 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry... I misread the original :) LOL
(perhaps my reading abilities have degraded at the rate my wisedom has
increased ;)
--
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
Bob wrote in message <376B9D9B.7FF9CF69@aol.com>...
>Now how in the heck did that seem like a insult to you Lance! LOL
>2 times your age in wisedom insulting?! Now I think I may be offended. But
then I'm
>unoffendable, so: nah nah na-na nah :b
>
>(notice the unmistakeable immaturity there)
>
>P.S. you can tell when my younger relatives are visiting by their
personalities rubbing
>off on me. Oops... now there's a real insult I think.
>
>
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> Not at all :)
>>
>> --
>> Lance.
>>
>> Ken wrote in message <376B07E3.8BCF7526@pacbell.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Lance Birch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Was that an insult?
>> >
>> >Only if you resent maturity.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Ken Tyler
>> >
>> >mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
By Yourself?!?
Ambitious or Insane?
Only Time will tell ;)
Do you have any pics of your work thus far avail. for the public? (To post in
p.b.i?)
Mark Wagner wrote:
> This obviously applies to me -- my current POV project is building an entire
> world (it's going to be the basis for a Myst style game).
>
> Mark
--
That is all
*Click*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob wrote in message <376B9D9B.7FF9CF69@aol.com>...
>Now how in the heck did that seem like a insult to you Lance! LOL
>2 times your age in wisedom insulting?!
If you work out the math of the original post, the implication is of a
chronological age of two years.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
> <ben### [at] panama phoenixnet> 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.
<snip>
I did not think about that when reading the original message, your reply does
make sense to some extent, but ...
First of all, I would like to point out that Tony only published parts of the
pope's message. He may very well have selected what in his eyes was most
valuable in the message and left out what you might have picked.
Second : what one sees as beauty might not be seen as beauty by others, and
what one sees as ugly might actually be seen as beauty by some. Take for
instance the notion of a beautiful woman. No, no, no, do not think I am a
sexist, you'd be miles away from me. Along the whole history of the world
this notion had very different representations. Some pictured them as big,
round, very well (over-?)fed persons, others want to see them so slim it
would be a wonder how they could carry what nature tells us they usually do :
the fruit of life. Some see them pale some see them sallow skin. What is the
rule to beauty, where is the rule, is there a rule ? To that I will reply
that human beings are just very subjective and this trait of theirs (us) has
a lot to do with social history and preconceived ideas. I personally place
more beauty in the smile of a person than in the actual shape or colour
however attractive the shape and colour might be to my eye and mind. I would
rather be a bit suspicious of someone who's appearance (including voice,
gesture, ...) is too 'perfect'.
In that respect it might be of interest to know what the pope means when he
mentions beauty. It might very well be the case that he includes what others
do not.
Third : there is indeed a place for all in this world. And all have the right
to plant messages in black or in pink, in negative or positive form. It is
part of all religious thinking to try and reduce the negative to a minimum
and enhance the positive to a maximum. In that light I would not be surprised
if the pope were to lesser ugliness and emphasize on beauty. Yet that would
seem strange to me that a man, who is supposed to be proclaiming peace, love
and tolerance amongst other qualities, that such a man should lesser
ugliness. I would expect him to include what some call ugly into the lack of
understanding rather than the non beautiful.
> 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..
I do not think that everything beautiful tends to make the intellect fat, ...
Should you have such a mind as to really admire the world for what it is you
would know that being lazy will certainly not help making the world what it
is. In other words beauty requires work.
On another note, would you agree that a lion is beautiful ? If you do, just
try to be lazy and contemplate one of them in its natural environment when he
is hungry. Wonderful, magnificent, but you'll have to be a fast runner.
I do not really want to oppose my thoughts to yours, that is not my
intentions, I only wish to offer a different view point. I think one can turn
most things into beauty in his/her own eyes, though some of these things
might be called a disgrace by others. Of course the world being what it is,
there is a whole pile of negative aspects in life. Do we have to zoom on
these aspects ? Should we not rather concentrate on making what is somewhat
beautiful a bit more beautiful and try to forget a bit about the not
beautiful at all ? Or rather not forget but work so it does not exist as much
?
That is the way I read what the pope said - though I'm not a believer I think
his words are words of wisdom.
My own subjective point of view,
Al.
--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :
To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
<snip>
> It is only because of the dogma of beauty that
> people tend to confine the boundaries of art.
<snip>
I've tried to think about that and I have to disagree.
I think most people confine the boundaries of art to their understanding of
beauty, which is much less than beauty in its whole. That is one point. The
other one being that in my humble opinion some people fail to express their
ideas through beauty and express them through distress, uglyness, torture, ...
all evil stuff. I think evrything can be expressed through beauty of some sort,
but it might take a considerable extra amount of thinking, skill and energy to
reach such a goal. Yet I am convinced that we should all aim at that.
Take for instance people who tend to be depressive. Almost everyone has been
subject to very negative feelings about oneself, so my thinking should be
understandable.
What is depression ?
Very hard to know, but here is my interpretation of facts : a deep negative
feeling entertained by a thought process that aims at justifying failures - this
only makes things worse.
How to get out of it ?
Very difficult indeed since the process is self supporting (deflating). But to
get out of the dead lock (or the infinite loop) there is only one way : think
forward, think positive even based on negative stimuli. Once you succeed the
first step, the rest come easier. If you just keep thinking positive, you keep
making life easier and nicer to yourself.
