Hugo Asm <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3f5b64ca@news.povray.org...
> It could also be, that users of POV-Ray are generally more mathmatically
> minded people. At least we are forced to be, and even I've come to value
> math! But look at  p.binaries.images  and see the amount of images that
are
> based on something mathematically, which is great, but misses an appealing
> light, color and composition.

The never-ending catch-22 of CG... artists works best when they don't have
to be bothered by technical considerations, and technicians work best when
they can fiddle with the numbers and not worry about mere aesthetics... yet
CG is ALWAYS a combination of the two.
>
> Even I sometimes feel, there is an abyss between the artist and the
> mathematican.

Well, definitely a difference in thought processing. For some people that
difference is an abyss, for others it's a small sidestep. Regardless of the
size of the gap, a successful CG artist has to be able to bridge it.

>
> In the past, artists worked with simple tools like paper and pencil. And I
> know how many artists don't really *think* about what they're doing (they
> are unable to, if they're on drugs!) they are just working with their
> instincts, feelings, and improvise whatever they're doing. It's a wonder
how
> something great can come out of this, but...

Actually, I find it a wonder that anything great can come out of the sets of
rules, formulas, procedures, etc that make up the way most things are
taught.  Constructing an image from rules or formulas *may* produce a nice
looking image, but probably one that looks good today and is forgotten
tomorrow.   Feelings, intuition and instinct are much more communal, and an
image produced by an artist who is in tune with them and expresses them in
his work is more likely to elicit those same feelings in the viewer, and
will still do so a year or decades later.  That is what art is all about.

>
> Moving the mouse around on the screen, comes closer to this, than using th
e
> keyboard.

Probably most of the time in modeling, although scripting is often faster
for some kinds of objects.  But for setting up lighting, or for working with
LOTS of objects I find that a GUI gets in the way a lot because of too much
information on screen at once.


Maybe that's why POV-Ray is shamelessly ignored among many
> artistic webpages?

I think some of the most artistic CG images I've seen are POV-Ray, but art
and industry are two different things. The CG industry revolves mainly
around animation, photorealism, production deadlines and the ability to move
your product between all the commercial packages.  POV-Ray is an anomaly in
that scene.

But I started ray-tracing with Bryce, then was learning Truespace when I
discovered POV-Ray.  Now Truespace is gathering dust, Bryce is relegated to
a terrain editor and I find that the flexibility of POVs SDL let me be far
more artistic than either of those.  Have never used Maya or 3DSMax, but I
understand they both have scripting languages built into them, so I imagine
they are considerably more flexible, but $$$ is a big barrier there.  As
long as I can create my images, and as long as POV lets me improve
artistically, then it's the best tool for the job.

RG

Post a reply to this message