|
 |
Stephen McAvoy wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:34:45 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I think it is mostly the foreground trees that give it away. It is not
>>that the trees aren't believable,
>> it is that they are identifyable raytraced tree "species".
>
>
> Yes I see that now you mention it. I haven't used trees yet and they
> do look a bit gnarly.
Yes, I later wished that I'd made that point clearer. Identifying it as
a raytracing had a lot to do with being able to assume it was, then look
for clues.
> I thought that the shadows were just a bit off as if the sun was too
> close. But then I was looking hard for a clue. What decided me was
> when I tiled it on my desktop as wallpaper. The symmetry is a
> give-a-way. So I agree with Loki.
Yes, a photo with high degree of symmetry would spawn a different set of
questions.
>
>
>> That and a certain regularity to the general "randomness" and
>>perhaps some flaws introduced by photography itself. But suppose the
>>history of art had proceeded directly from painting to raytracing and
>>photography had never existed?
>
>
> Does that exclude paintings made with the help of a camera obscura?
Oooo, good example! That would mean an exceptional degree of empirical
information, but still, no matter how passive the artist's hand, via the
mind, it would introduce some regularity. Meanwhile, the viewer,
knowing the picture was the product of an artist's hand, would demand
less in the way of empirical randomness before experiencing verite.
> Which leads onto "no television" no computer displays hence no
> raytracing!
Spoil sport.
Hmm! Big thoughts. I know, we suspend disbelieve.
> The pre Raphaelites never got started and impressionism leaked into
> mainstream GUI's. The Dada school designed keyboards and all the keys
> felt like dead fish.
> My head hurts I wish you had not thought that thought :-)
>
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I assume you are aware of this:
http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
