Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> My 2 eurocents:
>  I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
> IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
> head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
> of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
> many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives it
> the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.
> 
[snip]

Realism isn't exactly my thing either, never was. However, in painting for
instance the strive for realism has resulted in very interesting images. For one
because painters who had the ability to come close to reality soon found that it
was necessary to add something to it. On the other hand there were painters who
used this approach just to show how bland (?) reality really was. Or, how
exciting. This goes for painting, but alos for film. My point is, that while
trying to make your image as realistic as possible, you always, knowing or not
knowing, add something, call it a vision or a point of view. Your computer may
be a machine, you, unfortunately (?) are not.
("I'm both mentally and physically superior to the human being." - Data -
working on a painting)
The choice of subject, scenery, objects, point of view, approach etc. makes an
image interesting or not. For example the over-obvious
glass-ball-on-checkered-floor posted on this server yesterday was great, because
it added something really new (some technical thing I don't know the beginning
of...) in an attempt at (physical?) realism.
Still, I stick to my cartoonish imagery and make a nightsky with stars, brown
clouds, or silhouette bikes if I like. No lenseflares though, I think.

That makes 4 eurocents.

Remco

Post a reply to this message