Those two schools of thought (and others as well) have permeated the Arts
for centuries.  As the years progress they each take their turns coming into
ascendancy and them going into eclipse (sorry, I just had to use the puns
...)  No one is better than the other.  They are all equally appreciable.

POv is, at its soul, yet another means of artistic expression.  Another
tool, like the brush, canvas, paints, etc. that are used to deliver the
artists take of their subject, impression of the subject, and the world
influencing the subject.  So, use it as you deem fit and as satisfies your
needs to express your portrayals of the universe and its subjects.

--
Jim

Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
and provide scientific insights beyond compare!

Be sure to read the Warp maintained POV VFAQ:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ.html




Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
>Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
>> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
>> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>>
>> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
>> experience don't bother...
>>
>> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>>
>> Mick Hazelgrove
>
>I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
>
>  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
looking
>in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
definate
>challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
>This can be most satisfying.
>
>  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
>stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
>artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
favors
>the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
>captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
>tha an image of a light bulb.
>
>  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
>pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
>with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
>importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
>I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
>to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
>in the same body of work.
>
>Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
>things it escapes me.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message