Hey Mark,

We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces 
that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job 
since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us 
contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my 
input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think 
persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to 
discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that 
matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea 
to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the 
progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss 
the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is 
like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed, 
and should produce a richer context within which the community can 
produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim, 
Your input is great.
 
For me real life is getting in the way and the light at the end of the tunnel is
a couple months distant. I expect others are similarly crunched for time and
thoughtful discussion takes time. 

It seems too that we have a more vibrant discussion when the artist
participates. Should we focus on images where the artist wants to participate?
Perhaps cut back on the number of images up for specific review each period
while of course allowing anyone to comment on any image?           

There was also discussion on the irtc-l mailing list about merging that list
with this group. For a while it looked as if something would happen quickly, but
it has not, which I expect left some on the irtc-l list willing and waiting. 

I agree with your comments related to advancing ray tracing as real art. But, I
also think the irtc and computer generated art in general is presently at a
level where the artistic value created varies widely. In other words, with many
images, it is obvious we are still struggling with the tools and techniques.
Moving the analogy to music - I feel the artistic performances occur when given
by those so skilled on an instrument their focus is the music. A long winded way
to suggest beyond the top 8-10 images, and a few others in any given irtc round,
a focus on the technical aspects is at this point the most valuable
feedback.     
Bill P. 

Jim Charter wrote:
> 
> Hey Mark,
> 
> We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces
> that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job
> since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us
> contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my
> input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think
> persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to
> discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that
> matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea
> to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the
> progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss
> the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is
> like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed,
> and should produce a richer context within which the community can
> produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?
> 
> -Jim

Post a reply to this message

William F. Pokorny wrote:
> Jim, 
> Your input is great.

Thanks, I see it as an exchange of ideas, not the final word.

>  
> For me real life is getting in the way and the light at the end of the tunnel is
> a couple months distant. I expect others are similarly crunched for time and
> thoughtful discussion takes time.

I think it should be getting in my way more.  Still, I guess I am 
looking for some useful way to contribute to this beyond the occasional 
picture.  It will be a long time, like never, until I have any useful 
sdl to contribute.

> 
> It seems too that we have a more vibrant discussion when the artist
> participates. Should we focus on images where the artist wants to participate?
> Perhaps cut back on the number of images up for specific review each period
> while of course allowing anyone to comment on any image?  

I have noticed that too, at least it is more satisfying for me to hear 
their response.  Polling which artists want to participate is an 
interseting thought, another thought I had was to commit to just the 
number of images it takes to encompass the winners...while allowing 
anyone ... any other... as you said

> 
> There was also discussion on the irtc-l mailing list about merging that list
> with this group. For a while it looked as if something would happen quickly, but
> it has not, which I expect left some on the irtc-l list willing and waiting.

It usually doesn't take much display of enthusiasm to get Bill Marrs to 
act, but I'm afraid we didn't get a response to meet even that low 
threshold.

> 
> I agree with your comments related to advancing ray tracing as real art. But, I
> also think the irtc and computer generated art in general is presently at a
> level where the artistic value created varies widely. In other words, with many
> images, it is obvious we are still struggling with the tools and techniques.
> Moving the analogy to music - I feel the artistic performances occur when given
> by those so skilled on an instrument their focus is the music. A long winded way
> to suggest beyond the top 8-10 images, and a few others in any given irtc round,
> a focus on the technical aspects is at this point the most valuable
> feedback.     
> Bill P. 
> 

