Stephen wrote:



Sure, I'll agree with "encourages."
Taking a virtual picture of a virtual
lighted space is fundamental to the
paradigm after all. So that even when people try to go
abstract it is usually abstraction circa Kandinsky
  where they are creating the abstract effect by
  "picturing" some sort of geometric objects and
  there is a general sense of abstracting from nature.
But geometry, math, and a computer language for
deploying it are also parts of the POV paradigm, and those
features lend "encouragement" to those who wish
to explore more abstract compositions.
  More commonly however, people are making images by
  making models then picturing them and the
  results are intended to be depictional.  And as you say the
common goal is a sense of realism with photo effects being
the de facto standard for what is "real"
   Furthermore there is a distinct preference for
  "complete" scenes that suggest you are always seeing
  a fragment of the greater world jsut out of camera view.

But, an aside, when I used
the term "mimetic" I was reserving it for
  the narrow situation of faithful, even slavish recording of
the world, where said record becomes pretty much the point of
the endeavour.  Not really an argument but mentioned
  only as a clarification of my original intended
  meaning.  I usually use "depictional" to refer to broader, usually
narrative uses of recognizable imagery, however stylized.
It was the situation where the artist is more or less focused
on achieving a record, and not necessarily anything further, that I was
attempting to comment on.


IMO CG is too new
 > for original styles to have developed yet.

I think it is really that it is too new yet to mount much of a critique 
of its processes
with success.  Though there are some possible beginnings there.  The
  work of Rene Bui comes to mind.  Also the two banished attempted it
in crude ways.  But I've forgotten their names.

Post a reply to this message