Actually, your comment is TOTALLY FUNNY! And it reflects my point
exactly. Is it possible to go "beyond realistic"? I think it is not
only possible but mandatory for the artist.
There are alot of things in reality that, if you were to do an
artistic rendering of them, people would not believe you.
Artists are challenged by the non-artistic viewer to make reality MORE
REAL. for them. Could that be due to the non-artist's lack of
perception? Probably. That's why the world needs art. To help the
perceptually-challenged folks understand reality a little better. 
(This is just my opinion)

Does that make sense?

--Blane

On Sat, 4 May 2002 18:49:30 -0700, "Thomas Lake"
<tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote:

>> Just wondering if we have reached a saturation point.  Is it possible
>> to improve on this without using a camara?
>
>You mean the quality of the rendering? Hard to say I don't wonder into too
>many refractive spheres on infinite checkered planes while wondering through
>the fog with my camera, so I can't really say how much more realistic this
>can get. Frankly if I encountered such a scene in real life my first thought
>would be YKYBRTLW.
>
>

Post a reply to this message