You state the problem very fairly.  It's hard to be stylin' when it will 
probably just be received as technical incompetence.  The form just 
hasn't gotten far enough yet for much holistic discussion.  Content, 
even style, might warrent mention in the more accomplished pieces, as 
you say.  On the other hand I guess I am eager to gently point out that 
any image is open to interpretation, which is what makes the whole thing 
fun, beyond mere technical accomplishment. Are the two levels of 
discussion exclusive to each other?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
>We have reached approximately the halfway mark in the number of pieces
>that you planned to discuss.  I feel an obligation to finish the job
>since the artists were notified, but with just the two of us
>contributing it is kind of a marathon.  I'm not sure if the nature of my
>input is to blame but participation seems to be dwindling.  Do you think
>persistence is the answer?  I have long noticed the reluctance to
>discuss the work on the level of meaning in these groups or for that
>matter in the cg phenomenon at large.  So I very much welcomed your idea
>to host more open discussion. I thought it quite important to the
>progress of the enterprize, to advance raytracing as an art, to discuss
>the work not just technically but in relation to its content.  It is
>like it helps complete the cycle, having the art received and discussed,
>and should produce a richer context within which the community can
>produce more work.  But maybe not.  Your thoughts?

It does look like interest has tailed off. I've appreciated and learned from
your (and everyone's) input and had hoped we'd get a lot more unique points
of view, both artistic comments and technical feedback.

I plan to continue through the top 20 images; I think we have a lot to learn
from many of them. Whether we do learn anything is up to the community. My
own comments are fairly average but I'd hoped they would be general enough
to get the ball rolling.

Post a reply to this message

The level of interest has definitely dropped along with the rankings....
maybe the top 10 would be more workable.

All of the points made above are good ones, and I think another point is
simply this forum, for two reasons.

1) Being on the POV newgroup may put off artists who are using other
software.

2) POVers who don't participate in the IRTC may simply not be interested.

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.

RG

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:

> I plan to continue through the top 20 images; I think we have a lot to learn
> from many of them. Whether we do learn anything is up to the community.

Okay then, on to the next one!

  My
> own comments are fairly average but I'd hoped they would be general enough
> to get the ball rolling.
> 
> 

I usually have some ideas written down a day or so ahead, only to find 
that I end up repeating what you say, just in different words.  So I 
have to elaborate.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

>I usually have some ideas written down a day or so ahead, only to find
>that I end up repeating what you say, just in different words.  So I
>have to elaborate.

Feel free Jim, or anyone for that matter, to post first on any image. It
would be nice if the artists themselves posted first, as that might guide
the discussions better, but they may not be comfortable posting first.

gonzo's comment about discussing the origins of the idea, the creative
process, would also add a lot to the discussions.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e95965c@news.povray.org...

I found this a little late, but have been reading and enjoying the
various threads. I believe that he problem with participation has to do
with the fact that you have put more thought into your comments, Jim,
than many of the entrants have put into their images. Regarding most of
these images there simply isn't anything to discuss.

That isn't meant to be as strong a criticism as it may sound. Building a
scene in Povray can be a long and difficult process, and the act of
completing a scene provides the same type of  satisfaction as completing
a model airplane. It is obvious that whereas many put a lot of effort
into creating their entries, very few put much thought into the scenes
themselves.

There is a thought process involved in building an unimaginative scene,
but the process is automatic. The inclusion of most objects has less to
do with artistic expression than with the availability of a model or
source material. To ask why an entrant placed a horse in front of a
carriage is to ask why he put legs on a table. One of the better
concepts of the round was the radio graves entry, and Slashdolt
confesses to adding many of the elements simply because he liked them.
Even the main idea of his picture doesn't provide a lot of provocation
for discussion. The idea is somewhat ironic, but the irony isn't
analogous to any human experience. The idea is however not threadbare,
which deserves a lot of credit.

If you accept that most of the images are more like model cars than
attempts at art, then the majority of the emphasis should be on
technical merit. When I comment on pictures in the IRTC, most of my
comments are related to this. However, there is not a whole lot to
contribute in that area, either, since so few have really taken or had
the time to get as far as they could without help. What help can you
offer someone whose scene is only half finished.

