Carrie Ann and/or Shay wrote:

> 
> "I believe that he problem with participation has to do with the fact that
> many of the entrants have put less thought into their images than you have
> put into your comments, Jim. "
> 

Okay, now I gotcha.

> 
> I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
> model airplanes.

I would say you are not selling *everyone* short.  I would go further 
and say that the model making paradigm is the prevailing attitude.  That 
is, that to produce a raytraced image is to produce an accurate 
*recreation*.  And to be clear here, I am talking about the image, not 
the ( csg ) model underlaying it.  Though many make that confusion also.


> 
> Perhaps. More likely, this discussion may encourage entrants to put more
> thought into the ideas behind their entries within the scope of whatever
> topic is selected.
>

That is my hope.


> I have trouble accepting that many
> entrants in this round were passionate at all about the themes of their
> entries. This is not to say that they were not passionate about the
> technical challenge of producing those entries.

Well I have certainly been there with my own entries.  I would guess 
that maybe half of mine began with the desire to explore a particular 
technical issue, and tried to adapt that endeavor to the topic.  That 
said, I think it is also important to acknowledge that the creative 
process can begin anywhere and follow an indirect path.

> 
> I think that comments like yours and Rendergdog's do a lot to encourage
> participation in the IRTC and to encourage people to improve their skills. I
> think that what you are doing is a good thing and was in my original post
> only reporting why others like myself may not have the motivation to do the
> same.
> 

I appreciate you saying so. Peace.  Just let me add that I care alot 
about the work I see exhibited here and am wary that I may very well be 
exploitive.  You loose your sense of boundaries while you write sometimes.

Post a reply to this message

Let me first say that the feedback is extremely valuable, and I like to
both give and get feedback.

> The level of interest has definitely dropped along with the
rankings....
> maybe the top 10 would be more workable.
I was away and wasn't able to respond to "my" post right away, I think a
lot of discussion died because of that..

> 1) Being on the POV newgroup may put off artists who are using other
> software.
True. As a POV user, I also feel I can give better feedback on POV
images.

> I personally like the idea Mark has here. I'm always particularly
interested
> in discussion of other artists creative process, the "why I did this"
> factor.
I always do a lot of thinking about the image, not just making a lot of
models and put them together. But there is always a lot of things you
haven't though about, which others do, I think that's great! Though it
feels a little weird to get a positive "WOW!!" response on something you
didn't even notice :-)

I suggest that the people that want response to their image can post an
thread about it. Then we'll only get discussion where the artist
participate, which I think is a good thing. Plus those who place lower
than top 20 could get some feedback too.

Just a thought..

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Interesting discussion, Shay & Jim!

> Carrie Ann and/or Shay wrote:
> > "I believe that he problem with participation has to do with the fact
that
> > many of the entrants have put less thought into their images than you
have
> > put into your comments, Jim. "

That's a damn fine thesaurus you got there, Jim! I'm going to frame
everything you said about my image! ;-)

> > I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
> > model airplanes.
> I would say you are not selling *everyone* short.  I would go further
> and say that the model making paradigm is the prevailing attitude.
<snip>
> And to be clear here, I am talking about the image, not
> the ( csg ) model underlaying it.  Though many make that confusion also.

I think these all relate to Jim's earlier comments about "advancing the ART
of raytracing". (emphasis added on ART)  Raytracing hasn't been "art", its
been programming, or science, or "tech".
The model making paradigm is unavoidable in any 3D work; you have to have
the models. Todays faster processors mean that it no longer has to be the
primary focus of a CG hobbyist. Things I can render today in a few hours
would have taken weeks or been impossible 5 years ago. Now the artist has
time to stop focusing on the models and start focusing on the image.  Say
"Ok, I've got these models, now, artistically, what can I do with them?"

> > I have trouble accepting that many
> > entrants in this round were passionate at all about the themes of their
> > entries. This is not to say that they were not passionate about the
> > technical challenge of producing those entries.

Hmmmm, two different creative processes... the artist or the engineer... POV
seem to attract a lot of both.

> Well I have certainly been there with my own entries.  I would guess
> that maybe half of mine began with the desire to explore a particular
> technical issue, and tried to adapt that endeavor to the topic.

True... :)

That
> said, I think it is also important to acknowledge that the creative
> process can begin anywhere and follow an indirect path.

