 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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've always wondered why "Art Appreciation" is required course work for people
studying art in school. It seems they go to great lengths to learn how to say
something is beautiful in 5000 words when saying "it's beautiful" will suffice.
Is the quantification of art really that important?
What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
thrill of it all. If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
then it serves a purpose. If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
to me, serve no purpose. I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
having to discuss it and I suspect many share my opinion on this.
And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
stupid to deserve to live.
<runs away>
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Is the quantification of art really that important?
No more or less important than quantification of politics, religion, pop
culture, or other favorite topics.
>
> What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
> the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
> people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
> thrill of it all.
We are interested in attracting those who are interested in discussing
it. It is something that I have thought was missing for awhile but
didn't have the guts to suggest.
If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
> then it serves a purpose.
No guarentees.
If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
> to me, serve no purpose.
This is always true no matter the subject, considering "conversation" as
something different. The question of whether serious dicussion has
intrinsic value would be an interesting discussion perhaps?
I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
> having to discuss it
True, but I have found that I get lazy unless I try to formulate my
thoughts into words, and better still, a sustained arguement.
>
> And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
> a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
> stupid to deserve to live.
>
I'm guessing you wouldn't mind getting the 17 mil for it though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>I've always wondered why "Art Appreciation" is required course work for people
>studying art in school. It seems they go to great lengths to learn how to say
>something is beautiful in 5000 words when saying "it's beautiful" will suffice.
>Is the quantification of art really that important?
Understanding why something is beautiful (or the attempt) might make it
easier to create something beautiful?
>What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
>the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
>people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
>thrill of it all. If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
>then it serves a purpose. If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
>to me, serve no purpose. I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
>having to discuss it and I suspect many share my opinion on this.
Assuming we learn nothing from the discussion, which isn't true for me, I
still enjoy talking with people who share my hobby. It's fun!
>And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
>a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
>stupid to deserve to live.
I think of art like that as exercises of the extreme. How simple can a piece
be and still be art? More as an experiment, and a very successful one
judging from the discussions here alone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is
into
> the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for
many
> people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the
technical
> thrill of it all.
For me, that thrill disappeared a few months ago. It's like the difference
between writing a dictionary and writing a novel. You can't write a novel
without a good understanding of the language, but nobody really wants to sit
and read the dictionary.
Jim, unlike many of us, falls into the "artistic side". The IRTC takes both
technical and artistic into consideration, so I feel that a discussion of
both is appropriate. Christoph suggested better lighting for my entry,
which led to a very technical thread. Other threads had more to do with the
artistic merits, and others with concept/theme/etc.
I personally enjoy hearing more discussion of the artistic merits of our
entries, since that is where I personally feel the most deficient. Visiting
Gilles' Oyonale web-site I often think that I may be able to do many of
those things on a technical basis, but it's the artistic aspect that keeps
me returning and inspires me.
> And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot
painted on
> a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being
too
> stupid to deserve to live.
>
Everyone knows that a red-dot is meaningless, it's only when it's a red
square on a white background that it has meaning... Duh! ;-)
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Renderdog wrote:
> top 20, and it might become repetitive eventually anyway,
I think there is a real possibility of this though it will be
interesting to shift one's critical stance for different topics. At the
moment I have no idea how I will approach "architecture".
>
> 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.
Yes I think this is the best approach. I also think that the six
winners should always be discussed along with any entries which rank
among the winners.
>
> 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.
Your initial instincts were right, that there is a tremendous amount of
work put into these entries, and they *will* support a little more
attention, even on the content side. While I think I have pooped out
finally, I found that all the top entries we've reviewed were ones I'd
given top ranking in my own voting and had little problem getting
enthusiastic about them. I few of them stretched my appreciation. I
think this experiment has been a good success. I think shrinking the
number of mandatory works to review and encouraging the number of ad hoc
reviews is the way to go. There are some entries I thought were
interesting that fell outside our net but after the number of mandatory
reviews I've attempted already, I really can't get to them. I did toy
with the idea of balling a few entries together into one set of
observations. I will probably attempt this in the future. One of the
things that worries me is that the attention could have a chilling
effect on entries. That novices might fear exposing their work to an
overly critical environment. That is why I personally took the approach
of being as positive as possible while at the same time hinting at the
different artistic and interpretive issues as they come up. I hope that
my approach gave others the space to provide friendly and helpful
criticism. I just listened to some tapes by John Bradshaw, "The Price
of Nice", which talk about the tremendous harm false niceness can cause.