What is involved ?
The negative way is the easy answer : just keep doing what you alwys did, that
involves very little effort, but keeps hurting you harder.
The positive way is the difficult one : you just can't stop watching your steps,
you have to work every single second to make it work right, but the reward is
there, fantastically powerful : you're happy.
This is my understanding of beauty in the way the pope describes it : you do not
reject the not so nice art, but you work on achieving nicer art.
More later,
Al.
--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :
To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain CULOS wrote:
>
>
> I've tried to think about that and I have to disagree.
> I think most people confine the boundaries of art to their understanding of
> beauty, which is much less than beauty in its whole. That is one point. The
> other one being that in my humble opinion some people fail to express their
> ideas through beauty and express them through distress, uglyness, torture, ...
> all evil stuff. I think evrything can be expressed through beauty of some sort,
> but it might take a considerable extra amount of thinking, skill and energy to
> reach such a goal. Yet I am convinced that we should all aim at that.
>
I'll try to be brief since, as Lance so kindly pointed out, this is getting OT.
I can't be too wrong in saying that every artist wishes to convey a message. The
purpose of this message may be to provoke, to alarm, to warn, etc. Why should
this be conveyed with beauty? The goal is not to make the audience feel better.
The goal is to make an impact. Yet is this not art?
And what if the artist feels angry or depressed? These are not 'nice' feelings,
but does he not have the right to express them? It may ease him and also ease
the minds of similar people. Not because they consider it beautiful, but because
they can relate to it.
BTW, I'm sometimes a bit allergic to 'nice' as I'm sure are many others :)
Perhaps it's cynicism, but that's me.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, however I had said it with an emphasis upon a ongoing "aging"; quote: aged
*another* 2 years :unquote. Just so I clarify this. You never know though, Lance could
have been impersonating a teenager all this time and really be a one year old (happy
1st
birthday then Lance!) with powers of mental capacity we can only imagine. Then again
maybe not.
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> If you work out the math of the original post, the implication is of a
> chronological age of two years.
>
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you work out the math of the original post, the implication is of a
>> chronological age of two years.
Yes, that's why I was slightly confused by the original message...
But obviously it was meant in a nice way, so thankyou :)
> with powers of mental capacity we can only imagine.
Yup yup yup ;-)
OK, this is getting OT... I'll leave it at that...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ingo" <ing### [at] ingodemonnl> wrote:
>
> I discuss these things somtimes with my collegues at work. First thing they say:
> Uhh modern art, my three year old grand daughter can paint better. What almost
> always strikes me is that most people don't want to invest times or efford in
> something like this (not only art, but just learning/thinking things).
Hear, hear! Such complainers can easily be dismissed out of hand.
Once upon a time, when art was almost uniformly representational in
nature, talent (or at the very least, technical skill) was required in
order to create it. One had to invest years of one's life in order to
learn how to create art of this nature, but the consumers of art (mostly
wealthy patrons) needed no such investment in order to look at what they
had commissioned and find it aesthetically pleasing.
Now, however, the artist has been freed of the unfair burden of learning
how to create art through tiresome procedures. It is up to the CONSUMER
of art to learn how to find profundity in it; one who has not invested
the time to derive meaning from seemingly random splashes of paint will
almost certainly complain that a trained monkey (or, indeed, a
three-year-old) could have produced this or that painting.
The difference, of course, is that a monkey or a three-year-old rarely
understands that paint splatters are at least as valid as a Rembrandt
painting, and therefore will probably not command thousands of dollars
for their works from art patrons who have invested the time to learn the
value of what the uneducated call "crap".
Foolish is the modern artist who invests years in learning the
techniques of the Old Masters, for Art which requires talent and effort
to produce is outmoded and unfashionable. Like the composer who
stubbornly clings to classical harmonic structures, it is the earmark of
a rigid, uncreative dullard who refuses to accept that it is the
interpretation of the beholder -- not the ability or laborious toil of
the artist -- that makes a piece of art great.
These buffoons will labour for weeks or months painting a single work
with brushes and much mixing of paint, when they could produce dozens of
works in a single day by simply splashing it on the canvas or laying on
bold swaths of colour with a palette knife. Or they will spend similar
amounts of time chipping away tiny bits of stone to create an obsolete
statue when they could simply weld random bits of metal together in one
or two days, and get tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for little
or no effort.
And these outdated creations cheapen the artistic world, for a work
which requires no effort to appreciate leads to mindless patrons who,
like couch potatoes watching sitcom after formulaic sitcom, turn away
from anything requiring intellectual activity, leaving the great artists
of today unappreciated and penniless!
But if you will excuse me, I must now go to the hospital to have my
tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
--
Jeff Lee shi### [at] gatenet http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeff Lee heeft geschreven in bericht <376e8251@news.povray.org>...
> ..........................
>Now, however, the artist has been freed of the unfair burden of learning
>how to create art through tiresome procedures. It is up to the CONSUMER
>of art to learn how to find profundity in it; .....................
Our ancester art consumers had to learn too. There is quite some sybolism in a
lot of paintings a non educated person would have missed. Take a simple still
life. What dead animal is in it, a fish, a grouse, a pheasant? What's the
orientation of the knife and fork. What material is the plate made off, gold,
silver? And the prominent lemon, peeld off course.
>But if you will excuse me, I must now go to the hospital to have my
>tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
>
Leave it in.
ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
