Shay wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3e95965c@news.povray.org...
> 
> I found this a little late, but have been reading and enjoying the
> various threads. I believe that he problem with participation has to do
> with the fact that you have put more thought into your comments, Jim,
> than many of the entrants have put into their images. Regarding most of
> these images there simply isn't anything to discuss.
> 
> That isn't meant to be as strong a criticism as it may sound. Building a
> scene in Povray can be a long and difficult process, and the act of
> completing a scene provides the same type of  satisfaction as completing
> a model airplane. It is obvious that whereas many put a lot of effort
> into creating their entries, very few put much thought into the scenes
> themselves.
> 
> There is a thought process involved in building an unimaginative scene,
> but the process is automatic. The inclusion of most objects has less to
> do with artistic expression than with the availability of a model or
> source material. To ask why an entrant placed a horse in front of a
> carriage is to ask why he put legs on a table. One of the better
> concepts of the round was the radio graves entry, and Slashdolt
> confesses to adding many of the elements simply because he liked them.
> Even the main idea of his picture doesn't provide a lot of provocation
> for discussion. The idea is somewhat ironic, but the irony isn't
> analogous to any human experience. The idea is however not threadbare,
> which deserves a lot of credit.
> 
> If you accept that most of the images are more like model cars than
> attempts at art, then the majority of the emphasis should be on
> technical merit. When I comment on pictures in the IRTC, most of my
> comments are related to this. However, there is not a whole lot to
> contribute in that area, either, since so few have really taken or had
> the time to get as far as they could without help. What help can you
> offer someone whose scene is only half finished.

Okay, I think I follow you, my comments are largely beside the point.
Do you think they are actually discouraging participation?  And I am 
confused about whether you think any discussion is irrelevent?

> 
> If you want to do something to "advance raytracing as an art," then I
> would suggest focusing your creativity on your own works rather than
> those of others.

So everyone was having fun making meaningless model airplanes and I came 
along stole it all by taking them seriously and imposing meaning? 
Possibly.  There is an appropriation of the work when I note my 
reactions to it and try and interpret them.  But three objections come 
to mind.  One, you may very well be selling some people short.  Two, 
when a work enters the public domain, it is open to interpretation and 
has meaning, like it or not.  Three, some minimal attempt at meaning 
seems implicit in a contest which centers around a "topic" and in which 
2/3 of the judging is based on artistic and conceptual merit.
But I will concede that claiming to "advance raytracing as an art" is a 
bit grand.  I retract any such claim and admit that this process serves 
personal ends, trying to organize my own ideas.

  That, and voting for provocative topics for the IRTC
> rounds. I think that people will find more creativity if they are
> focusing on an idea about which they are passionate.
>

Hey, the "Worlds within Worlds" topic was my suggestion!
Isn't it possible that a discussion of the artisitic side of the entries 
might lead to better topic ideas being generated?  And if they find an 
idea about which they are passionate, and focus on it, and find some 
creativity, wouldn't it be even more fun if myself or another comes 
along and further validates it?

Post a reply to this message