A classic fractal program like Tierazon (1997), which is what I used to make these images with, could be looked down upon these days for its lack of layering and user modifications. But I've always preferred to use programs like this because they often have a raw, untamed style to them.
If you look around the internet, you'll see a lot of very polished fractal images and, like most people, I was easily caught up with the notion of imitating this sort of artwork merely because it was there and seemed, by default I guess, to be the standard.
Part of me just got bored with that, and another part of me started looking at fractal art as just another form of art, and slowly I slid back into my old ways of exploring whatever looked interesting to me and viewing it in the context of the greater body of artwork and not just the tiny, insular world of fractal art.
In the context of all artwork, including all that crazy stuff that has shocked and excited the western world over the last 50 years; what can we say is "reasonable" when considering a new submission to the world of art?
Yes, it's a liberating idea; only an idiot laughs at any form of art these days, but that doesn't mean we should feel idiotic for criticizing it. The wide open category of art gives us confidence in our opinions because ultimately art is a mental experience and subsequently, as subjective and variable as our individual experiences are.
What happens in our mind when we view a piece of art is as valid as what "happens" in the mind of anyone else. However what "happens" in our mind may change if we study art or the subject matter of a particular art form (eg. fractal math) or simply reflect more on what we see. This is the way one comes to recognize and to present with confidence, works of "raw style" such as these.