William F. Pokorny wrote:
> Jim, 
> Your input is great.

Thanks, I see it as an exchange of ideas, not the final word.

>  
> For me real life is getting in the way and the light at the end of the tunnel is
> a couple months distant. I expect others are similarly crunched for time and
> thoughtful discussion takes time.

I think it should be getting in my way more.  Still, I guess I am 
looking for some useful way to contribute to this beyond the occasional 
picture.  It will be a long time, like never, until I have any useful 
sdl to contribute.

> 
> It seems too that we have a more vibrant discussion when the artist
> participates. Should we focus on images where the artist wants to participate?
> Perhaps cut back on the number of images up for specific review each period
> while of course allowing anyone to comment on any image?  

I have noticed that too, at least it is more satisfying for me to hear 
their response.  Polling which artists want to participate is an 
interseting thought, another thought I had was to commit to just the 
number of images it takes to encompass the winners...while allowing 
anyone ... any other... as you said

> 
> There was also discussion on the irtc-l mailing list about merging that list
> with this group. For a while it looked as if something would happen quickly, but
> it has not, which I expect left some on the irtc-l list willing and waiting.

It usually doesn't take much display of enthusiasm to get Bill Marrs to 
act, but I'm afraid we didn't get a response to meet even that low 
threshold.

> 
> I agree with your comments related to advancing ray tracing as real art. But, I
> also think the irtc and computer generated art in general is presently at a
> level where the artistic value created varies widely. In other words, with many
> images, it is obvious we are still struggling with the tools and techniques.
> Moving the analogy to music - I feel the artistic performances occur when given
> by those so skilled on an instrument their focus is the music. A long winded way
> to suggest beyond the top 8-10 images, and a few others in any given irtc round,
> a focus on the technical aspects is at this point the most valuable
> feedback.     
> Bill P. 
> 

You state the problem very fairly.  It's hard to be stylin' when it will 
probably just be received as technical incompetence.  The form just 
hasn't gotten far enough yet for much holistic discussion.  Content, 
even style, might warrent mention in the more accomplished pieces, as 
you say.  On the other hand I guess I am eager to gently point out that 
any image is open to interpretation, which is what makes the whole thing 
fun, beyond mere technical accomplishment. Are the two levels of 
discussion exclusive to each other?

Post a reply to this message