Well I'm still not committed to any one idea for the current irtc round, and
whilst playing around with things I came up with this. I really like it! It's
meant to be a simplified image of a city, that kinda feeling you get on days
when the sun's catching the buildings and even concrete can look beautiful.

The trouble is, it's turned out as more of an abstract than a surrealist
picture. So I was wondering what people thought of this, is it off topic? Should
I work on it to make it more on-topic? (e.g. textures and details to look like
real buildings, but still with this unreal arrangement). I'd appreciate hearing
any opinions you have.

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

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'boxes3.jpg' (27 KB)

Preview of image 'boxes3.jpg'

Looks nice, but I'd say it's missing something that makes it qualify as
"surreal"...   Not sure what that something is, but part of the definition
given by Breton was:

"Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms
of previously neglected associations..."

So I guess it needs something that you wouldn't normally expect to see in a
city.  I still remember a series of photos taken of a tornado in Miami,
Florida... that would qualify in my opinion :P

--
Douglas C. Eichenberg
dou### [at] nlsnet
http://www.getinfo.net/douge

Post a reply to this message

Well I thought the fact that the buildings overlap, have curved corners, no
windows, and many of them are clearly suspended in mid-air counted as something
you wouldn't expect! For me if anything is lacking it's the realism, i.e. it's
not really what I'd consider surrealistic unless there are realistic things
shown doing something improbable...

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

"Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
news:3f0f76cc$1@news.povray.org...
> Looks nice, but I'd say it's missing something that makes it qualify as
> "surreal"...   Not sure what that something is, but part of the definition
> given by Breton was:
>
> "Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms
> of previously neglected associations..."
>
> So I guess it needs something that you wouldn't normally expect to see in a
> city.  I still remember a series of photos taken of a tornado in Miami,
> Florida... that would qualify in my opinion :P
>
> --
> Douglas C. Eichenberg
> dou### [at] nlsnet
> http://www.getinfo.net/douge
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Well I thought the fact that the buildings overlap, have curved corners,
no
> windows, and many of them are clearly suspended in mid-air counted as
something
> you wouldn't expect! For me if anything is lacking it's the realism, i.e.
it's
> not really what I'd consider surrealistic unless there are realistic
things
> shown doing something improbable...

If you had "normal buildings turning into these buildings" kind of look
perhaps that would be better?

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in news:3f0f6e96@news.povray.org:
> [...]
> The trouble is, it's turned out as more of an abstract than a
> surrealist picture. So I was wondering what people thought of this, is
> [...]

I really like this image, it's very nice, it appeals to me a lot, but I 
have to agree with you that it seems more "abstract" than "surrealistic".  
I've always seen surrealism as warped realistic imagery.  But then again, 
when I think of surrealism, I tend to mostly think of Dali.

Post a reply to this message

That's an intersting idea... yeah kind of decomposing the buildings into an
abstract form. That could work definitely.

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

"Neonux" <neo### [at] softhomenet> wrote in message
news:3f0f790b@news.povray.org...
> > Well I thought the fact that the buildings overlap, have curved corners,
> no
> > windows, and many of them are clearly suspended in mid-air counted as
> something
> > you wouldn't expect! For me if anything is lacking it's the realism, i.e.
> it's
> > not really what I'd consider surrealistic unless there are realistic
> things
> > shown doing something improbable...
>
> If you had "normal buildings turning into these buildings" kind of look
> perhaps that would be better?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I agree. My fear is that in order to develop this image into a surreal scene it
will lose a lot of it's purity, so I've already made a copy of the source code.
It's wierd but I think in it's abstract form this image feels finished!

But, there's also potential there for it to be developed. The main intention
when I started on this a couple of days ago was to experiment with colour and
light to get this kind of feel. What happened in this image was that I also got
very nice (random) placement of the buildings, which makes this image have a
great feel that I stumbled on more by luck than judgement. So if I create a
surreal scene based on this it is likely that the main thing I'll keep is the
colouring and lighting, and the rest will be different. But I have to keep this
version of the scene, it works very well :)

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

"None" <Non### [at] onca> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] 204213191226...
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in news:3f0f6e96@news.povray.org:
> > [...]
> > The trouble is, it's turned out as more of an abstract than a
> > surrealist picture. So I was wondering what people thought of this, is
> > [...]
>
> I really like this image, it's very nice, it appeals to me a lot, but I
> have to agree with you that it seems more "abstract" than "surrealistic".
> I've always seen surrealism as warped realistic imagery.  But then again,
> when I think of surrealism, I tend to mostly think of Dali.

Post a reply to this message

Here's a quick test version. I think this idea has potential, thanks for your
suggestion I don't think I would have thought of this on my own!

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


"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:3f0f799f$1@news.povray.org...
> That's an intersting idea... yeah kind of decomposing the buildings into an
> abstract form. That could work definitely.
>
> --
> Tek
> http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
> "Neonux" <neo### [at] softhomenet> wrote in message
> news:3f0f790b@news.povray.org...
> > > Well I thought the fact that the buildings overlap, have curved corners,
> > no
> > > windows, and many of them are clearly suspended in mid-air counted as
> > something
> > > you wouldn't expect! For me if anything is lacking it's the realism, i.e.
> > it's
> > > not really what I'd consider surrealistic unless there are realistic
> > things
> > > shown doing something improbable...
> >
> > If you had "normal buildings turning into these buildings" kind of look
> > perhaps that would be better?
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'city.jpg' (42 KB)

Preview of image 'city.jpg'

I think you're onto something there... kind of Escher-esque!

--
Douglas C. Eichenberg
dou### [at] nlsnet
http://www.getinfo.net/douge

Post a reply to this message

> Here's a quick test version. I think this idea has potential, thanks for
your
> suggestion I don't think I would have thought of this on my own!

Here's a rough test version I did... (don't worry I am not entering any irtc
competitions...)

As soon as I did this quick render I realised that perhaps the windows
should go round as well.

Also if you put it in a normal place like a city street and have the
buildings look as realistic as possible at first.  Ie textures etc are nice
and structure is great... then things go weird...

Perhaps the buildings on the far left and right look ok but the middle is
all rounded and cap it off with grass streets instead of the normal looking
pavement on either side?

Man and I don't take drugs!!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'surreal-buildings.jpg' (127 KB)

Preview of image 'surreal-buildings.jpg'