"Michael Hunter" <int### [at] onenet> wrote:

> be considered minimum requirements for the competition."...
>


>
> The issue of a particular image or animation showing a good use of 3D is a
> matter I think is best left up to judging and comments and to be done on a case
> by case basis. Whereas the minimum requirements should only be used to maintain
> the focal point on 3D work. Nothing more.
>
> I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this...

Dear "Other Mike":

I have two basic points to make, after which I shall ramble on a bit for no
particularly good reason.

1. I am almost entirely in agreement with your position.
2. We (you and I as opposed to the human race generally) are doomed.

This situation is a specific case of a very basic choice that we poor
humans face repeatedly in the conduct of our social affairs, specifically:

Do we organize our interactions based primarily upon an assumption that
we shall, generally speaking, work together in good faith toward the
achievement of a common goal and structure our activities so as to
facilitate the best possible contributions from all those involved?

-or-

Do we proceed according to a competing assumption that our behavior will
be dominated by the pursuit of unenlightened self-interest and adopt
systems geared primarily toward the regulation and restraint of abhorrent
behavior?

I am (and believe that you may be) the sort of person who leans as heavily
as practicality will permit toward the former.  I'd be quite happy to see
the IRTC conducted along the lines you suggest for the specific prupose
of encouraging the broadest possible range of creative contributions,
fully realizing that part of the price to be paid for this advantage
would be the likelihood that there would not always be perfect consensus
with regard to whether or not a given entry is sufficiently focused on
ray tracing as its method of production.  It could even happen that
someone could be awarded a prize (gasp, shock and horror!) in a manner
not in accordance with a set of rigidly defined rules.

This is where we are doomed.  I have seen this scenario played out many
times with only one outcome ever resulting.

The "It's all about the Art" position will be crushed by the "No, it's
ONLY about who WINS" position.  The good news is that those of us who do
focus primarily upon the opportunity for artistic expression remain free
to do so regardless of the particular rule structure in place.
Conditions and limits can become a source of positive challenge and
inspiration rather than merely impediments if we choose to adopt that
positive frame of mind.

Yes, we could resolve this issue by loosening up our attachment to
regulation and control rather than tightening up the rules, but we
won't... and we know it.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message