It's shameful that the trivially easy task of modeling a simple piece of
architecture can earn a place in this competition. Even if every judge
were not aware that this picture is a copy of a relatively well known
photograph, I still fail to see how any artistic merit can attributed to
the modeling of an existing piece of architecture. And concept?
Originality?

When I made the comments about the lighting in 'incubus|final,' I was
not being critical. I was admittedly guessing at  some reason the judges
may have given an original (if arguably unimaginative) design a concept
score almost a full point lower than this completely unoriginal,
"unconceptual" copy.

I don't want to be misunderstood. I recognize that there is plenty of
room for originality in the way an existing piece of architecture is
portrayed. In fact, I saw a painting last week in the Montreal Museum of
Contemporary Arts which really amazed me just for its deceptively
complex approximation of some existing architecture. That originality is
obviously absent here, however.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Personally I gave this image a fairly high concept mark not because of the
originality of the objects in it, or the way it was portrayed, but because of a
very impressive choice of subject.

I think it's inevitable with this topic that many entries will be renderings of
real buildings, so with those images the concept mark has to go on how the
artist has chosen to show the building, what building they have chosen, and why
they chose it. I felt with this particular image the choice of subject was
extremely good: the focus is on a sculpture which only counts as architecture
due to its shear size, and there is relevance to current events without being
distasteful, both of which I felt were bold decisions for a choice of subject
matter.

Though I grant you I would have marked lower for artistic merit had I known this
was a copy of a photo. The layout of the scene is very good but since that isn't
entirely the artists own work I'd have to agree with you that it is less of an
acheivement. It's a little dishonest not to mention if you're copying an image
(the artist states it was a "reference photo", which suggests a less direct
copy).

There's one more point I'd like to make: you say "the trivially easy task of
modelling a simple piece of architecture", but personally I'd consider such a
detailed reproduction to be a significant acheivement. For example consider
Gilles Tran's winning entry to the fortress round, another reproduction of real
architecture but I see nothing trivial in it.

Cheers
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3edb7076@news.povray.org...
> It's shameful that the trivially easy task of modeling a simple piece of
> architecture can earn a place in this competition. Even if every judge
> were not aware that this picture is a copy of a relatively well known
> photograph, I still fail to see how any artistic merit can attributed to
> the modeling of an existing piece of architecture. And concept?
> Originality?
>
> When I made the comments about the lighting in 'incubus|final,' I was
> not being critical. I was admittedly guessing at  some reason the judges
> may have given an original (if arguably unimaginative) design a concept
> score almost a full point lower than this completely unoriginal,
> "unconceptual" copy.
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood. I recognize that there is plenty of
> room for originality in the way an existing piece of architecture is
> portrayed. In fact, I saw a painting last week in the Montreal Museum of
> Contemporary Arts which really amazed me just for its deceptively
> complex approximation of some existing architecture. That originality is
> obviously absent here, however.
>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Here the role of the artist is not found in the invention of an 
expressive subject, or even in the expressive mimesis of an existing 
subject, but rather, in the exercise of a choice of subject.  I agree 
that there is much here to suggest that this choice was not ironic, and 
it seems dangerous to read too much  into it, but neither can irony be 
completely ruled out.  Afterall, we are shown a postcard
commoditization of an exotic culture at a time when that culture just
happens to be the focus of western foreign policy.  And the theme of the
picture, old vs new, not to meantion western commoditization,
just happens to be what is at issue in the current conflict.  Further, 
the picture has a geometric stability and serenity.  The simple beauty 
of the picture, and a certain inscrutability of the structures 
underscores the geometric basis of both architecture and picture 
composition.

Raytracing provides a different wrinkle in the old debate between 
synthesis and mimesis in art, precisely because it achieves mimesis 
through synthesis.  Pictures are achieved in a two step process,  first 
making a virtual model of the subject, then taking a virtual snapshot of 
it.  We refer to what results with legacy terms such as "picture" or 
"image" that don't quite fit.  Given this newness, it is not yet
clear what different statements are made when the raytraced image is 
taken from the culture of images, the culture of real objects and 
vistas, or from the individual imagination.

