This is a really interesting voting philosophy, mainly because it is 
just the opposite of what I think. I really spend the most of my time in 
artistic merit. But there are some reasons for me to Not write anything 
to anyone, as a Solomon measure. I am a fine arts and history teacher 
and I analyze vary carefully the entries.  Some comments about "a bunch 
of lines" hurt deeply.
And since I am an entrant, I realize and accept that there are excellent 
works, far better than mine, and far better than many images I have seen 
before. In fact, I consider my images to be experimental, because this 
programming stuff is new in my way of thinking. 
What is interesting to me, is the parameter difference in art's field.  
I will not condemn the "T-shirt" thing, because it might be my approach 
to Technical merit., although it seems -the shirt- too much to those who 
buy an oil painting because it matches with the upholstery.  And that, 
too is a freedom exercise, which is practiced in Arts like a mantra.  
Discussing about causes, impulses, justification, and beauty  -among 
many things- is time wasted, exactly the same way many people have been 
doing since 2000 years,  ago.  
Why do I spend more time in Artistic merit, and most importantly, what 
am I evaluating? Well, these things:
- Structure
--Composition, balance, lines, unity, variety, use of color -and 
expression through-, balance of color, Ligths and shadows and balance, 
which produces the whole balance of the composition -, mass and volume, 
forms distribution, among others.
-Topic
--The tricky part. 
Can I evaluate like Kant, I do like or do not? What are my reasons? 
Thankfully I do not know personally any of the authors, Can I see some 
structure -other than the round itself?
Can I identify how the artist -if so- translates his/her world objects 
without noticing it? Are these objects symbols of the society again 
without noticing it?  Or better yet, is the artist -if so- expressing 
him/herself?
What is he/she expressing?  How is he/she doing it?  Which means -other 
than the software as a tool- is he/she using?
The bottom-line, Does this trascend the maker? 
As you can see, "ugly" and "beautiful" are meaningless at this point. :(
 
How my poor knowledge of the medium influence my appreciation? Is that 
fair?
What if it is a masterpiece? And that would lead to another question: 
What is a masterpiece? and equally important, Who says it? And so on. 

Certainly artistic merit is a tough one for me.  It has to do with my 
values, my background, what I know,  and my ability to do 'traditional 
art', a field in which I was very comfortable.  Now I am trying a new 
medium, that requires more attention, an another type of knowledge. I 
know how to draw and how to paint ...in canvases. I am learning to make 
other images, or these kind of images. 

This takes me to the technical merit. At this time and space, I would be 
trivializing my own proccess if said that everything I see amazes me. 
Not.  In this year and a half or so, I have had to learn -or try to- 
many things.  I have learned to appreciate the technical aspect in the 
image, basically because I started from 0-zero-.  I sincerely admire 
those of you who are able to translate the logic of something onto the 
program, and I tend to overestimate this field. 

As you can see, this field is a little daunting for me., but I am 
confident. I know I have to "educate" my eye just like I have done for 
Visual Arts. We are ALL entering to new fields, aren't we?
And I think that is going to be even more difficult now that I have been 
named as the"oldest female". GRRRRRRR!

Marjorie Graterol
eme### [at] emediezcom
 
http://www.emediez.com
 
PS. I am not English speaker/writer! Please excuse my errors
 


    Greg M. Johnson wrote in message <36942BAB.F100F5D5@aol.com>...
    Here are some thoughts on how I vote. They were compiled during a 
very boring meeting at work, anticipating having to defend earlier 
comments about how and why I vote.  I offer these comments with 
humility, in that it involves criticism of people's work which is better 
than mine. 
    First, I rate  ARTISTIC merit according to the questions, "Would I 
like to wear this on a T-shirt? Would I like this to hang in my living 
room?" 

    I rate TECHNICAL merit according to the apparent attention to 
detail; I'm likely to rate an entry lower which appears as an obtuse 
showcasing of the features of a raytracing program. 

    I think that there are about four or five different categories of 
entries, and I list them from highest to lowest as I typically rate 
them: 

    TIER I:  SUPERB PHOTOREALISM 
    These rare entries attempt to look just like a photograph and excel 
at it! Recent IRTC entries in this category include AFROG, 8_FORGIV, and 
STRIKE. 
    A great master of this style who I've run across is Victoria Brace, 
non-IRTC'er, whose work can be found at 
    http://www.vika.org/images/index.html 

    TIER IIA: COOL CARTOONY LOOK 
    These entries evoke favorite childhood toys or 3-D versions of 
cartoons, like the entries FOOD101 and MAGIC from this contest, and 
POOLSHARK from the last Animations round. (When I went to the IRTC 
voting overview page, I found that I had ranked  FOOD101 highest: will 
you forgive me?).  I hope that in heaven we'll have bodies like this.  
I'd much rather the entry to be fun and entertaining than be an 
over-exerted attempt to be photographic and fall short. Again, some 
photo-realism of the unreal characters is required, but there are fewer 
details to screw up. The artist attempts something simple and does it 
well. Note that I'm NOT talking about the Garfield entry of a few rounds 
ago. 
    A great master of this style (another non-IRTC'er) that I've run 
across is Troy Paiva and his work can be found at 
    http://designshed.com/shed.html 

    TIER IIB: PEN-AND-INK REALISM.  These look like a watercolor or ink 
drawings of a very realistic 3-D scene.  "Ice Giants" and MG_ROSE form 
this round fall into this category. 

    TIER III: UNPLEASANT ATTEMPTS AT PHOTOREALISM 
    With all due respect, GE_FIRST falls into this category.  I usually 
give these 7-13 in the artistic & technical categories. These entries 
don't look like a photograph, but look like unsuccessful attempts at 
making one. The artist attempts something unnecessarily ambitious and 
fails at it.    Common ways in which my eye is offended include: 
    A. Human figures which are ugly, not by artistic intent, but out of 
less than careful modelling or texturing. A humorous dwarf or Ernest 
Bergnine character can be quite appealing; ugly babies are not. 
    B. Superbly photorealistic scenes with a few glaringly unrealistic 
components not related to artistic intent or theme.  One such example 
was the bald, paleskinned, cloned cavemen. 
    C. Superbly photorealistic landscapes next to sloppily constructed 
CSG objects. 
    D. (For 1998) Most uses of Poser 2 faces, especially when bald. 
    E. (For 2000) Most uses of Poser 3 faces. 
    F. Lighting and contrast problems, such as: 
     1. Use of too much ambient light. 
     2. My inability to tell what entry is about from the thumbnail.  I 
expect to be able to detect the content from the thumbnail and be 
surprised by a second meaning or added details when I go to the 800 x 
600!  If  I paid the artists to wear these entries on a T-shirt, my 
friends would have to squint and to touch my chest to see what they were 
about. 

    TIER IV: PRANKS AND OFFENSIVE STUFF 
    I usually give these very low numbers, much lower than 8. Yes, I'm 
easily offended. 
    A. Pranks, such as previous entries "Pixel," and "Night". 
    B. Entries which glorify violence or torture. One non-IRTC image 
that comes to mind is an image of a naked Poser woman in a dark prison 
cell. "Houhahaha," the artist probably thought to himself. 
    C. Drug use. 
    D. Anything looking 2-D.  Sue me. 
    E. Multiple entries from same person which simply mean rearranging 
objects on a table. 
    F. Really bad puns, especially involving cows. Sue me. FOOD101 makes 
me chuckle; enCOWnter makes me ill. 
      

    With all due respect to my talented friends.  
    ___________________________ 
    Greg M. johnson 
    http://members.xoom.com/gregjohn/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'iso-8859-1' (11 KB)