And the value of someone who will give honest criticism. So it is a
fine line we have to walk I feel. I also know of art schools that
became such severe critical environments that creativity was no longer
nurtured.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:3ea59cd0@news.povray.org...| Renderdog wrote:
| Jim Charter:
| I think there is a real possibility of this though it will be
| interesting to shift one's critical stance for different topics.
| At the moment I have no idea how I will approach
| "architecture".
If I finish my entry, I will once again try to leave a comment on every
picture when voting. This time, however, I will not make an attempt to
sum up every aspect of the picture in my comment. I will only say
whatever I feel is important, or failing that, most important, and then
move on.
| Jim Charter:
| I think I have pooped out finally,
It was a good run, Jim.
| Jim Charter:
| One of the things that worries me is that the attention could
| have a chilling effect on entries. That novices might fear
| exposing their work to an overly critical environment. That
| is why I personally took the approach of being as positive as
| possible while at the same time hinting at the different artistic
| and interpretive issues as they come up.
I think that negative comments on someone's hard work are accepted
graciously as long as they are not dismissive. If I finish my entry, I
will look forward to seeing people's honest reactions whether positive
or not.
| Jim Charter:
| I just listened to some tapes by John Bradshaw, "The Price
| of Nice"
The tapes I would like to hear are "The Price of the Damn Internet." It
is very difficult to communicate anything clearly on the Internet,
because about two thirds of what is written seems to be an attempt by
the author to not be misunderstood. There is a ritual we must all go
through when speaking about our own pictures to avoid sounding arrogant,
because almost anything written appears that way. Knowing consciously
that you are performing this ritual does not help, because to choose not
to do so would be to knowingly dissuade others from accepting the
information you are trying to share (the important 1/3).
If I were to meet any IRTC entrant in person, I could likely go on for
hours about his entry, but it is hard to even begin when I don't even
know if the person is a child or not. And it is just as difficult to be
clearly positive as it is to be clearly negative. A simple compliment
that would be appropriate when delivered in person, can appear fantastic
when written. There was a discussion about this only a few rounds ago.
People become afraid to post anything at all for the fear that it will
be misinterpreted.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> If I finish my entry, I will once again try to leave a comment on every
> picture when voting.
I gotta admire that. I swear, doing that would turn my brain to pablum.
>
> It was a good run, Jim.
Thanks man.
> The tapes I would like to hear are "The Price of the Damn Internet."
LOL
It
> is very difficult to communicate anything clearly on the Internet,
Ain't it the truth.
> People become afraid to post anything at all for the fear that it will
> be misinterpreted.
Yet with sufficient effort, you and I worked it out. I've really
enjoyed your input here.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It
> > is very difficult to communicate anything clearly on the Internet,
>
>
> Ain't it the truth.
>
Yes, and that alone can be annoying. Hence all of the *winks* in everything
I write, just in case someone isn't quite sure it's a joke. Couple that
with the fact that many of us speak English as a second language, and it
really opens the door for misunderstandings/misinterpretations. I enjoy
everyone's opinions here, and I think we all have an underlying respect for
one another, which helps as well.
As for the "discussing" v. "creating", I can't seem to create anything
lately, but I sure don't have a problem discussing... *sigh* Maybe I
should run for office... ;-)
--
Slash
"I kill me... which saves everyone else the trouble..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slashdolt wrote:
> with the fact that many of us speak English as a second language, and it
What would be your first language?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea5f40c$1@news.povray.org...
> Slashdolt wrote:
>
> > with the fact that many of us speak English as a second language, and it
>
> What would be your first language?
>
Hmm... That didn't come out the way I meant it. English is my first (and
pretty much only) language, and I haven't quite mastered it yet.
Perhaps "...the fact that many in the POV-Ray/IRTC community speak English
as a second language..." would have been better. Since I'm part of the
community, "us" seemed appropriate, in one sense, but apparently not in the
other.
Strange... In a post about how misunderstandings can occur, I'm
misunderstood. Irony rules! ;-)
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