I noticed that the artist is from Iceland.  I remember a certain paradox 
that I noticed when I spent a summer in the North West Territories of 
Canada.  There is both the cultural isolation imposed by the distance, 
but also a equalizing of cultural experience because, since it is a long 
way to "anywhere", anywhere is where people would travel. Amsterdam and 
Vancover are held up to comparison as possible sources of amusement.
So I also wondered how his geographic location might also have effected 
his choice of subject.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:3edba534@news.povray.org...
|
| There's one more point I'd like to make: you say "the trivially
| easy task of modelling a simple piece of architecture", but
| personally I'd consider such a detailed reproduction to be a
| significant acheivement. For example consider Gilles Tran's
| winning entry to the fortress round, another reproduction of real
| architecture but I see nothing trivial in it.
|

There are some complex texture achievements in Gilles' Fortress entry,
but either of us could model the geometry in an evening. I'd go so far
as to say that we could do a much better job in two months, given that
we would be freed of the artistic processes of composition and theme.

My mother uses AutoCAD to design homes for a living, and I suspect there
is a reason that those who use AutoCAD to copy the designs of others
make only a small percentage of those who actually design the homes.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Without commenting further at this time, I found this URL which displays the
"reference picture" in question.

http://sasik.sasprg.cz/~stoupa/wallpaper/asie/irak/Mosque_and_Arch_to_Unknown_Soldier_Baghdad_Iraq.jpg

-- 
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3edba7e3@news.povray.org...
|
| Here the role of the artist is not found in the invention of an
| expressive subject, or even in the expressive mimesis of an
| existing subject, but rather, in the exercise of a choice of subject.

Tek feels the same way. Perhaps this is a geographic issue. Where I'm
at, I see pictures expressing this sentemantality on every other page of
Time and Newsweek magazines. It has become trite. Maybe I'm just a
cynic.

| Afterall, we are shown a postcard commoditization of an exotic
| culture at a time when that culture just happens to be the focus
| of western foreign policy.  And the theme of the
| picture, old vs new, not to meantion western commoditization,
| just happens to be what is at issue in the current conflict.
| Further, the picture has a geometric stability and serenity.
| The simple beauty of the picture, and a certain inscrutability
| of the structures underscores the geometric basis of both
| architecture and picture composition.

I wouldn't ascribe such grand aspirations to a person who would do this:
http://images.webshots.com/ProThumbs/23/12823_wallpaper280.jpg


| Raytracing provides a different wrinkle in the old debate
| between synthesis and mimesis in art, precisely because
| it achieves mimesis through synthesis.  Pictures are achieved
| in a two step process,  first making a virtual model of the
| subject, then taking a virtual snapshot of it.  We refer to
| what results with legacy terms such as "picture" or "image"
| that don't quite fit.  Given this newness, it is not yet clear
| what different statements are made when the raytraced image is
| taken from the culture of images, the culture of real objects
| and vistas, or from the individual imagination.

This is why I do not share code anymore, not even to the very limited
extent that I share pictures here. I like to keep everything as simply a
picture, when as you said the nature of code, models, etc. make a ray
traced image much more than that. This entry shows how close raytracing
can be to photography, even though the processes are so different. Here,
a near copy of a photograph was "built" and then essentially
rephotographed with almost nothing being added to, or taken away from,
the image.

| I noticed that the artist is from Iceland.  I remember a certain
| paradox that I noticed when I spent a summer in the North West
| Territories of Canada.  There is both the cultural isolation
| imposed by the distance, but also a equalizing of cultural
| experience because, since it is a long way to "anywhere",
| anywhere is where people would travel. Amsterdam and Vancover are
| held up to comparison as possible sources of amusement. So I also
| wondered how his geographic location might also have effected
| his choice of subject.

I just got back from Montreal, and for various reasons am actually
considering moving there, but that is an entirely different discussion.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> I just got back from Montreal, and for various reasons am actually
> considering moving there, but that is an entirely different discussion.
"Suzanne takes you down, to her place by the river..." ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3edbc495@news.povray.org...

| "Suzanne takes you down, to her place by the river..." ;)
|

That song again. One of these days I'm going to have to actually hear
it. I didn't get the connection at first, but an internet search
revealed that Cohen was from or lived in Montreal.

Montreal is an amazing place. My wife wouldn't mind moving much at all.
She already speaks French. I think she'd have a hard time living so far
from her family, however.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message