and rotating it. A function which does it on it's own would be more impresive, where you put in functions where you knew how they would turn out, that would be more impresive.
:biggrin:

Oh well. Human art is much better anyway. Taking that normal entities/objects are much more complex then how they look on the outside.

I just realized I'm babbling, sorry lol.

[EDIT]
This has nothing to do with the for loop topic, but since there are other "artists" here (not that I'm one of them), have you ever used woodless pencils? oh man, they kick ass.
If you're wondering what they are: They're completly graphite about the same size as a normal pencil (little fatter). with a lacquer coat, so you don't get graphite all over yourself.

they, surprisingly, last longer then normal pencils, mainly because the graphite doesn't get broken by wood while sharpening and since the whole thing is graphite you don't have to sharpen as much as normal (but just as often, you're still using the same about of graphite.)

However, whenever I sharpen them I feel like I'm wasting it somehow, since I'm shaving off graphite lol. . .God I'm babbling again!

Sorry, anyway, to make it short, has anyone used them (other then me) ? If so, what did you think, from drawing with them of course (they're not too great for normal writting, even though there is an HB).
[/Babbling EDIT]

dude, that wasnt babbling...it was ..."crono-logical"... :heee: ...and well said at that... :wink:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Ahem . . . Crono-Logical (TM) . . . lol

I have my own logic . . . why do people keep telling me this??

[EDIT]
Or I babble in one concise straight line of thought lol
[/EDIT]

behold, another original free thinker....glad to make yer aquaintance sir... ....there are actually a few minds here that are VERY logical, but some that are....well, not....

Doc B... :dodgy:

Like people who call Tech Support . . . :biggrin:

Greatest call of all time:
A guy calls his ISP tech support because his internet is not working:

Guy:
"Yeah, I'm finding it difficult to get online"

Tech:
"Okay sir, have you checked all the connections?"

Guy:
"Yeah, they're all securly plugged in, but the problem is I can't even turn my computer on"

Tech:
"Oh, well first check to see if the power plug is in all the way"

Guy:
"I dunno it'll be kind of hard, I'm on a phone with a coord because the power went out"

Tech: -Click-

Oh I feel for my friends who work in Tech support (one of which told me this story).

My babble meter tells me I should wrap the post up right . . . about . . . now.

"Art is the expression of raw human emotion"

Art is what you want it to be, and for loop art is just another example of how technology and art are coming together.

Art:
http://mystudios.com/art/bar/velazquez/velazquez-las-meninas.jpg

Not Art:
http://www.columbia.edu/~pay1/pix/pollock-lavendermist2.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?q=rothko
Photographs

In your opinion, yes.

Matt, actually it's Oxfords opinion as well lol.

Also, is that your own definition, if it isn't, or is, what does it mean by 'raw'? And why is 'raw' human emotion art any different then normal art? I mean, almost every artist out there doesn't give a s**t about something they've done and it could look amazingly beautiful, are you saying that since the artist didn't put any 'raw' emotion into, its not art?

What we're trying to say is that, dude, this isn't art just because you do some incrementing in a loop and slap it out to the screen. I mean, Jesus, if that were true I've been creating Picasso loops for 2 years. And we all know that's not true, so, you can guess what the conclusion is.

Also, in my opinion, one of the most difficult arts would have to be architecture. I mean, think about it, it's something that can make you stand in awe. It's also something that physically protects you (is suppose to anyway).

I think I'm weird; I appreciate the wrong things lol.
I personally don't give a s**t about the Vatican; however, I think that some local architecture is beautiful (Pioneer Square, in downtown Portland for one). I think I have a thing for glass lol . . . not broken of course.

[EDIT]
That first link, Hornpipe put up has lead many "historians" to believe that family did nothing but imbreed, because of the obvious childrens downsyndrome. :biggrin:
[/EDIT]

[EDIT2]
also, I forgot to mention up there, I never said making mathmatical equations (in this case that isn't what you're doing) isn't art, it's just right now you're only rotating an image . . . ooo lol. If you actually had to do quite a big of thinking to plan how an image would come out, rather then it being random, it would mean much more, and are these for loops from your 'raw human emotion'?
[/EDIT]

I actually like Pollock's works...

While the creative juices were wet, I made this one (can be a bit laggy on slow computers due to the fact its animated)

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/matt/flash/rings.swf

wow, cool :eek:

I think art purely as emotional expression is petty, especially when I'm told to 'open my mind' to it. I choose what goes into my mind very carefully, thank you, and none of it is any work by Rothko and friends. That's paint on paper. If you feel negative emotions, and express them by whacking off onto a blank canvas, that's fine with me, in fact I might try it sometime, just don't put that s**t in a museum.

Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:

Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:

In your opinion, yes.

<a href="http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/opinion1.gif" target="_blank"></A>
EDIT: Someone warn me if Maddox doesn't like hot-linking his images.

Crono said:
IThis has nothing to do with the for loop topic, but since there are other "artists" here (not that I'm one of them), have you ever used woodless pencils? oh man, they kick ass.

I think they're rather nifty, but they seem a little fancy for my crappy work. They are much better than my crappy graphite pencils.

Yeah, I've grown to love them :smile:

They're really awesome for large shaded areas and when using blending.

Oh also, Maddox is awesome. I forgot about that picture lol.

Matt, actually it's Oxfords opinion as well lol.

Well, it's the opinion of the Oxford dictionary. But as for Oxford's opinion......I hereby nominate myself to represent it, with no justification whatsoever :heee:

Personally I appreciate art that has involved some considerable skill and effort - that is to say, craftmanship - in its creation. But I prefer to say that Matt's pictures are indeed art, although not particularly deep or significant art. I like them a lot, but they are fairly dispensable.

In considerably more detail, here is my rough view on definitions of art. It's changed slightly since then, but I still go with a form of non-elitist institutionalism (albeit one that admits of multiple and intersecting artworlds).

http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/gollum/define.ziphttp://www.snarkpit.com/pits/gollum/(1)Define.zip

I've never been to PSU, but I am truely sorry for you if it's actualy worse than PCC :eek:

IMO

Art is pretty much defined by the society in which it is produced, much like anything else. if you can get enough people to agree that somthing is "art" then it is. that's how language as a common conceptual framework functions.

-Monqui despite my crack about it, I do find Pollocks work interesting, if only form a "wow how the hell could someone create a fractal by hand!?!" kinda way.

Gollum said:
Well, it's the opinion of the Oxford dictionary. But as for Oxford's opinion......I hereby nominate myself to represent it, with no justification whatsoever :heee:

Bah, under whose authority! I nomiate myself to represent it, under justification of Awesomeness, and hereby declare it to be the act of slapping trout with a small plastic spork.

That is the correct definition of art, if you live in the Monty Python artworld.

Gollum said:
non-elitist institutionalism (albeit one that admits of multiple and intersecting artworlds).

MAI HAED Is TEh SPinzORrr?111