Working on a new book. Doing a chapter on isometric worlds. Of course, I had to start messing with the code and doing some generative art with it. 🙂
Pictures link to Flickr page with full size images.
Resources
Search
Archives
Categories
Meta
20 Responses to Isometrics
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great to hear that you are working on a new book, I’m really looking forward to read it! 😉
Isomorphic craters?
they look great, eerrrrr equalizer?
Cool, I love isometry. Will have to look into that book once its finished…any chance of a few preview chapters? 😉
Any chance of you givin the name of the book free?
So that i can keep track of when its on the market and stuff ?
Love your friends of ed book btw 🙂
Made some very cool things with it 🙂
This looks pretty cool. Love to see this animated in time to music.
Generative Artwork != Art 🙂
Not sure what point you are trying to make there, Manuel.
Manuel it is a never ending dilemma… but you are not looking around you. go in some museum. look for art. There are milions of arts around you. (classic age is gone)
I got inspired by this and created my own isometric thing-a-majig.
http://www.ahrooga.com/2008/07/rendering-an-image-to-an-isometric-grid/
Just awesome. Would indeed make a cool equalizer
Any chance of you posting some code snippets from stuff like this?
(1) Do something NOT derivative
(2) Post in Blog
– X.
x: ok, that’s the second comment in this post that baffles me. Call me dense, I don’t even know whether I should take that as a criticism or not.
What I refer to with my comment is the inflationous use of the words “generative art” for whatever visual that was generated by code. Too many flashers these days get tempted to label themselves this way, which in comparison with some of the more heavyweights of the generative art scence might seem a bit… lets say megalomanic. What I critizise especially is the lack of deep involvement with the subject. Sunday afternoon artists 🙂
Manuel, thanks for clarifying. Did you also write the “X” comment, or was that someone else? Anyway, “generative art” is defined as, “Generative art refers to art that has been generated, composed, or constructed in an algorithmic manner through the use of systems defined by computer software algorithms, or similar mathematical or mechanical or randomised autonomous processes.” That’s how wikipedia defines it anyway.
This doesn’t mean that every piece of generative art has to rank with the work of “heavyweights in the generative art science”, whoever they are. Hopefully they aren’t so exclusionary about their genre that they feel threatened by any “Sunday afternoon artist” who dares use the name.
Its not a topic of big matter anyway, and I wasnt wanting to make the impression to represent the position of “established art” being the only real thing whereas the status of belonging to the established scene being the only criteria to be considered as an artist, that would be terribly conservative of course – but if I look at people like Manfred Mohr spend half his life with algorithmic art or the young guns Marius Watz or Robert Hodgin, and then I see people whose thinking is more influenced by programming(==generative) that consider themselves generative artists – I dont know its a bit disrespectful for those who have hearts of artists and pursue their way with time and energy. Its too tempting to create something “visually interesting” with code that lacks essence.
(Not me the X by the way.)
Well this is definitely on the far end of the “visually interesting” spectrum and that’s all it was ever intended to be. I’m not going to get into a discussion of what qualifies as real art or who has the heart of an artist. No winning there.
I’d say that art, just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I like this.
This is a nice effect, it reminds me of some of the processing stuff w cubes, but definitely pleasing especially in colour.