1.1. The Fine art oriented algorithm is a method whereby a mathematical proposition is algorithmically and graphicaly developed in a way that has to achieve a fine art object rather than resting with the generic interface offered by the tools. Regardless of the algorithm that is being developed its graphic representation has to achieve specific wanted fine art attributes at each and every one of its step.

In order to accommodate the wanted fine art attributes, adjustments of parameters in the generative process are required, either at its entry side, directly into the script, or altering the algorithmic procedure at its end side in a WYSWYG mode. The artists' judgment plays the role of a feed-back that regulates the input according to the quality of the output. more


1.2. Overriding fine art criteria are to be met at every step of the development process.

A work of art is a piece of the soul encased in a material body. It is only by being “alive and breathing” that art retains the public’s interest; this explains the fascination brought about by animation or the rare blend of qualities that account for the greatness of some static art.

The value of an artwork is fact-based (certain specific qualities) and not  the result of promotional or conjectural statements. The first are always verifyable the second are not and impermanent.

There is a generally accepted legacy, deriving from centuries of artistic practice, that there are some 20 known attributes that are mentioned when it comes to considering the intrinsic artistic value of a visual object. Usually any art-related judgment starts with a subjective opinion: “I really like (or dislike) this.” This is the “gut-related” attitude that no one intends to compromise. Considering a scale from 0 to 100 that measures the importance of each of these atributes, —the viewer’s subjectivity—amounts to roughly 15% and is non-negotiable. Such subjective considerations have to be agreed upon first in order for a logical, even-tempered art discussion to follow and reach a consensus. In fact, the later will be an assessment of the proportional contribution of all the other 19 artistic qualities after the subjective ones have been brushed aside. Proportionality is of paramount concern because some qualities are essential and others are secondary or inconsequential. Moreover, only the handful of these essential qualities make a piece of art “alive and breathing” and able to captivate one’s emotions, heart, and the soul. They are the common denominator that threads together art throughout its history. They are never missing from any great work of art regardless of their date of production, be they by Duccio di Buoninsegna, Titian, Rubens, El Greco, Poussin, Douanier Rousseau, Manet, Picasso, and so many others. Obviously, liveliness is not enough for a work to reach the high levels of art hierarchies; however, it is the first and most important deciding quality to be met, otherwise it remains a mundane object.

The recognition and handling of these essential qualities has a twofold practical application: 1) they become an operating instruments by which an artist can assess or infuse quality in the work. They allow him/her to become the connoisseur and judge of the artwork and its potential, thus reaching the independence of judgment that frees him/her of inaccurate, bias or trendy assessments made by the art market. And 2) as in Epuré’s case, it allows the evaluation and control of the rendering of the recursive mathematical operations of the algorithm. This is why the latter is designed with an open architecture that allows changes of parameters on the fly in compliance with the determinant fine art attributes.

In conclusion, the main idea here is that a mathematical procedure that runs itself automatically may end up as a fine art object only if specific parameters are sought up beforehand for this goal. If not the artistic intent has to be reached by tweaking these parameters many times and in many places during the process.