> What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is
into
> the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for
many
> people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the
technical
> thrill of it all.

For me, that thrill disappeared a few months ago.  It's like the difference
between writing a dictionary and writing a novel.  You can't write a novel
without a good understanding of the language, but nobody really wants to sit
and read the dictionary.

Jim, unlike many of us, falls into the "artistic side".  The IRTC takes both
technical and artistic into consideration, so I feel that a discussion of
both is appropriate.  Christoph suggested better lighting for my entry,
which led to a very technical thread.  Other threads had more to do with the
artistic merits, and others with concept/theme/etc.

I personally enjoy hearing more discussion of the artistic merits of our
entries, since that is where I personally feel the most deficient.  Visiting
Gilles' Oyonale web-site I often think that I may be able to do many of
those things on a technical basis, but it's the artistic aspect that keeps
me returning and inspires me.

> And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot
painted on
> a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being
too
> stupid to deserve to live.
>

Everyone knows that a red-dot is meaningless, it's only when it's a red
square on a white background that it has meaning...  Duh!  ;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message