>"Marjorie Graterol" <pgraterol@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Lee<SHIPBRK@GATE.NET wrote in message <36e4c3a3.0@news.povray.org >...
>>
>>> Considering that photorealism is *the* strong point of a raytracer, it's
>>> not likely to be a trend that will disappear soon.
>>
>> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, called
>> art.
>
>I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
>photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
>to disagree strenuously).
>

>> Maybe you are right. But raytracing is entering into another world, called
>> art.
>
>I hope I am misinterpreting this -- it sounds like you are saying that
>photorealism cannot be Art (if you *are* saying that, then I would have
>to disagree strenuously).

The misinterpretation relies in taking raytracing as photo-realism. Photorealism is old, like me :-). It is from the 60's and 70's, as an artistic movement, that derived to super-realism. Art has been always ahead its time, Raytracing on the other hand is a way of representation.

>...the people who only seem capable of drawing a single
>white line on a black canvas and calling it "art" will fade into
>obscurity.

That's for sure, until the concept of "talented" changes again. In Neoclasicism, every sculptor re-created their works following the classics. And they ended up with sculptures without eyes. It is just that they did not realize that originals had lost their eyes with time. :-) They were realist, and they were not realists.

Regarding music, It is the same concept. There is music that gives me headaches,- well, I do not call it music-. I usually get cured with some genuine rock., I am from the 70's :-)

>The way I see it, this is the spatial concept which
>is best represented by the raytracer, since it works by the mathematical
>principles which lie behind perspective drawing.

>And yet, now that contemporary art has departed from photorealism, is it
>not a valid artistic choice to choose realism, no matter what the art
>world thinks? ;-)

Yes it is valid. What happens is that realism is another term. Realism not as a movement -USRR, Daumier, etc-., realism that involves a way of thinking, a way to aprehend reality. ( BTW, what reality? :-) ) When I discussed that with a mathematician friend of mine, I asked her to show me a four., no examples. Show me one, in nature. It is a formal thing, like aesthetics, only in the mind. :-)