Jim, 
Your input is great.
 
For me real life is getting in the way and the light at the end of the tunnel is
a couple months distant. I expect others are similarly crunched for time and
thoughtful discussion takes time. 

It seems too that we have a more vibrant discussion when the artist
participates. Should we focus on images where the artist wants to participate?
Perhaps cut back on the number of images up for specific review each period
while of course allowing anyone to comment on any image?           

There was also discussion on the irtc-l mailing list about merging that list
with this group. For a while it looked as if something would happen quickly, but
it has not, which I expect left some on the irtc-l list willing and waiting. 

I agree with your comments related to advancing ray tracing as real art. But, I
also think the irtc and computer generated art in general is presently at a
level where the artistic value created varies widely. In other words, with many
images, it is obvious we are still struggling with the tools and techniques.
Moving the analogy to music - I feel the artistic performances occur when given
by those so skilled on an instrument their focus is the music. A long winded way
to suggest beyond the top 8-10 images, and a few others in any given irtc round,
a focus on the technical aspects is at this point the most valuable
feedback.     
Bill P. 

Jim Charter wrote:
> 
> Hey Mark,
> 
> We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces
> that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job
> since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us
> contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my
> input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think
> persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to
> discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that
> matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea
> to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the
> progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss
> the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is
> like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed,
> and should produce a richer context within which the community can
> produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?
> 
> -Jim

Post a reply to this message