Jeff Lee wrote in message <36e5914c.0@news.povray.org>...
>"Marjorie Graterol" <pgr### [at] emailmsncom> wrote:
>> Jeff Lee<SHI### [at] GATENET wrote in message 
<36e4c3a3.0@news.povray.org>...
>>
>>> Considering that photorealism is *the* strong point of a raytracer, 
it's
>>> not likely to be a trend that will disappear soon.
>>
>> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, 
called
>> art.
>
>I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
>photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
>to disagree strenuously).
>


Please read it again!  :-) 

>> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, 
called
>> art.
>
>I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
>photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
>to disagree strenuously).

The misinterpretation relies in taking raytracing as photo-realism. 
Photorealism is old, like me :-). It is from the 60's and 70's, as an 
artistic movement, that derived to super-realism.  Art has been always 
ahead its  time,  Raytracing on the other hand is a way of 
representation.  

>...the people who only seem capable of drawing a single
>white line on a black canvas and calling it "art" will fade into
>obscurity.


That's for sure, until the concept of "talented" changes again.  In 
Neoclasicism, every sculptor re-created their works  following the 
classics. And they ended up with sculptures without eyes. It is just 
that they did not realize that originals had lost their eyes with time. 
:-)  They were realist, and they were not realists. 


Regarding music, It is the same concept. There is music that gives me 
headaches,- well, I do not call it music-.  I usually get cured with 
some genuine rock., I am from the 70's :-)

>The way I see it, this is the spatial concept which
>is best represented by the raytracer, since it works by the 
mathematical
>principles which lie behind perspective drawing.

Right again. Only when that space concept changes, is when everybody 
scream. That's good. 

>And yet, now that contemporary art has departed from photorealism, is 
it
>not a valid artistic choice to choose realism, no matter what the art
>world thinks?  ;-)


Yes it is valid. What happens is that realism is another term.  Realism 
not as a movement -USRR, Daumier, etc-., realism  that involves a way of 
thinking, a way to aprehend reality. ( BTW, what reality? :-) )  When I 
discussed that with a mathematician friend of mine, I asked her to show 
me a four., no examples. Show me one, in nature. It is a formal thing, 
like aesthetics, only in the mind.  :-)

It has been a good exercise, :-)


Regards,
Marjorie Graterol

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (5 KB)