Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 01 May 2000 22:09:04 -0400, John VanSickle
> <van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
> 
> >The criteria should be photorealism and artistic value.  IRTC
> >winners should be considered first, of course.
> 
> "Of course," you say?
> 
> That's nonsense, of course. IRTC winners are no more sacred than
> anyone else. Placing special emphasis on a select group would be
> unwise. Important works can easily be created outside the IRTC, or any
> other similar group. Quality work should be recognized no matter where
> it originates. Emphasizing one group of people - any group of people -
> is unfair to everyone.

I didn't say emphasize.  I said to consider them first.

> It seems that photorealism is one possible criterion, if only because
> so many raytracing enthusiasts are trying to achieve it. However, it
> certainly isn't required to produce a great work of art, or a valuable
> rendering. In fact, when raytracing achieves *total* photorealism,
> watch the value of photorealism drop into the gutter. It has it's
> place, but it certainly isn't the only reason to value a work.

Yes, but a major reason for a hall of fame is to show what a cool
piece of software POV-Ray is.  Photorealism accomplishes that.

I'd like to amend my suggestion above to read:

"The criteria should *include* photorealism and artistic value."

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message