I agree that not all of the people who post and respond have formal art training, but
we respond
in more than terms of the medium. Sure, we say "That media should be darker" because
we know what
it is because we know (or at least can guess) how certain things were done. We comment
on levels
of detail and realism (or surrealism). Actually, it seems that for more complete
scenes we do
comment on it from artistic points of view.
Now the models that H.E. Day and Jay Raney (to name to two that immediately pop to
mind) post
aren't really artistic images. They're models and we comment on them from that respect
and we
leave the art out because it hasn't entered the picture yet (pardon the pun)

Josh

David Fontaine wrote:

> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> > > Ignore all idiotic comment.
> > >
> > >A masterpiece
> > >
> > I agree!
> > It's difficult to criticise something so good.  I'm not too sure about the pattern
created
> > in the sky, but I can live with it and will learn to love it.
>
> I'd say we as POVers recognize the extrodinairy effort of making that level of
detail, but few
> of us criticize as artists. If you didn't know anything about Mick or POV or
raytracing and
> just saw it in a gallery, would you still like it? (I would, but I'm just saying.)

> think it is good that he is not hesitant to tell someone if he doesn't like their
art.
>
> --
> ___     ______________________________________________________
>  | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
>  |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
>
> "Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message