Javascript
comments 17

The Imaginary Kingdom of Aurullia – Interpretation of Mandalay fractal by Subblue

aurullia-5-1920@2x

The Aurullia series are Tom Beddard‘s interpretation of a fractal formula called Mandalay, a specific type of Mandelbox with additional parameters that allow scaling of the folding on individual axes, either in parallel or one after.

Tom explains that the upside of Mandalay is that you can get an interesting mix of structures without the obvious patterns you often see in fractals. The curved domes are due to the Mandelbox like sphere folding and the towers due to the different fold scaling of individual axes.

He is also adding additional rotational changes between the images which helps create the transition from a crude unrefined state to a very geometric and architectural form, like different stages of a civilisation in the imaginary Kingdom of Aurullia – Tom.

Mandalay was first described (like all 3d fractal algorithms) on fractalforums.com.

Project Page |  Tom Beddard | Previously on CAN

Aurullia was created with Fractal-lab – a tool Tom Beddard has been building for the last few years that allows rendering of fractals in the browser with WebGL. More information about Fractal-lab can be found here.

aurullia-4-1920@2x

aurullia-6-1920@2x

aurullia-3-1920@2x

aurullia-1-1920@2x

aurullia-2-1920@2x

  • JustThink

    Is it just me, or does Fractal Lab looking freakin awesome! I want to play with that thing so bad!!

    @Tom Beddard – please make this available to us mere mortals. ;)

  • You can install this on a webserver, here’s one installation: http://hirnsohle.de/test/fractalLab/

  • Incredible art ! Thanks for the sharing !

  • Eric Scoles

    Not only is it not real, it’s also not math. The fact that fractals are involved in this is significant in precisely the same sense in which it’s significant that some piece of art is done with a lead-pencil or a ballpoint pen.

  • Michael Rectenwald

    That sounds impressive; but I believe you’re incorrect.

  • Eric Scoles

    You BELIEVE I’m incorrect? Well, I guess if you believe it….

  • SterlingCrispin

    What do you mean by “real” and “math”. Are digital things less real then physical things? By that logic your comment is not real. You sound too fundamentalist for your own good

  • SterlingCrispin

    What do you mean by “real” and “math”. Are digital things less real then physical things? By that logic your comment is not real. You sound too fundamentalist for your own good. Lighten up :)

  • Eric Scoles

    The “wow”-factor of this whole article is the handwavy implication that the design features presented in this art are somehow due to the math. It’s vaguely possible that they are, but highly unlikely — there’s nothing here that couldn’t have been DESIGNED without these tools.

    What these are, are software tools for creating detailed renderings. They’re technical means to realize a design.

    It’s “not real” in the sense that what it is, is a designed landscape. It’s the product of an active mind, not the output of some mathemagical formulae.

  • Yes and that is what the article describes. “He is also adding additional rotational changes between the images…” It’s a compositional tool.

    I bet you’re a ton of fun at parties.

  • Thomas Haferlach

    why don’t you actually inform yourself a little about fractal landscapes, fractals and related algorithms before you make stupid knee jerk comments?

  • It may not be calculus or arithmetic (what mere mortal think is mathematics), but computer science is a branch of mathematics, and even computer programming can be described as yet another branch of mathematics. It is even taught at college as part of applied mathematics and numerical methods.

    In fact this is not very different to what Turing was doing while researching how animals got their different types of spots and bands.

    So, please get off your high horse.

  • Eric Scoles

    So, you’re telling me that only the tool makes the imagined landscape possible?

    How dull.

  • Eric Scoles

    Yeh, I get that “it’s math” because it happened on a computer. I do this stuff for a living.

    What’s being sold to a credulous readership, here, is the idea that this picture is math. It’s more fodder for the math-as-mysticism woo that rots peoples brains.

    But of course don’t even try to understand the analogy, just assume I don’t understand the concept of a turing machine…

  • vaiyt

    “The fact that fractals are involved in this is significant in precisely
    the same sense in which it’s significant that some piece of art is done
    with a lead-pencil or a ballpoint pen.”

    Yes, and?

  • vaiyt

    I don’t know how you managed to make such a fantastic reading of the article, but I can guess you’re very emotionally invested in your pet subject and think your deeper comprehension of it makes you enlightened.

  • Steve Nordquist

    There is a corpus of toothpick art in areas served by meth, and a separate corpus of construction inspection to building codes (and whether Zaha Hadid got ’round them much, additionally,) that say no, nobody is going to converge on this by design and no particularly exact like tooling. If your toothpicks and your dmz say different, go on and link the gallery.

    Have you met T-square Albieth? [Whole Foods client proudly holding model with one side perpendicular, from one view, to another waves hi.] It wants to tell you about the T-square.