In article <40212d0f@news.povray.org>, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> 
wrote:

> "Matthew Pace" <mat### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
> news:matthewpace-79C3D0.15481402022004@news.povray.org...
> |
> | This was not sloppiness, and I am sorry you do not like the way
> | I made it.
> 
> Looks like I was mistaken. I apologize, but certainly you can understand
> my assumption.
> 
> Someone said once about abstract painters something to the effect of
> their being more realist than "realist" painters, as the abstract
> painters are presenting the reality of paint rather than attempting to
> create an illusion. Carried over to cg, this paradigm legitimizes the
> purposeful use of hard shadows, perfect corners, and the substitution of
> ambience for glow.
> 
> I find this idea interesting and am therefore discouraged to see that so
> many technically simple cg pictures carry tell-tale marks of sloppiness
> like unscaled textures and arbitrarily placed or proportioned objects.
> Of course there are times like this one when a person's intentional
> design for his picture appears arbitrary when it is not. There are even
> times when a person consciously decides that an element of his picture
> truly is arbitrary and therefore gives no concern to that element.
> 
> Enjoy making the rest of your series.
> 
>  -Shay
> 
> 
> 

Interesting, do not worry about it, no one can see what an artist is 
thinking when they make something, and of course I understand

Post a reply to this message