Simon de Vet wrote:
> 
> TonyB wrote:
> 
> > The human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.
> 
> If my early scenes are an indication, then God the Creator is an infinite
> checkered plane.

If triangles had a God, He'd have three sides. - Old Yiddish proverb 

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

So much better to read something Pope John Paul has written or said than to see yet
another hand waving television appearence of his. Thankyou both.

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:
> 
> [Personal Note]
> I don't know if you recall, but I wrote an inspirational message to
> everybody a few months ago. I have this thing, you see: I like making
> people feel good about what they do. Weird, huh? Anyway, I found this a
> few weeks ago and I want to share it with you to inspire you. OK?

Thank you for sharing this with us TonyB.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Thanks TonyB, very enlightening :)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
<ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:

>Did you know that the Pope has written to me, to Ken, to Lance, to
>Gilles, and all of us here? Yes. The Pope wrote a letter to Artists this
>year. I read it. I like it. I would like to share a few lines of it here

A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
feel that way.

It's fine and good to encourage beauty, and I personally believe that
beauty should be encouraged, but to negate the importance of things
not beautiful would be wrong. Using a similar logic to the Pope's: If
God created all things beautiful and "not-so-beautiful", which of us
would have the nerve to tell God that his "not-so-beautiful" creations
are of lesser value simply because of our perceiving them as less
beautiful?

I need to point out that this is NOT an attack on the Pope. I repeat,
this is NOT an attack on the Pope. I respect the Pope as a sincere,
benevolent, and educated person. I just found this one little aspect
of his comments a bit out of balance. Perhaps if the Pope had written
a book on Art, then he might have gotten around to including a chapter
on the value of art that isn't immediately recognizable as beautiful.
Perhaps he has similar feelings as mine, but didn't get around to
saying all of them in the letter you read. The world may never know. I
just wrote this to augment what he has said, and not as any sort of
personal attack on the Pope, nor is this any attack on Christianity or
upon "beauty" itself. 

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that something doesn't
have to be traditionally beautiful to be valuable as a work of art.
I'm sorry for this long disclaimer near the end, but I wanted to avoid
any possible misunderstandings and resultant hard feelings.

I believe the world certainly has room for more beautiful things, and
I welcome their creation, but I also place value on many things that
would be considered "less than beautiful" by much of society. A
"balanced diet" is something to strive for, and the concept applies
equally as well to art. Having too much "eye candy" tends to make the
intellect fat, lazy, and ineffectual. Having none, can make one's soul
bland, sour, or bitter..


Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

> 
> A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
> he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
> considered "beautiful" in appearance.

  One of the best photographs I have ever taken was of a barn in the country.
This barn was in a serious state of disrepair and was anything but beautiful.
Even with this going against it many I have shown the photo to agree that it
a very beautiful picture. I believe this supports your claim there is beauty
in ugly things and it is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:49:00 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>  One of the best photographs I have ever taken was of a barn in the country.
>This barn was in a serious state of disrepair and was anything but beautiful.
>Even with this going against it many I have shown the photo to agree that it
>a very beautiful picture. I believe this supports your claim there is beauty
>in ugly things and it is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

Yes, and there is also important beauty that is surrounded by,
seemingly inseparable from, and sometimes created from ugliness. For
example, in the movie "Schindler's List" there is the beautiful
concept of wanting to save the lives of fellow human beings displayed
against the harsh and ugly backdrop of war. Would we really appreciate
Mr Schindler's desire to see his fellow man be allowed to live in
peace quite so much, if it were not displayed against such an ugly
backdrop as that war? I think not. The "ugliness" of the movie is
arguably required in this case. The film's value as a work of art is
enhanced by the inclusion. I doubt that many people would call this a
pretty film, but many have called it an important film, and one of
high artistic merit.

Later,
Glen Berry


Trivia: When I get on the elevator that takes me to my internet
provider's third floor office, I notice it was made by the Schindler
company. I suppose the British would call this "Schindler's Lift".

Post a reply to this message

I forgot to mention perhaps the best example of non-pretty, but
important artwork, especially since this thread was started by a
letter from the Pope. Consider all the artwork that has been created
depicting or referring to the Crucifixion of Jesus. This is certainly
not a physically beautiful scene for many people to contemplate, but
many people place great value in much of the artwork that the event
inspired. I can't think of a more pertinent example than that.

At this point, I began to realize the verbosity of my contributions to
this thread and wondered why I spent so much effort on stating my
view. The answer is partly that I want to encourage people to live
balanced and thoughtful lives. I also feel that many POV-Users might
overlook art that isn't of the "eye candy" variety. At the same time,
many serious art critics dismiss much computer art as mechanically
generated "eye candy" and consider it to be of lesser value. I feel
there is a certain amount of shortsightedness in both situations.

I feel a need to speak on behalf of raytraced art that doesn't aim to
be pretty or be "eye candy", but pursues other goals. Currently there
isn't enough raytraced art of this variety. I would love to see some
artists achieve critical acclaim by creating High Art using
raytracing as their medium. In order to achieve this, we need to
create more types of raytracings than eye candy alone.

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
<376bfb14.137887608@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
><ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>
>A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
>he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
>considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
>that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
>pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
>media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
>valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
>feel that way.
>


This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. All creators of beauty may
be artists, but not all artists need create beauty. Art is a much wider
medium.
In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter. Only when his
work is met with indifference has the creator truly failed. One may question
the ethical value of an artwork but that, I feel, is completely separate
from its artistic value. It is only because of the dogma of beauty that
people tend to confine the boundaries of art.

Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.

Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards. You
can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
thank TonyB for sharing them with us.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst heeft geschreven in bericht <376a9b39@news.povray.org>...
>This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
>beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
>grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. ......

>In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
>emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter.

Mmmm...  In dutch we have two words: "mooi" and "schoonheid". Mooi is beautifull
in the sense of "eye candy", as Glen called it (a beautyfull house, flower,
woman). Schoonheid is also beauty but more in the sense of the quality of beauty
(esthetic). It is more an emotion. In this other definition of beauty it's not
the emotion itself that is of importance, but the strength/force of the emotion.
A good example of this that I came across is a picture by Robert Mapplethorpe.
It shows, in close up, a man's genitals bondaged to a blood stained piece of
wood. When you look at it, there first is denial. You don't (want to) see what
you see. The moment you realize what you see, you feel it. The pain. It doesn't
look nice, but it is a very estethic picture, there is a lot of beauty in it.

>......
>Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
>I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
>of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.


This letter makes me a bit sad and on some points a little angry. Not for the
religious content, that was to be expected in a Pope's letter, but mainly
because of the mystification and romantizication of art and artists. Being an
artist is a tough job, it's hard work. I'm experiencing it at this moment,
having two month's off of my job to concentrate fully on finishing my art study.

>Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
>individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards.

Why not? We judge art, beauty etc. almost every day. We judge them by by
standars. Why not discuss these?

> You
>can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
>thank TonyB for sharing them with us.


Tony, where can I find the complete letter? Is it somewhere on the net?

ingo

Post a reply to this message