Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f901bdf$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>The size
> would help, but also that fact that characteristics like the base's
> being parallel with the bottom of the picture is a better reflection of
> perception than of the reality that is expected in 3D images.

Who's expectations, the viewers or the artist?  I also think that
photorealism is overemphasized in raytracing, yet it seems its the artists
generally who perpetuate this, not the viewer.  The viewer usually doesn't
much care how the image was created, they only register if they like it or
not. (Of course, there is the fact that a high percentage of CG viewers are
also CG artists...)

I believe
> that this type of picture loses a great deal when the viewer has been
> conditioned to expect "super-literal" perspective by looking at 100
> other images in a short period of time.

Keep your eye on the screen... you're getting sleepy... very sleepy...

> I do not like this topic because I think that surrealism ( in the
> fashion most seen in this round  ) has a very limited vocabulary which
> has been completely or very nearly exhausted. The problem in my mind is
> that the emphasis is too much on the subject and not the presentation.

Tricky... focus too much on presentation and the subject blurs...  the
viewer, unless they are another artist, loses interest.

> There are only a very small number of provocative subjects or
> "subconscious metaphors." Weapons, clocks, trains, mirrors, game pieces,
> etc. The comparison of chess pieces to human beings and the game of
> chess to life is so obvious that I'm sure it was only mildly interesting
> the first time. Now it's painful for me to see.

So the challenge for the artist is to find a new perspective, and then
balance subject and presentation in such a manner as to draw the viewer in
such a way as to allow them to find that perspective.

<snip>
> Some takes, now that I've subjected you to my rant:
>
> Awakening: I wonder if many pictures at all generated by this method
> could help but look traditionally surreal. Brainstorming random objects
> gives me little to work with to make a coherent scene. If surrealism
> were new, then possibly hundreds of pictures could be produced by this m
> ethod which would provoke viewers into hours of contemplation of the
> artist's intent.

My idea was that the coherency was established not in the objects
themselves, but in the brainstorming of the random selections.  So I'd have
kept generating random selections until something took shape.  But was my
brainstorming influenced by the fact that I had made the objects myself, so
they already had some identity in my mind before I started?  I'd like to try
this experiment with several artists all contributing objects (and no one
can see the other objects until a specified number have been produced), then
each artist uses the same random set of selections to brainstorm. I'd be
curious to see what each produced.

 I think that the traditionally surreal look of your
> scene, if unintentional, makes this an instructive experiment.

Well, my intent was to produce something in the spirit of the original
movement (see my remarks about "look" -vs- "movement" in my reply to Jim's
post).  The fact that you and some of the other comments referred to the
result as "traditional" and "classic" makes me think I succeeded in that,
but whether that has any meaning or validity in the present and much broader
interpretation of surreal is another matter... but it was certainly
instructive!  I probably learned more from working on this round than any
other single piece I've done.

>
> Miro: I saw a couple of Miro's works this weekend on loan to Houston
> from the MOMA. Like I said in my original comments, this picture makes
> me really wonder at your intent, Jim, because the depiction is so unlike
> Miro's own work or my expectation of his personality. In that sense,
> this picture is very surreal in the antagonistic way in which pictures
> of a black Santa Clause are surreal.

Interesting... I didn't find it at all antagonistic. But then, I'm not at
all familiar with Miro's work.

> Still-Life with Flower: Beautiful and well done. I couldn't put my
> finger on it when I first saw this picture, but have since recognized
> the kitsch of Central American religious art which adds an extra
> dimension to this picture and makes it far better than most of the
> others. Of course, this look could be accident rather than borrowed
> kitsch, but to a Texan it has strong and clear associations.

Ahhh, thank you, now I remember what this reminded me of.  The colors are
reminiscent of the weavings and paintings I used to see when I was in
Venezuela, Belize & Costa Rica.

> Fungi: Perhaps because the mushrooms are in a natural, if not logical,
> setting. This picture doesn't scream "LOOK!!! MUSHROOMS!!" to me. This
> is a picture that is put together very well and I think would be
> interesting even if the mushrooms were cows or pigs. This is very subtle
> and it's a shame that he had to phUxx0r it up by cobbing the easel idea.

Heh heh, that easel cropped up a few times in the round...

<snip> ..some others, but it's time to get back to work.

Work???   Now THAT's surreal! ;-)  (Sorry, couldn't resist... I still have
two days of vacation left.)

RG

Post a reply to this message