If you want to do something to "advance raytracing as an art," then I
would suggest focusing your creativity on your own works rather than
those of others. That, and voting for provocative topics for the IRTC
rounds. I think that people will find more creativity if they are
focusing on an idea about which they are passionate.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3e95965c@news.povray.org...
> 
> I found this a little late, but have been reading and enjoying the
> various threads. I believe that he problem with participation has to do
> with the fact that you have put more thought into your comments, Jim,
> than many of the entrants have put into their images. Regarding most of
> these images there simply isn't anything to discuss.
> 
> That isn't meant to be as strong a criticism as it may sound. Building a
> scene in Povray can be a long and difficult process, and the act of
> completing a scene provides the same type of  satisfaction as completing
> a model airplane. It is obvious that whereas many put a lot of effort
> into creating their entries, very few put much thought into the scenes
> themselves.
> 
> There is a thought process involved in building an unimaginative scene,
> but the process is automatic. The inclusion of most objects has less to
> do with artistic expression than with the availability of a model or
> source material. To ask why an entrant placed a horse in front of a
> carriage is to ask why he put legs on a table. One of the better
> concepts of the round was the radio graves entry, and Slashdolt
> confesses to adding many of the elements simply because he liked them.
> Even the main idea of his picture doesn't provide a lot of provocation
> for discussion. The idea is somewhat ironic, but the irony isn't
> analogous to any human experience. The idea is however not threadbare,
> which deserves a lot of credit.
> 
> If you accept that most of the images are more like model cars than
> attempts at art, then the majority of the emphasis should be on
> technical merit. When I comment on pictures in the IRTC, most of my
> comments are related to this. However, there is not a whole lot to
> contribute in that area, either, since so few have really taken or had
> the time to get as far as they could without help. What help can you
> offer someone whose scene is only half finished.

Okay, I think I follow you, my comments are largely beside the point.
Do you think they are actually discouraging participation?  And I am 
confused about whether you think any discussion is irrelevent?

> 
> If you want to do something to "advance raytracing as an art," then I
> would suggest focusing your creativity on your own works rather than
> those of others.

So everyone was having fun making meaningless model airplanes and I came 
along stole it all by taking them seriously and imposing meaning? 
Possibly.  There is an appropriation of the work when I note my 
reactions to it and try and interpret them.  But three objections come 
to mind.  One, you may very well be selling some people short.  Two, 
when a work enters the public domain, it is open to interpretation and 
has meaning, like it or not.  Three, some minimal attempt at meaning 
seems implicit in a contest which centers around a "topic" and in which 
2/3 of the judging is based on artistic and conceptual merit.
But I will concede that claiming to "advance raytracing as an art" is a 
bit grand.  I retract any such claim and admit that this process serves 
personal ends, trying to organize my own ideas.

  That, and voting for provocative topics for the IRTC
> rounds. I think that people will find more creativity if they are
> focusing on an idea about which they are passionate.
>

Hey, the "Worlds within Worlds" topic was my suggestion!
Isn't it possible that a discussion of the artisitic side of the entries 
might lead to better topic ideas being generated?  And if they find an 
idea about which they are passionate, and focus on it, and find some 
creativity, wouldn't it be even more fun if myself or another comes 
along and further validates it?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e976c48@news.povray.org...

> So everyone was having fun making meaningless model airplanes
> and I came  along stole it all by taking them seriously and imposing
> meaning?

Of course not. I guess my first sentence was a bit backwards. Let me try
again:

"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. "

Yes. That is much clearer.

I don't think that I'm selling anyone short by comparing their scenes to
model airplanes. Hell, even some of the entries this round *were* virtual
model airplanes. I don't mean this as an insult, just an observation based
in large part on the contents of the text files accompanying the entries.

>
> Hey, the "Worlds within Worlds" topic was my suggestion!

That was a good topic which produced a lot of interesting entries in
addition to the winners.

> Isn't it possible that a discussion of the artisitic side of the entries
> might lead to better topic ideas being generated?

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.

> And if they find an
> idea about which they are passionate, and focus on it, and
> find some  creativity, wouldn't it be even more fun if myself
> or another comes  along and further validates it?

*IF*, then yes, but I feel that recognizing this passion *only* when it
exists is what provides validation. 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.

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.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message