Carrie Ann and/or Shay wrote:

> 
> "I believe that he problem with participation has to do with the fact that
> many of the entrants have put less thought into their images than you have
> put into your comments, Jim. "
> 

Okay, now I gotcha.

> 
> I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
> model airplanes.

I would say you are not selling *everyone* short.  I would go further 
and say that the model making paradigm is the prevailing attitude.  That 
is, that to produce a raytraced image is to produce an accurate 
*recreation*.  And to be clear here, I am talking about the image, not 
the ( csg ) model underlaying it.  Though many make that confusion also.


> 
> Perhaps. More likely, this discussion may encourage entrants to put more
> thought into the ideas behind their entries within the scope of whatever
> topic is selected.
>

That is my hope.


> I have trouble accepting that many
> entrants in this round were passionate at all about the themes of their
> entries. This is not to say that they were not passionate about the
> technical challenge of producing those entries.

Well I have certainly been there with my own entries.  I would guess 
that maybe half of mine began with the desire to explore a particular 
technical issue, and tried to adapt that endeavor to the topic.  That 
said, I think it is also important to acknowledge that the creative 
process can begin anywhere and follow an indirect path.

> 
> I think that comments like yours and Rendergdog's do a lot to encourage
> participation in the IRTC and to encourage people to improve their skills. I
> think that what you are doing is a good thing and was in my original post
> only reporting why others like myself may not have the motivation to do the
> same.
> 

I appreciate you saying so. Peace.  Just let me add that I care alot 
about the work I see exhibited here and am wary that I may very well be 
exploitive.  You loose your sense of boundaries while you write sometimes.

Post a reply to this message