I agree.

It all goes back to the discussion of what is art? What is good raytraced art?

My answer is not: that which is mistakable for a photograph.
My answer is: that which inspires, with a theme something more than an idiotic
pun.

The type of art books I most like to flip through are those of POSTERS, from
1900's advertisements to patriotic and anti-war protest posters to dance club
ads.  I am bored to death with paintings of landscapes.  I think the "landscape
painting" faction of the art world is the same faction that likes absolute
photorealism in 3D.

Someone was once impressed at the possibility that a photo of a kitchen sink
was raytraced.  I say it's bloody boring however the image was arrived at.

Simen Kvaal wrote:

> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.

Post a reply to this message