Personally I gave this image a fairly high concept mark not because of the
originality of the objects in it, or the way it was portrayed, but because of a
very impressive choice of subject.

I think it's inevitable with this topic that many entries will be renderings of
real buildings, so with those images the concept mark has to go on how the
artist has chosen to show the building, what building they have chosen, and why
they chose it. I felt with this particular image the choice of subject was
extremely good: the focus is on a sculpture which only counts as architecture
due to its shear size, and there is relevance to current events without being
distasteful, both of which I felt were bold decisions for a choice of subject
matter.

Though I grant you I would have marked lower for artistic merit had I known this
was a copy of a photo. The layout of the scene is very good but since that isn't
entirely the artists own work I'd have to agree with you that it is less of an
acheivement. It's a little dishonest not to mention if you're copying an image
(the artist states it was a "reference photo", which suggests a less direct
copy).

There's one more point I'd like to make: you say "the trivially easy task of
modelling a simple piece of architecture", but personally I'd consider such a
detailed reproduction to be a significant acheivement. For example consider
Gilles Tran's winning entry to the fortress round, another reproduction of real
architecture but I see nothing trivial in it.

Cheers
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3edb7076@news.povray.org...
> It's shameful that the trivially easy task of modeling a simple piece of
> architecture can earn a place in this competition. Even if every judge
> were not aware that this picture is a copy of a relatively well known
> photograph, I still fail to see how any artistic merit can attributed to
> the modeling of an existing piece of architecture. And concept?
> Originality?
>
> When I made the comments about the lighting in 'incubus|final,' I was
> not being critical. I was admittedly guessing at  some reason the judges
> may have given an original (if arguably unimaginative) design a concept
> score almost a full point lower than this completely unoriginal,
> "unconceptual" copy.
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood. I recognize that there is plenty of
> room for originality in the way an existing piece of architecture is
> portrayed. In fact, I saw a painting last week in the Montreal Museum of
> Contemporary Arts which really amazed me just for its deceptively
> complex approximation of some existing architecture. That originality is
> obviously absent here, however.
>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message