Even truer! :)


RG

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:

> 
> That's a damn fine thesaurus you got there, Jim! 

LOL!  I try to reign it in.


I'm going to frame
> everything you said about my image! ;-)
> 

Keep up the good work!

Post a reply to this message

I got behind on this list.  I suppose that's human nature.  But even 11 days
after this post, there were a couple things that I'd like to get on the
record.

1.  I think this discussion is great.  But...  Most of the enthusiasm seemed
to die down after a couple days.  I wonder if it would be more worthwhile to
simply post the 6 winners on day 1 and let everyone go on a commenting
flurry for the next several days.  And yes, if anyone wants to put any other
image up for comment, they should feel free to do so.

2. Sometimes I get the feeling that Jim's comments are able to bring things
out that are very hard for the artist to decisively express with words.  On
the other hand, perhaps other times the artist was simply unable to get
something to look right, so he/she fudged it in some way.  I agree that the
further down the list, "fudging" probably becomes more likely.  To use an
example from the other thread I recently started, in Malevich's "Red Square"
the fact that the square is not "square" was intentional.  However, if I
tried to paint a red square, it may be unintentially "non-square".  Even so,
it makes me wonder if even great artists have made "mistakes", which in
retrospect, seemed like one of their most brilliant ideas.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3ea45fd5$1@news.povray.org...
| Slashdolt:
|  simply post the 6 winners on day 1 and let everyone
|  go on a commenting flurry for the next several days.

This would ruin the purpose, to slow everything down. Top six might be a
good idea, or top ten.

| Slashdolt:
|  On the other hand, perhaps other times the artist was
|  simply unable to get something to look right, so he/she
|  fudged it in some way.

I'm very sure that happens.<g> On the other hand, recognizing those
unintentional good elements might be the start of a valuable intentional
technique.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:33:14 -0500, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> said:

>
>"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
>news:3ea45fd5$1@news.povray.org...
>| Slashdolt:
>|  simply post the 6 winners on day 1 and let everyone
>|  go on a commenting flurry for the next several days.
>
>This would ruin the purpose, to slow everything down. Top six might be a
>good idea, or top ten.

I agree, top 20 is too much.  I think top ten is a more reasonable
amount.

---
Jet Jaguar
Visit my crappy home page at http://home.att.net/~chmilnir/
MSTie #54297

Post a reply to this message

> This would ruin the purpose, to slow everything down. Top six might be a
> good idea, or top ten.
>

My concern was simply that interest wanes.  By the time we got to #5 in this
round, very few comments were being entered anymore.  Perhaps a portion of
this concern is simply my guilt over having received so many comments.
However, I did help keep the ball rolling, since I could probably comment
endlessly on just about anything I do.  ;-)  Even so, had I come in 10th, I
doubt that many would still be around to comment at that point.  By taking
the 6 "winners", and putting them out there as soon as the results are
announced, anyone could feel free to comment on any of them.

I don't believe that all of the comments need to appear on Day 1. A person
could still enter one comment per day if they wanted, but they could do that
in any order they wanted.  I believe that shortly after the results are
announced everyone feels the most enthused about the competition, and those
images with lower scores would probaby be able to get more response.  I
understand the purpose of slowing things down.  I just wonder if it's being
slowed down at the expense of the artist receiving valuable criticism and/or
praise.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

It does look like there's not enough people to support discussions of the
top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, if there isn't
enough new blood to carry on the discussions.

I still feel many of the best images are not in the top 10, so maybe next
round I'll post a few to discuss, no matter where they scored.

One very positive result of these discussions is I've learned how to look at
the images more carefully, to better appreciate their creative and
technical aspects.

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
>It does look like there's not enough people to support discussions of the
>top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway, if there isn't
>enough new blood to carry on the discussions.

I'm afraid I'm the one who suggested top 20, and I see I may have been over
enthusiastic.  The basic format is sound, it's just that interest has waned
faster than I thought it would.  Top ten looks like it would be a more
reasonable number, but even two weeks might be too long.  How about for the
next round we try to do the top ten at a rate of two per day, so we can get
through all of them in a week?

If someone wants to talk about an image that falls outside the top 10, they
are free to bring up any other entry at any time.

Post a reply to this message