Escherian circle limits (like those described by https://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl/escher-today/circle-limit-iv-heaven-and-hell/) are a kind of graphical “repeat and fade,” representing fractals such as Cantorian dust, Koch snowflakes, Serpinski sponge, … The idea is that the scaled self-similarity need only shrink below the resolution of the display or its apprehension.
I agree that those are visual analogs of repeat-and-fade; thanks for pointing them out. And I agree that a certain kind of machine-generated fractal can be a lazy way of bounding a visual work of art, just like repeat-and-fade is a lazy default solution in songwriting.
The current occasional practice of showing bloopers from a film during the closing credits could be seen as kind of a cinematic analog of repeat and fade. ??
That's a great example of something else that's kind of a "lazy artistic choice," but it doesn't feel to me like that's what I mean by the "ending" of the movie... even though I know the closing credits are after what I do think of as the ending! It's certainly fair to say that in the world of closing credits, doing a sequence of bloopers is almost a default or cliche. And I guess that in terms of keeping the audience engaged in the movie, the closing credits are sometimes the "real" ending, even if that's not the end of what the screenwriter(s) wrote.
Escherian circle limits (like those described by https://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl/escher-today/circle-limit-iv-heaven-and-hell/) are a kind of graphical “repeat and fade,” representing fractals such as Cantorian dust, Koch snowflakes, Serpinski sponge, … The idea is that the scaled self-similarity need only shrink below the resolution of the display or its apprehension.
I agree that those are visual analogs of repeat-and-fade; thanks for pointing them out. And I agree that a certain kind of machine-generated fractal can be a lazy way of bounding a visual work of art, just like repeat-and-fade is a lazy default solution in songwriting.
The current occasional practice of showing bloopers from a film during the closing credits could be seen as kind of a cinematic analog of repeat and fade. ??
That's a great example of something else that's kind of a "lazy artistic choice," but it doesn't feel to me like that's what I mean by the "ending" of the movie... even though I know the closing credits are after what I do think of as the ending! It's certainly fair to say that in the world of closing credits, doing a sequence of bloopers is almost a default or cliche. And I guess that in terms of keeping the audience engaged in the movie, the closing credits are sometimes the "real" ending, even if that's not the end of what the screenwriter(s) wrote.