Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

Words will surely fail...

But among other things, I love the complexity, but with variation, that 
  you get in the vegetated, eroded slope descending on the left,...I can 
see getting one or the other, but both? And then you add the further 
element of exposed rock structure on the vertical face!

Whether it was previously, your landscapes have become a contemplation. 
We have the look of raw chaos, balanced against a sense of chaos directed.

I believe, with this picture for instance, this contemplation does not 
depend on admiration for your technique. Beacuse you have achieve a 
degree of realism which delivers to the viewer the experience of viewing 
a landscape. It is not an actual picture of existing landscape.  Neither 
is it a result produced from describing the events that generate 
landscape.  Rather it is a picture which harnesses the computer's 
ability with complexity to produce the look of landscape.  And 
contemplating the look of a landscape is exactly what we do when we 
climb to a vantage and gaze out.

But your technique, oriented towards producing a universal landscape 
engine, does add a dimension of meaning. Automation gives us complexity 
in the form of quantity.  To this we can add variation, some random, 
some not.  But the variation you produce looks truly various not 
simulated, and just in the way a landscape does. How do you achieve 
that, one wonders. To automate you must establish parameters, and 
general structures, to direct random events. The additions of scene 
elements can never rise above a manual checklist. So landscape is not 
infinitely various? Yet it is this sense of unlimited variation that 
gives so much pleasure.  Is your guide post creation itself, or the look 
of creation?

Post a reply to this message